Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[Melab]

Well there you go I didn't know that. Thanks. I thought the ancient Greeks just about invented everything like that. You learn something new everyday.

I've never quite understood the US constitution. Do all your laws date back to a document written over 200 years ago? Didn't the founding fathers envisage that things might change in the future? What's wrong with changing the constitution? Was it meant to be set in stone?

You can't change the gun laws because it was written in the constitution 200 years ago. I just don't understand that. We just make things up as we go along here in the UK as we don't have anything like your constitution.

I am always excited to discuss politics with foreigners. I had this conversation (one way, mostly) with this Australian girl when I was at the Grand Canyon.

Not all of our laws date back to the time of the United States. I would expect a libertarian or a libertarian-leaning conservative to point out that we make more laws now than we did in the early years. The number of rules put in place at the federal level in 2011 was 3807. I am unsure if this the number of individual bills or the total number of regulations because of this next statistic. The total number of both bills (the law) and resolutions (statements) in all states and territories in 2011 is greater than 40000. I'm sure they realized things would change and that is why we have the amendment process. Being able to pass legislation in the first place helps, too.[Source]

The Supreme Court of the United States has the power of judicial review, though this wasn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison). There rulings have indeed changed over the years.

And gun control, one of the best ways to kick up a **** storm in your local American political theater. The Australian girl I mentioned told me she was surprised to actually see someone carrying a pistol. An outstanding cause for the Second Amendment was that in the Revolutionary War, we had no real army. It was cobbled up from men who owned their guns for hunting. One of the cited reasons for gun ownership is that they are "the people's teeth"—often misattributed to George Washington, but still a reason nonetheless. Gun rights have been defended for a long time but it was only in 2008 that SCOTUS affirmed the Republican interpretation of the Second Amendment (see District of Columbia v. Heller).

 

[DisMyMac]

It was intended to be that difficult, so a Congress couldn't respond to the whims of the moment and say "We don't like those people who protest at funerals, so anyone who says what they say will be locked up".

Westboro Baptists are a cover for upping security at funerals. There was never a real speech issue, only people exploiting their jobs.

 

[blouis79]

It seems that the Samsung products which violate the user interface patents only would not violate patents by alteration of the Android OS. Surely this is a simple fix. Other manufacturers of devices using the similar parts of the OS will be on the warpath....

 

[GadgetDon]

Westboro Baptists are a cover for upping security at funerals. There was never a real speech issue, only people exploiting their jobs.

We'll agree to disagree. I'll only say that no group before has EVER tested my faith in the wisdom of the first amendment before.

 

[John.B]

Did i say i hate apple NO. I did not. I like the OS and computers but i can not validate overpaying for a computer. I know it is in violation of the license. But I paid for the software so I will use it as I see fit.

You don't own the software you buy, you license it.

 

[GadgetDon]

It seems that the Samsung products which violate the user interface patents only would not violate patents by alteration of the Android OS. Surely this is a simple fix. Other manufacturers of devices using the similar parts of the OS will be on the warpath....

Most of these patents are fairly easily worked around. The tough ones are the multitouch patents, the pinch to zoom, twist to rotate. I really hope Apple will license those at a reasonable price, a common gesture language is a good thing.

 

[Rennir]

Most of these patents are fairly easily worked around. The tough ones are the multitouch patents, the pinch to zoom, twist to rotate. I really hope Apple will license those at a reasonable price, a common gesture language is a good thing.

Doesn't that mean all other manufacturers need to do the same then?

 

[GadgetDon]

Doesn't that mean all other manufacturers need to do the same then?

Oh, definitely. Not sure if it requires updates to Android code itself, but hey, it's "open"

 

[Melab]

You don't own the software you buy, you license it.

That EULA stuff hasn't really been tested in court when it comes down to individual consumers.

 

[GadgetDon]

That EULA stuff hasn't really been tested in court when it comes down to individual consumers.

