Jury Finds Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1 Billion in Damages

[samcraig]

The REAL reason all of you whining Apple-haters are so upset is because you want to continue to have the cool and awesome features of Apple's products without having to actually buy an Apple product. You badmouth Apple out of one side of your mouth, and then jabber out the other side about how it's unfair that Samsung can't copy.

I'd suggest you are all a bunch of hypocrites but, frankly, you can't be a hypocrite if you don't have any personal honor to begin with.

Mark

Hmm. What about the people who say Samsung doesn't innovate at all and that no one should support or buy Samsung products yet still buy Apple products with Samsung parts?

That's sorta the same thing, isn't it? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

But more importantly - how much is it really worth getting upset over what anyone else does if it doesn't directly affect you. If someone likes their phone which isn't made by Apple - how does this affect you. Really.

You come off as someone (from this post) with some real rage.

 

[69650]

That's right, this WAS always going to happen. I called it from the very start. As did any rational, intelligent, educated person. The jury actually made a decision based on the facts of the case, not on some emotional allegiance to one company or the other.

And it's EXACTLY how YOU would have voted had you been sworn and charged to with the responsibility to help decide the case. That is, assuming you are a rational and intelligent person.

Mark

I am a rational and intelligent person but based on my knowledge of this case I would NEVER have voted for Apple. There was plenty of prior art to invalidate many of Apples' patents (although the biased judge refused to admit some of it) and I simply do not agree that Samsung products are direct copies of Apples' products - and that is based on my experience owning an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

I think it's very simple. The jurors are all from California so naturally they want to support their home team. In my experience Americans are very patriotic to the point of an irrational love of all things American and a hatred of all things foreign.

It's funny how many of the exact same arguments and patents have been rejected in Europe, Asia and Australia but were accepted in full in a US court. This case clearly demonstrates why we need an unbiased international court to address important cases like this.

 

[Che Castro]

I am a rational and intelligent person

if you say so

 

[69650]

The REAL reason all of you whining Apple-haters are so upset is because you want to continue to have the cool and awesome features of Apple's products without having to actually buy an Apple product. You badmouth Apple out of one side of your mouth, and then jabber out the other side about how it's unfair that Samsung can't copy.

I'd suggest you are all a bunch of hypocrites but, frankly, you can't be a hypocrite if you don't have any personal honor to begin with.

Mark

I don't hate Apple. I'm against this verdict because if upheld it will leave Apple with a virtual monopoly in some key areas of smartphones and tablets. That might be good for Apple shareholders but it's very bad for consumers.

Just look at the MP3 market. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player but it took over and dominated the market with the iPod and everything was great for a while until Apple stopped innovating and started to exploit their monopoly with high prices and little genuine innovation year on year. All they did was change the shape every year. The result is that music has gone backwards. Millions now listen to music at 256 which is lower quality than the CD which was invented 30 years ago. Why? So Apple can sell more iPods without having to put larger capacity hard drives in.

Apple would happily kill the smartphone and tablet market if they could leaving Apple to dominate the market with millions of poorer people cast aside because they can't afford to pay the Apple tax. I'm no great Android or Windows fan but at least those companies have sought to bring prices down to the point where the technology is within reach of most people. Apple simply sits in it's ivory tower counting its billions without ever contributing anything to society as a whole.

 

[wikus]

The Judge is not Korean. She was born and educated in the USA. She is American.

So a persons ethnicity is dependent on the location of their birth? I didn't know that... next time I see a black man I will safely assume he could be Chinese.

Thanks for the update.

 

[subsonix]

I get the feeling many Asian companies has less respect for IP in general, it seems like a cultural difference. At least now Samsung knows when the line is crossed in terms of how much can be copied, even Google told Samsung to make less obvious imitations.

 

[Mark Booth]

You come off as someone (from this post) with some real rage.

You suspect rage where it's simply a mix of passion and frustration. But I am sick and tired of liars and cheats, be they corporations or be they individuals. I'm sick and tired of the lack of personal honor that is so prevalent in this country and around the world. I am living in a society where far too many actually cheer for an individual or corporation that is found to have lied and cheated. There was a day when society would have told liars and cheats to get lost. Today, they are celebrated.

Mark

 

[Rogifan]

One of the jurors is speaking out:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...uror-speaks-out/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

"We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented, Ilagan said. "It was clear there was infringement."

Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."

 

[Mark Booth]

I don't hate Apple. I'm against this verdict because if upheld it will leave Apple with a virtual monopoly in some key areas of smartphones and tablets. That might be good for Apple shareholders but it's very bad for consumers.

Hogwash! Apple came into the smartphone game and introduced something revolutionary! The features that Samsung has been found to have stolen were patented features owned by Apple. Samsung wanted to use those features because it realized (via its OWN internal documents) that it had a crisis of design. Samsung saw the writing on the wall (Apple was about to dominate the smartphone market) and decided to steal the patented technology rather than license it. Apple REPEATEDLY tried to reach a licensing agreement with Samsung in 2010, BEFORE Apple actually filed the lawsuit.

