haha right they should focus on "innovating" that stuff some more
id buy a bada** fridge from them any day if it was as worth as buying apple iphones
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
haha right they should focus on "innovating" that stuff some more
id buy a bada** fridge from them any day if it was as worth as buying apple iphones
If Samsung does appeal doesn't it go to the 9th circuit court of appeals in San Francisco ?
Jurors were vetted and accepted by both Apple and Samsung. This argument holds no water.
1. Except in very limited circumsntaces, the supreme court does not have original jurisdiction over cases. 2. THis is not a supreme court case in any fashion.
Well if Apple could make things tough enough for Samsung to just pull out of the U.S. Market that would be a huge win for Apple. Plus once the precedent is set other companies will likely look to exit as well.
The dream of the iPhone having very limited competition could come true although it will take several years to get to that point.
To paraphrase Judge Lucy... "ARE YOU ON ****ING CRACK". They filed a ban to get the Iphone 5 banned? What apple sent one over for review?
Apple did not buy any company that did invent pinch and zoom, and last I did check the first company that used pinch to zoom in a product is rather large Apple could not afford to buy Mitsubishi. They did release touch screens with that feat in 2001. And long before that pinch to zoom and such things have figured in a lot of fiction, the same goes for all kind of tablets even star trek next generation did have that kind of ideas. And hey they where on air a long time before apple did patent pinch to zoom
I hope Apple makes a compromise that ever device that is basically a copy which almost all are need to pay Apple $10 per device or they can create their own mobile OS, like Microsoft did (my god, Microsoft actually did something RIGHT for a change and didn't copy... mind blown), if they don't want to, yeah, stick it to Samsung, Android next as it's a poormans iOS.
First let me get this out of the way...
SUCK IT ANDROID LUSERS!
SUCK IT SAMSUNG!
Ahem, now that I said my peace, seriously, seriously... make your OWN effin' mobile OS, I know that Google must have SOME talent, but then to blatantly rip off Apple's iOS, it's like they weren't even trying. Secondly, Samsung seriously c'mon, Captain Obvious is Obvious. Third, apologizers coming up with "b-b-but Apple um, stole, Xerox by buying it... " Uhhh, you dumb twits do realize you said the key word there, they BOUGHT the technology, and anyone who saw Xerox PARC stuff and then saw the first Apple OS I wouldn't say they even copied it AND they had bought it anyways... BOUGHT IT! Not stolen it like Samsung and Google, BOUGHT!
If either of these wastes of companies without innovation really were worth it and, let's face facts, if you're a fanboy using Samsung or any Android, you're technically using Apple's ideas, so while you're using stolen and copied stuff and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you're also using a poor imitation of the original, Apple's iOS, you're a follower, you're weak, you're like a person that would buy a Civic and put a Mercedes hood ornament on it (only a Civic if more reliable and sturdy than Android), you're just bitter and whiny because you're ******* device is just a poor imitation and you should have bought from the originator OR you should have demanded the makers of your devices have an original thought in their vacuous empty heads.
First let me get this out of the way...
SUCK IT ANDROID LUSERS!
SUCK IT SAMSUNG!
Ahem, now that I said my peace, seriously, seriously... make your OWN effin' mobile OS, I know that Google must have SOME talent, but then to blatantly rip off Apple's iOS, it's like they weren't even trying. Secondly, Samsung seriously c'mon, Captain Obvious is Obvious. Third, apologizers coming up with "b-b-but Apple um, stole, Xerox by buying it... " Uhhh, you dumb twits do realize you said the key word there, they BOUGHT the technology, and anyone who saw Xerox PARC stuff and then saw the first Apple OS I wouldn't say they even copied it AND they had bought it anyways... BOUGHT IT! Not stolen it like Samsung and Google, BOUGHT!
If either of these wastes of companies without innovation really were worth it and, let's face facts, if you're a fanboy using Samsung or any Android, you're technically using Apple's ideas, so while you're using stolen and copied stuff and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you're also using a poor imitation of the original, Apple's iOS, you're a follower, you're weak, you're like a person that would buy a Civic and put a Mercedes hood ornament on it (only a Civic if more reliable and sturdy than Android), you're just bitter and whiny because you're ******* device is just a poor imitation and you should have bought from the originator OR you should have demanded the makers of your devices have an original thought in their vacuous empty heads.