Specifically to individual consumers, no, but it's the reasons those guys trying to make clone Macs got shut down.

Do I think John. B has to fear the Apple police knocking down his door and dragging him away to copyright court? (Or more realistically, having a guy knock on the door, "Are you John B.? Yes, Good, you've been served".) Naw. I think he can continue to use his Hackintosh as he sees fit.

But regardless of the specific legal jeopardy involved - he's freeloading off the people who buy Macs, because the money they paid for their hardware helps cover the cost of OS development and he's skipping out on that.

 

[Taz Mangus]

How ironic it would have been if the jury also added the following as part of the verdict:

"Samsung is to take out a full page ad in five major papers stating: Samsung willfully copied the look and feel of Apple smart phones".

----------

Not sad: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL.

Mark

I agree: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/after-hours

 

[John.B]

Do I think John. B has to fear the Apple police knocking down his door and dragging him away to copyright court? (Or more realistically, having a guy knock on the door, "Are you John B.? Yes, Good, you've been served".) Naw. I think he can continue to use his Hackintosh as he sees fit.

I run OSX on Apple hardware, thank you very much.

HiRev is the guy who builds Hackintoshs: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15527194/

 

[GadgetDon]

I run OSX on Apple hardware, thank you very much.

HiRev is the guy who builds Hackintoshs: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/15527194/

Oops, sorry! OK, you have even less to worry about

 

[Leonard1818]

finally... the money my wife and I forked over for our ******* "galaxy S" phones is going where it should have gone to begin with....

 

[thekev]

Did i say i hate apple NO. I did not. I like the OS and computers but i can not validate overpaying for a computer. I know it is in violation of the license. But I paid for the software so I will use it as I see fit. the only reason apple does not allow there software on other computers is due to greed. I worked for apple for many years and I know how managment are.

Software is owned by the developer. Everyone else is licensing or essentially renting it from them. Apple tried the third party hardware licensing model once in the past. I doubt they'll ever return to it, but it should be noted that the price they charge is based on the assumption that you will hold up your terms of the licensing agreement. I don't personally care what you do with it, but don't justify your actions with nonsense or try to tell me that no other functional operating system exists in the world.

 

[Taz Mangus]

It is amazing how many people actually believe that this case was about a rectangle with rounded corners (or use the argument to defend their whining)

The rectangle with rounded corners is the one part that Apple did not win.

 

[ShiftyPig]

The real question out of all of this is how many iPhone users have quit using the pull-down notification bar in iOS. If Samsung got dinged for bounce-back menus, Apple might as well just forward that check to Google.

 

[Melab]

Specifically to individual consumers, no, but it's the reasons those guys trying to make clone Macs got shut down.

Do I think John. B has to fear the Apple police knocking down his door and dragging him away to copyright court? (Or more realistically, having a guy knock on the door, "Are you John B.? Yes, Good, you've been served".) Naw. I think he can continue to use his Hackintosh as he sees fit.

But regardless of the specific legal jeopardy involved - he's freeloading off the people who buy Macs, because the money they paid for their hardware helps cover the cost of OS development and he's skipping out on that.

The issue is indeed very much an ethical schism.

finally... the money my wife and I forked over for our ******* "galaxy S" phones is going where it should have gone to begin with....

I am curious then as to why you decided to buy a Samsung Galaxy S.

 

[Taz Mangus]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ng_motorola_patents_avoids_us_import_ban.html

I guess that $12.5B was well spent by Google.

 

[Avatar74]

Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.

Coca-Cola protects their brand fiercely. However it is that Sierra Mist exists (whether as a result of a settlement or because there's key ingredients that actually differ, and because 7up, also distributed jointly by PepsiCo and Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group, actually preceded Sprite by a good 30 years... and because PepsiCo wasn't harboring internal documents that specifically advised their product people to make Sierra Mist more Sprite-like in 130 specific ways...), know that Coca-Cola goes as far as to sue on average 12 restaurants/chains a year for serving Pepsi when customers ask for Coca-Cola... because it amounts to brand dilution.

