Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[Saladinos]

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.

Lots of companies have principles which they believe lead to their success and from which they won't budge. Apple believes that the tight integration between their own services is one of their winning principles - it might very well frustrate you when you reach their limitations and have nowhere to go, but it provides an overall better experience.

Apples principles in that respect haven't changed since the iPod.

People think that Apple want to monopolise all of this stuff because they want control, when really it is much simpler than that; they just want to make the best experience. If you can deliver that by partnering with Google for maps on the original iPhone, great. If Google withhold features, and the best experience now can only be delivered by building your own maps, they'll do that.

Jonny Ive summed it up recently: "We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money. It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money".

All of Apple's "monopolistic" businesses (iTunes, AppStore, anything else) pale in comparison to their hardware revenue. To make loads of money, they just need to shift lots of devices. They don't need that direct extra income from the other integrated services - it just makes a better product (which in turn, sells more devices). Is actually a hugely risk strategy - if your execution ultimately doesn't deliver the best experience, it could be a huge disadvantage (looking again at Maps).

One example of how Apple takes building great products more seriously than monopolising content is on AppleTV; it's had Netflix and Hulu support for ages (which has also been heavily promoted). Ultimately those things detract from iTunes sales, but including them in the product makes the experience much better because they're so popular.

 

[GadgetDon]

I would consider those standard essential patents, except for the bike example which is not computing in my weak mind.

No, those aren't standard essential patents.

SEPs have a very specific meaning. An industry body creates a standard that people can adopt in their products so these products can interact. There is a WiFi standard so that any 802.11n device can talk to any 802.11n router. There is an H.264 standard so any H.264 file output by a program or device can be played successfully by any program or device that supports H.264. As part of adopting the standard, they identify the patents required to implement the proposed standard, and get the patent owner to license the patent on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory fashion (FRAND). Should one or more of the patent owners refuse, they'd change the standard so it didn't infringe upon the patent, but it never happens - as Jimmy Kimmel says, everyone wants free money.

People throw SEP and FRAND as "patents everyone really needs to make what they want to make", but it's just not so. There must be an adopted standard, it must be to allow interaction, and the patent owners must have agreed.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm not blaming the jurors, I'm blaming the system that put them in this position. I don't think the jury system is the right system for highly technical cases like these. They should have some form of national IP court manned by specialist judges who can hear and decide upon these cases.

There is. It's called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. All patent appeals go to this court. If Samsung appeals it will go there next. All the judges in this court are well versed in the IP law.

It's frustrating to read most of the threads on this topic because people comment w/o any understanding of U.S. law or procedure, and just assume they know what they are talking about.

----------

You clearly have none either.

What is your point? I'm not the one bad mouthing jurors, or claiming memos submitted to the jury for its consideration wasn't really evidence they should have considered even though it was legally gained through discovery and admitted by the court.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This really is a shame... it sounds like Samsung had many opportunities to do the right thing and license the IP. Microsoft did this recently, pretty simple thing. Wether you agree or not that pinch/zoom, for example, merits a patent, the fact is they have it, Samsung could have licensed it, but chose not to. So they took the risk, and now they pay.

 

[tdream]

No, it was a fair point. Groklaw is, and always has been, an advocate for the pro-free-software side of the argument. What they did in the case of SCO vs IBM was present the pro-Linux side of the argument in a rational way, backing up their points with evidence and carefully explaining the relevant law - basically what a good advocate should do in an ideal courtroom. For that, they deserve respect - but for pity's sake don't confuse that with being 'neutral and balanced' (and don't confuse 'being biassed' with 'being wrong').

Of course, it helped that - as it turned out - that Linux didn't violate any UNIX IP, even if it had SCO didn't actually own the IP they were suing over, and even if they had owned it they signed away their right to sue when they re-distributed Linux under the GPL... Apple vs. Samsung is a positive moral maze compared to that...

Sadly, once SCO vs IBM started to fizzle out and Groklaw started dealing with cases that actually did have two sides, the quality of articles took a nosedive. In the good old days, they would be posting articles explaining what "trade dress" was, intelligent arguments about why 'pinch-to-zoom' shouldn't be patentable or what the requirements were for valid 'prior art'. Instead, they're posting the same 'ZOMG here's a fuzzy picture of some sort of tablet in a 70s SF film!' drivel you can get from a dozen blogs.