Microsoft HAS licensed Apple's technology, so why not Samsung? Microsoft is free to use the technology it licensed so how does this give Apple a monopoly on smartphones? Microsoft can use the licensed technology in as many smartphones (or other products) as the license permits.

That's the key fallacy that the Apple-haters cling to.. That Apple wants the entire market to themselves. Again, HOGWASH. Apple has ALREADY proven it is willing to license the technology that Apple invented and patented. And since Apple DID spend millions of dollars developing and patenting the technology, you're darn tooting that Apple should be financially compensated by those that want to use the technology.

If companies like Samsung don't want to pay to use the technology that legally and rightfully belongs to someone else, then either let Samsung come up with a better mousetrap, or drop out of the smartphone business altogether! If Samsung can't innovate its own way to be on top, then they don't deserve to be on top.

Mark

 

[wikus]

Just look at the MP3 market. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player but it took over and dominated the market with the iPod and everything was great for a while until Apple stopped innovating and started to exploit their monopoly with high prices and little genuine innovation year on year. All they did was change the shape every year. The result is that music has gone backwards. Millions now listen to music at 256 which is lower quality than the CD which was invented 30 years ago. Why? So Apple can sell more iPods without having to put larger capacity hard drives in.

Thats not why Apple created a monopoly in the MP3 player market. iPods were actually reasonably priced but horribly executed save for the scroll wheel and menu navigation that was actually stolen from Creative.

At the pinnacle of the MP3 era, Apple knew what was at stake especially their development of the iPhone back then. They bought out NAND memory at such a low price that it made it difficult, or damn near impossible for other manufacturers to make any profits. And guess who supplied Apple NAND memory in this deal? Samsung.

That along with Apple catchy advertising and Americas obsession for branded items made it difficult for others to compete... which now instead of having all sorts of companys flourishing we have a monopoly and a swarm of white headphone wearing individuals who have taken that experience and shifted over to the iphone furthering apples dominance. Its almost like a ripple effect.

I wont say Apples products are bad... theyre great, they work exactly as advertised and are butter smooth. But when it comes to being customizable or open, they fail *miserably*. I dont find the limitation of being open such a negative with Mac OS X because its pretty much perfect (save for the horrendous execution of mission control and versions) but in a handheld device thats a different story..

Regardless, the outcome of Samsungs loss is a major blow for consumers. The apple fanboys cried when Microsoft had a monopoly, but nobody is complaining about Apples. Mark Booth should take notice to this.

 

[Mark Booth]

BTW, everyone here that doesn't believe Samsung likes to copy Apple's products needs to spend a few minutes looking at the photos at this site:

http://samsungcopiesapple.tumblr.com

There are two pages of photos there (click the arrow in the bottom right corner to see the second page).

Mark

 

[subsonix]

At the pinnacle of the MP3 era, Apple knew what was at stake especially their development of the iPhone back then. They bought out NAND memory at such a low price that it made it difficult, or damn near impossible for other manufacturers to make any profits. And guess who supplied Apple NAND memory in this deal? Samsung.

So what? Didn't Samsung get paid to sell the NANDS? Isn't their primary business model in semiconductors to sell these products to manufacturers like Apple?

 

[Mark Booth]

Just look at the MP3 market. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player but it took over and dominated the market with the iPod and everything was great for a while until Apple stopped innovating and started to exploit their monopoly with high prices and little genuine innovation year on year. All they did was change the shape every year. The result is that music has gone backwards. Millions now listen to music at 256 which is lower quality than the CD which was invented 30 years ago. Why? So Apple can sell more iPods without having to put larger capacity hard drives in.

To this day, you can STILL buy an iPod with a 160GB hard drive:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_classic

And it costs $150 LESS than the very first iPod that only had 5GB of storage!

Go have at it and fill it up with all of the lossless music you want!

Mark

 

[alent1234]

Thats not why Apple created a monopoly in the MP3 player market. iPods were actually reasonably priced but horribly executed save for the scroll wheel and menu navigation that was actually stolen from Creative.

At the pinnacle of the MP3 era, Apple knew what was at stake especially their development of the iPhone back then. They bought out NAND memory at such a low price that it made it difficult, or damn near impossible for other manufacturers to make any profits. And guess who supplied Apple NAND memory in this deal? Samsung.

That along with Apple catchy advertising and Americas obsession for branded items made it difficult for others to compete... which now instead of having all sorts of companys flourishing we have a monopoly and a swarm of white headphone wearing individuals who have taken that experience and shifted over to the iphone furthering apples dominance. Its almost like a ripple effect.

