Sidebar Sidebar
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

portishead said:
gtfo then. you won't be missed
Click to expand...

This is MacRumors, not iPhone or GTFO rumors! I own and use a Mac Pro (I run Windows 7 on it) and Macbook Pro (Mac OS X), but use a Galaxy S3 and Nexus 7 tablet (I owned several iPhones, but switched away from iPhone to Android prior to apple expanding beyond AT&T, and have no intention of going back either). I use whatever tools/devices that get the job done, and for me the above do.
 
Judas1 said:
The truly innovative tech patents become part of FRAND and are forced to be licensed out.
Click to expand...

No one is forced to license their patents under FRAND, quite the opposite as having a FRAND patent is a cash cow. A lot of them are far from innovative.
 
wxman2003 said:
The verdict will be overturned. The trial was is a favorable location for Apple. Apple's headquarters is a mere 10 miles from the courthouse, and jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley.
Click to expand...

Really? Please provide sources for your information. You are just about as sharp as a Samsung attorney - you should go and get a job.
 
CrockettGTO said:
Sad.....after owning every iPhone and iPad Apple made
Now this makes me want to buy a Galaxy S3
Click to expand...

Hey, don't think twice about it, the S3 is a *fantastic* phone. I too have had (in fact, still have) pretty much every iPod and iOS offering Apple has ever released, and haven't liked a smartphone this much since first love with the old 3G.
 
Only one crushing patent win in the 2000s

There was only one crushing patent win in the 2000s, and no one mentions it for some reason. It was Qualcomm destroying Nokia, forcing a settlement in 2008 that paved the way for Nokia's current destruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/24qualcomm.html

Observe according to the above link that not only did Qualcomm net considerable continuing cash royalty fees, but Nokia was forced to transfer patents to Qualcomm. In the succeeding years Qualcomm has brought to market a continuing series of complete ARM SoCs as well as baseband chips that continue to expand LTE capabilities. Within months Nokia had dropped support of WiMAX, but I still haven't found evidence that Nokia had received enough cross-licensing IP to produce its own baseband chip. Instead Nokia was forced to eventually use Qualcomm SoCs and Microsoft's Windows Phone operating system for its Lumias:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...a-pulled-windows-phone-into-the-4g-lte-world/

In other words, after the settlement Nokia found that for the future, LTE, its entire phone system had become obsoleted, everything from the OS down to the hardware.
 
wxman2003 said:
The verdict will be overturned. The trial was is a favorable location for Apple. Apple's headquarters is a mere 10 miles from the courthouse, and jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley.
Click to expand...

You guys really don't get how an appeal works. One side appeals, the whole case goes back to a judge,,, "USUALLY THE SAME JUDGE", who decides whether or not the is some really odd, or screwed up part of the case. If there is not, then the original verdict stays.
 
Gandir said:
Yeah they would be presented with the evidence, some of them might have actually understood what they where talking about. But its a to complex trail in such a short time frame to come to a real decision about guilty or not guilty. Especially when it comes to rather complex laws to start with. Samsung did show a lot of prior work on everything but that did not seam to been taken in to the verdict it self. Since a patent is null and void if there are prior works, and there is a lot of prior works all from fiction to real world application about these patents like pinch to zoom.

To be able to patent an idea like that you need to be the inventor of it, and apple did not invent for an example pinch too zoom
Click to expand...

They bought the company that did. Ergo they now own the patent.
 
It's pretty obvious Samsung did copy. I don't even get how people can defend Samsung in this case. Yes samsungs newer products are different but not the older phones.
 
Finally!

SUCK IT SAMSUNG!!! Don't get me wrong though, you make amazing fridges and TV'S though, step aside!!
 
zaphon said:
This is MacRumors, not iPhone or GTFO rumors! I own and use a Mac Pro (I run Windows 7 on it) and Macbook Pro (Mac OS X), but use a Galaxy S3 and Nexus 7 tablet (I owned several iPhones, but switched away from iPhone to Android prior to apple expanding beyond AT&T, and have no intention of going back either). I use whatever tools/devices that get the job done, and for me the above do.
Click to expand...