Patents are a dime a dozen - as we have seen. Getting the patent is easy. Enforcing it (as we have seen) is not. If a patent doesn't hold up in court then it's less useful than the paper it's written on.
In this case - before going to appeals, the jury ruled that the patents were valid.
Same here. Although I switched to a Samsung Skyrocket. Still have my iPhone 4 - but rarely if ever use it.
First and foremost - having the bigger 4.6 inch screen is fantastic. It's still thin, light, durable and fits in my pocket and I have no issues operating it one handed despite what some people might was to "claim." As for the UI and apps - everything is slick and I actually have less crashes but maybe about the same glitches with the Samsung then I did with the (un jailbroken) iPhone. The apps themselves are pretty 1:1 (at least the ones I use). What I do love is how easy it is to share data, pictures, etc amongst any app easily. And in fact I have an app on the Samsung (andmade share) that I can share to multiple apps at once. VERY nice feature for my use case
When I seen a white Galaxy SIII, I was surprised how much it looked like a white iPhone 4S. Or rather a samsungized iPhone.
It would only go back to this original judge if something is remanded.
The appeal will decidedly NOT go through the trial judge.
How often do appeals overturn jury verdicts? I could see them maybe reducing damages but I think it's rare for judges to overturn jury verdicts. Perhaps Samsung will go for a mistrial?
Everything Samsung builds has been copied from someone else. They have absolutely no engineering ability. A true Apple fan wouldn't have Samsung stuff sitting around the house.
And when does something become a standard tech? When the company that owns that tech or patent dominates the market, and the tech becomes ubiquitous. That's certainly an important innovation then, no? And guess what, it will need to be licensed out under FRAND. But a patent of a bouncing scroll, meh, will never be under FRAND because its unimportant to the industry.
Apple may have some instances of playing nice, but they like proprietary tech that lock down their ecosystem.
Hide evidence ? are you kidding me?
Do you know what makes a patent invalid? Prior works, and Samsung have showed a lot of prior works on all techs they have been accused to copy. I prior work invalidates a patent.
I disagree. It's also a few miles from Google's headquarters. Remember, lots of people, particularly in the tech community hate Apple.
I think it was how the initial phones looked like carbon copies of the iPhone that did it. I doubt the jury did a detailed analysis of 700 claims, but note an interesting pattern. The phones, by and large, were ruled to have infringed, but the tablets, by and large, were ruled not to have infringed.
I do wonder if the exclusion of the F700 from evidence will be revisited, though. If Samsung could have shown even one device from 2006 that looked remotely like an iPhone (or at least close enough to some of the phones released in late 2007 and early 2008), this verdict might have been far less one-sided.
Note that there were lots of tablets that looked broadly like the iPad before the iPad came out. It's just that they didn't sell well. Therefore, I think the jury concluded that the tablets were far more "obvious." However, prior to the iPhone, there weren't many devices that looked like it. Hence, the "obvious" argument doesn't hold as much sway.
Doubt it. There's very little Samsung would actually have to do to circumvent the patents. In fact - the GSIII and Ice Cream Sandwich/Jelly Bean already have moved away from some of them already.
Trade dress for the look of the phones can also easily be altered. In other words - Samsung will pay the fine (or win an appeal) and things will be relatively back to normal.
Do you realize how much the government will make in taxes from this?? The profit generated from the law firms alone will generate several times more in taxes than was spent by the government.
In the future please refrain from making statements that are completely ignorant.
Seems it was the S3 that was under consideration so yeah, I'd dump the ugly S2 as well. But not for an iPhone that is little more that a regurgitated 4S with a new and still proprietary doc connector and a slightly stretched screen.
But of course, the rumors and leaked part photos could be wrong and the new iPhone 5 might be sporting a fantastic new 4.5"+ screen running at 1280x720. I'll be in line to buy one if that's the case.
WTF???? You realize Apple is a Samsung partner and many of their components are Samsung?
Steve was a wonderful boss, twice [at NeXT and Apple]. I like, honest, upfront and equally challenging/critical of all ideas, including his own. He also threw the best Holiday parties.
Us at NeXT were quite angry with Isaacson for such a paltry footnote about NeXT when without our tech, engineers and leadership Apple would be a footnote today.