One thing that, in the past, you would never see in Groklaw lead articles, was any idle suggestion that the judge or jury were incompetent or corrupt (reasoned criticism, maybe, discussion of possible grounds for appeal, but no name calling). The last posting on AvS that I saw gleefuly jumped on the 'SCOOP - there was an arithmetical error on the juror form and 2 of the 700 tickboxes contradicted each other so obviously the jury was clueless' band wagon, then pulled a quote from the jury forman out of context so that it sounded as if they'd ignored the Jury instructions in their whole deliberation (it was actually in reference to the 'mistakes', saying they could fix them without new instructions - i.e. 'whups! typo!').

I think maybe the Chap 11 phase of the SCO case has destroyed someone's respect for the legal system...

I actually have not seen that reported anywhere else so I suppose it is a scoop in some regards. I don't know about gleefully, that's your adjective.

 

[Rogifan]

And the HTC devices used multitouch with click to zoom, a touch gesture to unlock the phone, etc.?

Before the iPhone, you can point to a few phones and say "hey, that's got one thing similar to the iPhone. After the iPhone, you point to most phones and "hey, that's got one or two things different from the iPhone".

Here's what Eric Schmidt said on Charlie Rose about Apple and the smartphone market:

http://articles.businessinsider.com...board-apple-stores-steve-jobs/2#ixzz24eb74NIl
ROSE: What's interesting too this evening is that most
of us - most of us are directly connected to him because we
have an iPad, we have a phone, we have a Mac computer. We
know and understand what he was about because we can see it
and hold it and feel it.

SCHMIDT: Well, in that sense I think the artist role
makes a lot of sense. He's the first person to take computing
and computing platforms and make products that actually cause
people to fall in love. In love with their products, in love
with the artistry, in love with using information. And that I
think is his primary contribution. He also of course has
changed the course of history with the kinds of things he's
done with respect to the scale of the platforms that were
built at Apple.

But I think ultimately if you look at the success of the
iPod, for example, which everybody said couldn't be done, or
the success of the iPhone, which really brought in the
smartphone revolution and really sort of invented it, he will
get the credit. And he and the teams that he led deserve that
credit for doing it.

When the first iPhone came out didn't Steve Ballmer completely dismiss it because it didn't have a physical keyboard? Jony Ive said earlier this year:
“We try to develop products that seem somehow inevitable. That leave you with the sense that that’s the only possible solution that makes sense”.

Of course with hindsight being 20/20 it's easy to say all these things are obvious. But as I said on another thread if we had multi-touch and pinch to zoom for 40 some years how come we didn't see it on a mobile phone prior to the iPhone? And how come to this day no one outside of Apple seems to get multi touch gestures right on laptop trackpads? Go read any review of an Ultrabook and the trackpad is one thing that usually gets poorly rated.

 

[Winni]

I still don't understand how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is stifling innovation...

Well, you don't have a problem when Apple copies from others, do you? Apple has done this on countless occasions and even ruined a couple of small companies along they way. Apple is not the mother of all invention and I cannot name one single thing that Apple did before anybody else - just like Microsoft, Apple always entered an existing market then took many of the already existing ideas, mixed them and put them in a nice design that usually resembled old Braun products designed by Dieter Rams.

No, the Apple I was not the first "personal computer". No, the Mac was not the first computer with a graphical user interface and a mouse. No, the iPod was not the first mp3 player and iTunes was not the first online shop for digital downloads. No, the iPhone was not the first smartphone with a touch interface and it also was not the first smartphone that received a voice-based assistant. No, the iPad was not the first tablet computer.

Just like everybody else in this industry, Apple stands on the shoulders of giants. The only difference between Apple and the rest is that Apple PRETENDS to be the mother of invention and the company spends millions of marketing bucks on hammering this distorted reality-idea into the heads of its customers. And Apple is the biggest patent troll in the IT business, even bigger than Oracle or SCO, and that is saying a lot.

However, credit where credit is due: Apple creates products that look great, feel good and that most of the time are a pleasure to use. That is what made them the fashion accessories they are today.

 

[Ironduke]

We should all pray for Sammy against Naked American Aggression

 

[GadgetDon]

Well, you don't have a problem when Apple copies from others, do you? Apple has done this on countless occasions and even ruined a couple of small companies along they way. Apple is not the mother of all invention and I cannot name one single thing that Apple did before anybody else - just like Microsoft, Apple always entered an existing market then took many of the already existing ideas, mixed them and put them in a nice design that usually resembled old Braun products designed by Dieter Rams.