I wont say Apples products are bad... theyre great, they work exactly as advertised and are butter smooth. But when it comes to being customizable or open, they fail *miserably*. I dont find the limitation of being open such a negative with Mac OS X because its pretty much perfect (save for the horrendous execution of mission control and versions) but in a handheld device thats a different story..

Regardless, the outcome of Samsungs loss is a major blow for consumers. The apple fanboys cried when Microsoft had a monopoly, but nobody is complaining about Apples. Mark Booth should take notice to this.

apple had a good model to sell digital music. they were first and built up some trust. the MS model had a lot of no name companies selling stuff that no one really trusted

----------

I don't hate Apple. I'm against this verdict because if upheld it will leave Apple with a virtual monopoly in some key areas of smartphones and tablets. That might be good for Apple shareholders but it's very bad for consumers.

Just look at the MP3 market. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player but it took over and dominated the market with the iPod and everything was great for a while until Apple stopped innovating and started to exploit their monopoly with high prices and little genuine innovation year on year. All they did was change the shape every year. The result is that music has gone backwards. Millions now listen to music at 256 which is lower quality than the CD which was invented 30 years ago. Why? So Apple can sell more iPods without having to put larger capacity hard drives in.

Apple would happily kill the smartphone and tablet market if they could leaving Apple to dominate the market with millions of poorer people cast aside because they can't afford to pay the Apple tax. I'm no great Android or Windows fan but at least those companies have sought to bring prices down to the point where the technology is within reach of most people. Apple simply sits in it's ivory tower counting its billions without ever contributing anything to society as a whole.

unless you buy expensive headphones you will never hear the difference in the music. after 3-5 years of a new product there is not much more to innovate. just look at jellybean

 

[69650]

Hogwash! Apple came into the smartphone game and introduced something revolutionary! The features that Samsung has been found to have stolen were patented features owned by Apple. Samsung wanted to use those features because it realized (via its OWN internal documents) that it had a crisis of design. Samsung saw the writing on the wall (Apple was about to dominate the smartphone market) and decided to steal the patented technology rather than license it. Apple REPEATEDLY tried to reach a licensing agreement with Samsung in 2010, BEFORE Apple actually filed the lawsuit.

Microsoft HAS licensed Apple's technology, so why not Samsung? Microsoft is free to use the technology it licensed so how does this give Apple a monopoly on smartphones? Microsoft can use the licensed technology in as many smartphones (or other products) as the license permits.

That's the key fallacy that the Apple-haters cling to.. That Apple wants the entire market to themselves. Again, HOGWASH. Apple has ALREADY proven it is willing to license the technology that Apple invented and patented. And since Apple DID spend millions of dollars developing and patenting the technology, you're darn tooting that Apple should be financially compensated by those that want to use the technology.

If companies like Samsung don't want to pay to use the technology that legally and rightfully belongs to someone else, then either let Samsung come up with a better mousetrap, or drop out of the smartphone business altogether! If Samsung can't innovate its own way to be on top, then they don't deserve to be on top.

Mark

Many of these patents were introduced with the original iPhone in 2007 - that's 5 years ago. The original iPhone was revolutionary but what real innovations have they introduced since then? The retina screen maybe but a lot of other phones have something similar. iOS marches on each year but it's hardly revolutionary. I can't think of a single revolutionary change Apple has made to the iPhone since it was introduced. Maybe that's why they're suing now - because they've run out of ideas so they want to protect 5 year old IP.

 

[thasan]

I get the feeling many Asian companies has less respect for IP in general, it seems like a cultural difference. At least now Samsung knows when the line is crossed in terms of how much can be copied, even Google told Samsung to make less obvious imitations.

They always knew. Samsung is known as a mafia company even in Korea (remarked by a few of Korean colleagues of mine)...

 

[thekev]

I don't think you get AT ALL the point I am trying to make. There is something called trade dress. It is how your product LOOKS. Imagine if I make a phone using the exact same colors and centered glyph for icons like yours. And you look at the too products a meter away, what will you think? It has little to do with innovation. Samsung are clearly trying very hard to make their products LOOK LIKE APPLE. They did that all the way down to the packaging, cables, adaptors. It is only a step away from making a fake rolex.

Stripes or no stripes doesn't matter. Why would Samsung make their phone icon GREEN, with a white phone glyph in the middle? That's the question. Think about it.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/04/apple-files-trademark-for-phone-icon.html

Here is the trademark claim. Without the stripes, they have nothing. The plain green thing has been used before along with the older receiver design. Apple could only trademark a very specific combination.

 

[entatlrg]

You suspect rage where it's simply a mix of passion and frustration. But I am sick and tired of liars and cheats, be they corporations or be they individuals. I'm sick and tired of the lack of personal honor that is so prevalent in this country and around the world. I am living in a society where far too many actually cheer for an individual or corporation that is found to have lied and cheated. There was a day when society would have told liars and cheats to get lost. Today, they are celebrated.

