Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Don't know much about the case, but the judge must've recognized that Apple is an innovator and not a copycat.

More innovators whose innovations are often better or mass market implementations of other companies innovations, that they've purchased. Not that I'm not grateful, though. I love what they do (for the most part).
 
Keep drinkin' that kool-aid. My guess is a few iPad 2's randomly showed up on the judges doorstep that morning...
methinks you've been doin' the fool aid thing yourself if you think, in any real world situation way apple would take an action that could put them in position of legal jeopardy with a judge through bribery, then you are truly delusional or just making posts to stir things up in maybe a boring day (or life..who knows).
 
Problem

The problem more than ever, it seems, is that companies are awarded too many vague patents, which allows them to sue countless others, the more vague their patent is.
 
Keep drinkin' that kool-aid. My guess is a few iPad 2's randomly showed up on the judges doorstep that morning...
I think this comment is defamatory since you are accusing a corporation for bribery, which is a serious crime, and it's apparently not a fair comment.
 
Paves the way for Apple to continue making tech usable and desirable for everyone.

A definite win for Apple users and those who appreciate finer tech.
 
Spotlight is eerily similar to Quicksilver
Not really. QS doesn't continuously monitor movement of files. It has to update its catalog at user-defined intervals. That said, it's a great app launcher/switcher. I would really like it if they could get the iTunes functions to work again.
The problem more than ever, it seems, is that companies are awarded too many vague patents, which allows them to sue countless others, the more vague their patent is.

I don't think that was the case here. If it had been, the judge could have ruled the patents invalid, when he did exactly the opposite.
 
What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?

In one case, you could end up with a jury or judge that has zippo clue about technological stuff. I can't imagine how confusing some copyright trial over a technological advancement might be, but I wish there was some better way than to put literal commoners in charge of deciding it. I figure the same deal was going on with Dish Network vs. TiVo in a DVR dispute.
 
The judge and jury serve different purposes. The judge decides questions of law. When there is a jury, the jury decides questions of fact.

isn't a case like this with the judge over turn the jury a quick way for it to be appealed to a high court.
Some ways it does smell a little doggy.
 
What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?

APPLE: "Your Honor, the jury was composed of 12 Windows users. That alone shows that they lack good judgment and make poor decisions."

JUDGE: "As an iMac user myself, I concur. Case dismissed!"
 
The story was about that "respected teacher" who "invented" the coverflow paradigm (moving back and forth between large previews of anything, sorted in time, etc) and documented it in a book. Tried to sell the idea to Apple, and few years later the technology popped-up as coverflow. And since this paradigm is found in all three of Apple's features, they had to pay three times over.

First, it's not such a far-fetched concept and I'm sure there was some precedent. Second, this guy's ego was either way over-inflated by the lawyers or he was just unrealistic over how much Apple should pay for his "invention".

Rule of thumb: either you sue everyone you think stole your technology or you don't sue at all. Makes you look greedy, and as in this guy's case, like a dbag. Next time, ask for less and run with it.
 
They didn't change the judge's mind. The first trial was by Jury and Apple lost, but they appealed to a higher court. That judge ruled in Apple's favor.

This...

Judge > Jury in the Appellate court. If there is no jury in the Appellate court the judge determines the ruling.
 
In one case, you could end up with a jury or judge that has zippo clue about technological stuff. I can't imagine how confusing some copyright trial over a technological advancement might be, but I wish there was some better way than to put literal commoners in charge of deciding it.

Or as Walter Lippmann would have commented on the impossible ideal of the omnicompetent citizen.
 
Last edited:
Thats a little odd, why the reversal of outcome when they'd apparently made up their minds?

I don't know the details, but this outcome is what can happen from an appeal. It's not exactly odd.

So this technically wasn't an appeal, it was a Judgment not withstanding the verdict (called JNOV in court procedure terms).

Basically Apple asked the judge to set aside the jury's verdict because no reasonable jury could have arrived at the verdict the jury did. It's very rare for a judge to grant this motion, especially in the patent holder-friendly district in Texas where this case was filed.

What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?

Judges like to leave juries alone for the most part, and it's probable that the judge in this case always thought the case was weak but wanted to let the jury decide. After the jury came back with such a bad verdict, Apple moved for it to be disregarded and the judge agreed.

isn't a case like this with the judge over turn the jury a quick way for it to be appealed to a high court.
Some ways it does smell a little doggy.

Yes, JNOVs are very thoroughly reviewed by appellate courts and in general the judiciary frowns on them a lot. However, with patent suits, there is a separate appellate court, so the case would go to the Federal Circuit as opposed to the 5th Circuit (which is based in Texas). This circuit has more specially trained judges who are likely to be well equipped to handle patent issues and increases the likelihood that they would agree with a similarly trained patent district court judge.
 
Interesting, I always thought Apple bought the companies or patents that originally those products. Anyway, I guess this is good for Apple; more money to hire more iOS and OSX team members!

I think this comment is defamatory since you are accusing a corporation for bribery, which is a serious crime, and it's apparently not a fair comment.

Paying someone under the table is so much easier and cheaper, though!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Judge was paid off with an iPod :p
 
That's not the only trademark case settled today:



lindt-gold-bunny-low-res.jpg
 
They didn't change the judge's mind. The first trial was by Jury and Apple lost, but they appealed to a higher court. That judge ruled in Apple's favor.

The jury must have been all PC users and the judge a Mac fan :) Glad to see Apple prevail on this one.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.