No, the Apple I was not the first "personal computer". No, the Mac was not the first computer with a graphical user interface and a mouse. No, the iPod was not the first mp3 player and iTunes was not the first online shop for digital downloads. No, the iPhone was not the first smartphone with a touch interface and it also was not the first smartphone that received a voice-based assistant. No, the iPad was not the first tablet computer.

No, the Apple I was not the first personal computer, but the Apple II was among the first appliance computers. The Mac was not the first computer with a gui and a mouse, just the first with a gui that was both effective and easy to use. The iPod was not the first MP3 player, just the first one that you didn't have to be a computer freak to use. iTunes was not the first online shop for digitial downloads, it was the first with most of the current top hits from all the companies. The iPhone was not the first smartphone with a touch interface, it was the first one that was a touch interface good enough everyone wanted to use it. The iPad was not the first tablet computer, it was the first tablet computer with the design and OS that normal people said "I can use that".

Apple makes things usable. And yes, that is highly innovative, that is highly expensive to pull of.

Just like everybody else in this industry, Apple stands on the shoulders of giants. The only difference between Apple and the rest is that Apple PRETENDS to be the mother of invention and the company spends millions of marketing bucks on hammering this distorted reality-idea into the heads of its customers. And Apple is the biggest patent troll in the IT business, even bigger than Oracle or SCO, and that is saying a lot.

However, credit where credit is due: Apple creates products that look great, feel good and that most of the time are a pleasure to use. That is what made them the fashion accessories they are today.

Yes. The ability to create things that ordinary people can use and love is "fashion".

 

[sbrhwkp3]

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.

Is Sprite patented?

 

[Winni]

This really is a shame... it sounds like Samsung had many opportunities to do the right thing and license the IP. Microsoft did this recently, pretty simple thing. Wether you agree or not that pinch/zoom, for example, merits a patent, the fact is they have it, Samsung could have licensed it, but chose not to. So they took the risk, and now they pay.

Firstly, you only discuss licensing fees when you actually believe that the other side actually has a case and has a legal claim that could be successfully defended in court. But you won't pay patent royalties for something of which you believe you can invalidate the patent claim. That is what Samsung still tries - after all, they are going to appeal the verdict and seeing how many mistakes the jury made, I'd say that Apple should postpone their victory party.

Secondly, have you looked at the actual figures and conditions that Apple demanded? That was not an offer any business person on the planet could have taken seriously. I think even the Russian Mafia is more modest and realistic with its demands.

Most Android manufacturers pay patent royalties to Microsoft, mostly for the FAT-file system support that they need to make SD cards usable in their devices. There are more patents involved, but Microsoft only asks for five USD per device. That's reasonable, that's something a business can agree on.

What Apple asked for is unreasonable in my book, especially when most of their patents are trivial design patents anyway - and a lot of those patents and claims from Apple have already been invalidated by other courts in Europe and Asia. The fact that Apple won the first court instance is saying more about the American legal system than it is saying about the strength of Apple's patent and IP portfolio.

 

[entatlrg]

This.

But I find that description quite modest. I think its total effing horsehockey. They got a patent on something as obvious as 'pinch to zoom' ??? My dad, who is technologically inept and has never used a smartphone ever of any kind saw my HTC Glacier for the first time when I was showing him some pictures on the phone. When he wanted to zoom, on his own he pinched to zoom and I asked 'uh, how did you know to zoom like that?'

His response: Because... it just felt obvious.

And thats where Apple should never have gotten these ridiculous patents. None of them are anything special, all of those patents are obvious features. That bounce effect when scrolling down a page is just like a ball falling down and bouncing back up or a stack of papers falling down and bending as it lands.

I can't believe how obsessed apple fanboys are over this either though, its the most disgusting loyalty to a brand Ive ever witnessed and its largely in north america where branding is more important than quality because anything branded is assumed as quality here. But why would anyone want to protect and glorify a company that wants to limit competition, choice and innovation (save for its own) and rape the consumer with their artificially inflated prices? All to just show off their deep connection to a logo as if it gives them social status?

I'm absolutely disgusted by what Apple has become... it used to be the superior underdog but now its become everything theyve stood against starting from their ridiculously hypocritical 1984 commercial;

Image

Those that CAN - Design, invent and innovate and Patent their IP.