Mark

Well said.

 

[linkgx1]

So the juror did NOT decided on evidence. It was largely on emails. Especially according to the statements of Manuel Ilagan. What gives? Seems more or less an emotional decision.

Anyways, I wonder what peoples reactions will be if this gets overturned. It'd be some interesting, hypocritical reactions.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple would happily kill the smartphone and tablet market if they could leaving Apple to dominate the market with millions of poorer people cast aside because they can't afford to pay the Apple tax. I'm no great Android or Windows fan but at least those companies have sought to bring prices down to the point where the technology is within reach of most people. Apple simply sits in it's ivory tower counting its billions without ever contributing anything to society as a whole.

So basically you want Apple to sell things at a loss or breakeven because that's what Google is doing with the Nexus 7. Ultrabooks that are comparable to the MacBook air are basically within the same price range. Asus Zenbook is $999, same as Samsung Series 5. Same thing with high-end smartphones. And in mobile phones? An unlocked Galaxy S III is selling for $749 on sale at Best Buy. HTC One X is going for $629. A comparable iPhone 4S is going for $699 unactivated. How many good-quality tablets with similar specs to the iPad are selling for less than $499 (or $399 if they're similar to iPad2)? Answer is zero.

This talk of an Apple tax is BS. If Apple was ripping people off people would stop buying their stuff, period.

----------

So the juror did NOT decided on evidence. It was largely on emails. Especially according to the statements of Manuel Ilagan. What gives? Seems more or less an emotional decision.

Anyways, I wonder what peoples reactions will be if this gets overturned. It'd be some interesting, hypocritical reactions.

Emails aren't evidence?

 

[Rennir]

So I'm assuming now Apple can continue to innovate an we won't have any of this 4S, 5, Lion, Mountain Lion disappointments? Samsung copying probably resulted in these debacles.

 

[69650]

So basically you want Apple to sell things at a loss or breakeven because that's what Google is doing with the Nexus 7. Ultrabooks that are comparable to the MacBook air are basically within the same price range. Asus Zenbook is $999, same as Samsung Series 5. Same thing with high-end smartphones. And in mobile phones? An unlocked Galaxy S III is selling for $749 on sale at Best Buy. HTC One X is going for $629. A comparable iPhone 4S is going for $699 unactivated. How many good-quality tablets with similar specs to the iPad are selling for less than $499 (or $399 if they're similar to iPad2)? Answer is zero.

This talk of an Apple tax is BS. If Apple was ripping people off people would stop buying their stuff, period.

----------


Emails aren't evidence?

Just wait until Apple has their monopoly and see if they don't start raising their prices.

----------

So a persons ethnicity is dependent on the location of their birth? I didn't know that... next time I see a black man I will safely assume he could be Chinese.

Thanks for the update.

If you see a black man and think of him as anything other than an American you are a racist. The colour of your skin and your "ethnicity" are merely traits of your family history. They do not define you as a person.

Do you think of President Obama as an American or an African?

 

[linkgx1]

So basically you want Apple to sell things at a loss or breakeven because that's what Google is doing with the Nexus 7. Ultrabooks that are comparable to the MacBook air are basically within the same price range. Asus Zenbook is $999, same as Samsung Series 5. Same thing with high-end smartphones. And in mobile phones? An unlocked Galaxy S III is selling for $749 on sale at Best Buy. HTC One X is going for $629. A comparable iPhone 4S is going for $699 unactivated. How many good-quality tablets with similar specs to the iPad are selling for less than $499 (or $399 if they're similar to iPad2)? Answer is zero.

This talk of an Apple tax is BS. If Apple was ripping people off people would stop buying their stuff, period.

----------


Emails aren't evidence?

No that's not the point. It's like a car company saying, in a memo "Hey, ford adding a radio to their car, let's do that too!". That's not infringement. Just because someone says they're going to copy you doesn't mean they're going about it the same exact way.



"The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me" -------juror Manuel Ilagan

Something they "should incorporate" should NOT be damning. Otherwise, Samsung will have to sue Apple with a 7'' tablet....using the email between Apple execs as evidence.

 

[7709876]

Do you think of President Obama as an American or an African?

Kenyan isn't he?

 

[Mark Booth]

Many of these patents were introduced with the original iPhone in 2007 - that's 5 years ago. The original iPhone was revolutionary but what real innovations have they introduced since then? The retina screen maybe but a lot of other phones have something similar. iOS marches on each year but it's hardly revolutionary. I can't think of a single revolutionary change Apple has made to the iPhone since it was introduced. Maybe that's why they're suing now - because they've run out of ideas so they want to protect 5 year old IP.

Now you are just grasping at straws so there's no point in trying to have a logical and reasoned debate with you.

Mark