The context does not make it an innovation, if I was the first guy that put my foot in your face it would not be an innovation compared to the guy that gave you it in the ass
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jury Finds Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1 Billion in Damages
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The context does not make it an innovation, if I was the first guy that put my foot in your face it would not be an innovation compared to the guy that gave you it in the ass
It's about time the courts realized that America's future depends on protecting our investments and inventions. Kudos to the jury!
It's not over kids :
Judge Koh is back in the courtroom. There are at least two problems with the verdict form.
Judge Koh is back in the courtroom. There are at least two problems with the verdict form.
And how many manufacturers thought to release a phone with capacitive touch before Apple? IIRC, Apple identified early on that capacitive touch was the way to go, and made one of their strategic acquisitions in 2005. Sometimes innovating means going out and finding someone's small invention and putting it into a larger design.
Nokia (with about half the market back then) flat out rejected touch screens by 2007 and had stopped development of them (even though it had one of the first touchscreen phones), figuring that people wanted BlackBerry-like phones and candy bar phones with joysticks.
Even afterward, Nokia initially insisted on making their first touchscreen phones use resistive touch since capacitive touch wasn't conducive to using a stylus.
Having to rely on judges in the American legal system is a sad thing because the right decisions are always made at the last possible opportunity.
The Sups choose their cases and only has original jurisdiction over a very very limited type of cases. This is not such a case, so they had to start at the district level, the court of first instance here. The next rung up is the circuit level, and they will abide by this jury's determination of fact, only ruling on law. However, since this is IP, basically the whole thing will be subject to relitigation subject to what the circuit wants to waste time on.
Probably some tinkering with the damages. Maybe they forgot to check a box, or calculated something incorrectly.
Yes, Samsung owes $1.05 billion less $219,694 because the Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't actually infringe upon anything, and $2 million for the Intercept. Again, it's peanuts.
Venue and jurisdiction will always be tied to an involved party. They don't do it at a "neutral site." This is court, not the Summer Olympics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction -- The More You Know(Tm)!
This is flawed thinking. Just because you make some great, sinking tremendous amounts of resources in it or not, doesn't not mean you have the right to keep pretty much every single thing that went into it out of the public domain.
Apple employed people educated in public universities to come up with this phone, no? Apple used innovations of others, from even centuries ago, to allow for their profit, correct?
We need to protect patents and IP only as long as is required for people/companies to seek profits of new patents. The point is not to reward people coming up with new ideas. The point is for make sure people keep coming up with new ideas. One of those pressures is to know that your old, new idea is going to be copied soon, so you better be working on the next thing.
Yeah it is weird people think companies being punished for stealing and copying inhibits innovation, when it does just the opposite.
Probably because there is judicial process in that before something reaches the supreme court, it must've gone through the other courts (in an effort to reach a settlement at a lower level).
The process would be similar here in the UK (in criminal law), where a magistrates court would try and deal with it first, then a crown court, then the court of appeal, the high court, and finally the supreme court.
If others can't innovate, then yes. So you are basically saying that Samsung would never be able to build something as good or better than an iPad 3, or an iPhone 4GS, unless they can copy Apple? If I worked for Samsung, I would feel insulted by you.
But if you were the first person in the world who put the foot in the face to kill a man, that would be an invention. Just kicking them blindly all over the body until they're dead isn't the same thing. The purpose might be the same (to kill him), the delivery is the same (with your foot), but the method is vastly different (Hit him 50 times all over the body vs. stomp him once in the face). It might seem evolutionary, but it would take quite a great amount of research to find out exactly where to stomp to make do with just one hit instead of a random number of kicks...
This example might not be the best in the world...but still.
You seem to have a hard time grasping how the system works... You might want to go out fighting the system instead of trying to fight apple...
What?!?
This will be appealed and Judges have over turned jury rulings
Judges are reluctant to overturn a jury verdict. An appeal is not a new trial. An appeal goes in front of a judge who decides whether the appeal is valid and whether to overturn the previous verdict. When a jury has reached a verdict, the burden is higher to get the verdict overturned. I'm not saying it's not possible, but in this case highly unlikely unless there was some obvious violation of process.
That is exactly why this is in civil court. Apple (or any company for that matter) would likely have complied with such a proposition. After all, that's how Microsoft started out. "don't copy our product.. Just license it from us".
It's like building a fence on the other side of your neighbors unused property line. They would probably have let you lease the land if you asked. But since you didnt.. They sue you for zoning violations instead.
Apple just opened a can of worms.And the sleeping giant. If they have Google, Samsung, HTC, LG and several others gunning after them...they just might regret this.[/QUOTE
When have these companies not been gunning after Apple or any other competitor? You mean they will all form a gang and do a "drive by" on Apple?
If Steve Jobs were here, he would be inviting all his Apple fans for his open house party to celebrate his company's victory over Samsung!
Except clowns would have to stay away.