Exactly zaphon but better not share your opinion cause someone may not like it and start attacking you.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
I can tell you in no uncertain terms that after owning every iPhone since the day the first model was released, I'm enjoying my Galaxy Nexus immensely. Absolutely no regrets. I know several long time iPhone users who have either switched recently or are considering it and the primary reason is seeing what a limp 'upgrade' the iPhone 5 looks to be.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro, I know more people than you who are waiting for the iPhone 5 and will dump their ugly S2's in a heartbeat. Take that.
 
JohnPhamlore said:
There was only one crushing patent win in the 2000s, and no one mentions it for some reason. It was Qualcomm destroying Nokia, forcing a settlement in 2008 that paved the way for Nokia's current destruction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/technology/24qualcomm.html

Observe according to the above link that not only did Qualcomm net considerable continuing cash royalty fees, but Nokia was forced to transfer patents to Qualcomm. In the succeeding years Qualcomm has brought to market a continuing series of complete ARM SoCs as well as baseband chips that continue to expand LTE capabilities. Within months Nokia had dropped support of WiMAX, but I still haven't found evidence that Nokia had received enough cross-licensing IP to produce its own baseband chip. Instead Nokia was forced to eventually use Qualcomm SoCs and Microsoft's Windows Phone operating system for its Lumias:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...a-pulled-windows-phone-into-the-4g-lte-world/

In other words, after the settlement Nokia found that for the future, LTE, its entire phone system had become obsoleted, everything from the OS down to the hardware.
Click to expand...

And before that verdict I recall at VoiceStream and later T-Mobile being in-bed with Nokia mocking Qualcomm and it's impending demise. Oh the irony.
 
Gandir said:
Well they did, but the jury did not understand it, they are not people that are experts in patent laws or any laws for that matter they are a jury of peers ordinary people. And most ordinary people would not understand a bit of what that trial was about.

It was held a couple of miles away from Apple headquarter to start with, and it's an american company vs an asian company. If you don't understand the issue you go with national pride.
Click to expand...

either way this "asian" company thats so smart.. did a poor job on the trial
with their gaffes, ridiculous claims, and sorry attempts to hide evidence
and didnt provide enough evidence of their own
so they should of thought this one out better if they actually wanted to compete in the court
whether the court is prejudice towards apple or not

oh and the people didnt decide this trial with "national pride" the jury did doing lots and lots of hours of work.
 
Gandir said:
Well they did, but the jury did not understand it, they are not people that are experts in patent laws or any laws for that matter they are a jury of peers ordinary people. And most ordinary people would not understand a bit of what that trial was about.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? It appears at least some of the jury were technical, plus things are explained so they would understand it and they are given guidance.

If there was any misunderstanding, it would be Samsung's lawyers to blame for not explaining their case clearly.
 
wxman2003 said:
The verdict will be overturned. The trial was is a favorable location for Apple. Apple's headquarters is a mere 10 miles from the courthouse, and jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley.
Click to expand...

Where would you suggest they hold this trial? South Korea, perhaps?
 
1912-so-much-win.jpg


to all fandroids ***** OFF!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vPm581dSEg
 
kdarling said:
This is exactly why respected IP jurists such as Posner believe that off the street juries should not decide patent validity and infringement.

Heck, experienced patent reviewers, such as the ITC has, take weeks to figure out a single patent's infringement, much less its validity.

This California jury decided validity, infringement and payments for multiple patents in less than three days.

I wonder what would've happened if they didn't get to just check off boxes, but instead had to actually explain their findings in detail, just as real patent reviewers must.
Click to expand...

Do you think Samsung can appeal to the court regarding the incompetence of the jurors? Or is that unlikely now?

Apparently Motorola has just filed a lawsuit against Apple and is planning on banning the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and the new iPod upon launch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back