 

[cankster]

I guess some seem to think anything up to calling it the Samsung Iphone is not copying. Its just inspiration. And to be honest the I in Iphone could mean, Individual or internet capable. Cant see why that can be copyrighted. Hell let them call it the Samsung Iphone. Power to the people!!

 

[Stridder44]

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

Oh good lord, stop being so damn dramatic. Nothing will change from this. The evidence against Samsung was great, and they probably knew something like this might happen. They took their chances and lost, but it doesn't matter in the end because life will go on and Samsung still does a crazy amount of business with Apple.

Comments like yours are the very reason we still need a downvote arrow.

 

[jeffe]

It seems that the Samsung products which violate the user interface patents only would not violate patents by alteration of the Android OS. Surely this is a simple fix. Other manufacturers of devices using the similar parts of the OS will be on the warpath....

What parts of the OS do you mean? Android and Samsung's version of android are very different.

 

[69650]

The question of intellectual property doesn't go back nearly as far, but I think there was some protection in Europe before it was written into the constitution.

As for the constitution, books have been written on it, here's my nickel version.

The United States just came out of a war with England where, because they wanted to, the English government (at the command of King George) had violated all the rights they had come to expect. It's also worth pointing out that we were 13 states with huge differences among them - slavery was the most mentioned but others nearly as fundamental.

So when we won our independence, the first national government was basically "you guys get ready to do things in case we get attacked again but otherwise the states can all do whatever they want". This proved unworkable, and a constitution was written. There needed to be a national government, but there was still concern about an overbearing national government that both could run roughshod over the rights of the individual citizens and the powers of the states.

The constitution set up the organization of the federal government (a congress, an executive branch led by a President, and a supreme court). In theory their powers were pretty constrained - in the section of Congress, there was an enumeration of what Congress could do and it is pretty short (but over time, loopholes have been created to drive almost whatever truck they want to). The President only executed the laws that Congress passed from that brief list of areas, and handled foreign diplomacy. The courts both handled those laws passed, and settled disputes between the states or citizens of different states.

The original thought was that the constitution was so restrictive, there was no risk it would infringe on the rights of its citizens, but there were those who called for a list of amendments respecting specific rights of the citizens. The language in most cases is specific, and matches the language of the Declaration of Independence - these are not rights granted by the government, the government is recognizing that as free men the citizens have these rights and will not infringe upon them. Given the loopholes that have been opened in the restrictions in the enumerated powers, this was a smart thing to do.

As for passing laws - the expectation was that the states can regulate almost anything they want, so long as they don't violate the rights set forth in the constitution. So even in those areas where the courts are still telling the federal government "You have no authority to act in these areas", the states can act. The areas where the congress has authority to act has expanded so far that it rarely comes up. But they can't do anything that violates the restrictions in the constitution, mostly in the first ten amendments, the bill of rights.

The constitution can be changed, but it's very difficult, and requires an overwhelming level of support. It was intended to be that difficult, so a Congress couldn't respond to the whims of the moment and say "We don't like those people who protest at funerals, so anyone who says what they say will be locked up".

Very interesting thanks. I have actually seen the declaration of independence when I went to Washington. I did try to steal it and reclaim the US for old England but several big guys with guns wouldn't let me. Spoil sports.

I was reading the 27 amendments. It's interesting that nothing has been proposed and ratified in the past 40 years. Even the Equal Rights Amendment didn't get ratified. I can see that it's not easy to amend the constitution.

 

[KPOM]

I am curious then as to why you decided to buy a Samsung Galaxy S.

I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. My guess is it is buyer's remorse. Don't buy a substitute when you could have had the original.

I bought a Nexus One and used it for over a year. I must admit that Google Maps Navigation was nice, and I'm glad to see something similar finally coming to iOS (3rd party apps aren't the same since they aren't integrated with the other built-in apps). That said, the iPhone is clearly a nicer device overall.