Those that CAN'T - Lie, cheat, steal and then claim the Patent System is all wrong.


It's easy to tell from peoples reaction to the verdict, even in the Press, which of the two camps people come from.

A) Those in support of hard working, forward thinking innovators and fair play in business.
or
B) Lazy, un-inventive types who believe it's okay to steal and thieve IP.


The B's are a cancer to innovation. Sad the UK Guardian condones that.

 

[zombierunner]

Apple, can I has 1% of that?

 

[pandamonia]

Samsung could have saved themselves $1 billion if they just removed the home button. All design patents are invalid then.

 

[entatlrg]

This.

But I find that description quite modest. I think its total effing horsehockey. They got a patent on something as obvious as 'pinch to zoom' ??? My dad, who is technologically inept and has never used a smartphone ever of any kind saw my HTC Glacier for the first time when I was showing him some pictures on the phone. When he wanted to zoom, on his own he pinched to zoom and I asked 'uh, how did you know to zoom like that?'

His response: Because... it just felt obvious.

And thats where Apple should never have gotten these ridiculous patents. None of them are anything special, all of those patents are obvious features. That bounce effect when scrolling down a page is just like a ball falling down and bouncing back up or a stack of papers falling down and bending as it lands.

I can't believe how obsessed apple fanboys are over this either though, its the most disgusting loyalty to a brand Ive ever witnessed and its largely in north america where branding is more important than quality because anything branded is assumed as quality here. But why would anyone want to protect and glorify a company that wants to limit competition, choice and innovation (save for its own) and rape the consumer with their artificially inflated prices? All to just show off their deep connection to a logo as if it gives them social status?

I'm absolutely disgusted by what Apple has become... it used to be the superior underdog but now its become everything theyve stood against starting from their ridiculously hypocritical 1984 commercial;

Image

Those that CAN - Design, invent and innovate and Patent their IP.

Those that CAN'T - Lie, cheat, steal and then claim the Patent System is all wrong.

It's easy to tell from peoples reaction to the verdict, even in the Press, which of the two camps people come from.

A) Those in support of hard working, forward thinking innovator types
or
B) Lazy, un-inventive types who believe it's okay to steal and thieve IP.

The B's are a cancer to innovation. Sad the UK Guardian condones that.

 

[pandamonia]

Those that CAN - Design, invent and innovate and Patent their IP.

Those that CAN'T - Lie, cheat, steal and then claim the Patent System is all wrong.


It's easy to tell from peoples reaction to the verdict, even in the Press, which of the two camps people come from.

A) Those in support of hard working, forward thinking innovators and fair play in business.
or
B) Lazy, un-inventive types who believe it's okay to steal and thieve IP.


The B's are a cancer to innovation. Sad the UK Guardian condones that.

Apple has stolen more iP than anyone else. Half of OSX was stolen from Xerox. Notifications in iOS was stolen from Palm

 

[725032]

I wonder how much money Apple threw at these jurors under the table

 

[LeandrodaFL]

Its amazin how smart post are on a Mac forum and how retarded are the posts on haters forum.

 

[entatlrg]

QUOTE=pandamonia;15529444]Apple has stolen more iP than anyone else.

Facts, Proof? Or just propoganda?

Half of OSX was stolen from Xerox.

Incorrect. You really need to check your facts. Apple entered into a Licensing Agreement with Xerox, they stole nothing. OSX improvements where built on top of Xerox's design. Hence no lawsuits.

Notifications in iOS was stolen from Palm

Hawkins did a notification center, I don't believe he was with "Palm" when he did it. Question is, did Apple violate IP designing or implementing Notifications into iOS. Answer: NO.

---


Nice try, but horribly weak on facts.

----------

Its amazin how smart post are on a Mac forum and how retarded are the posts on haters forum.

I wonder how much money Apple threw at these jurors under the table

Yes, that's for sure!!

 

[KPOM]

The Guardian (UK) put it like this:

"A US jury has rubberstamped Apple's exploitation of the patent system.", and "A home-town jury has given Apple the world, or at least the United States, in its campaign to control the smart phone and tablet markets.".

A sad day indeed ...

You lost me at "The Guardian..."

The Guardian is a far-left publication, even by UK standards. It doesn't surprise me that they take a dim view of intellectual property rights, at least until someone starts stealing theirs.

This.

But I find that description quite modest. I think its total effing horsehockey. They got a patent on something as obvious as 'pinch to zoom' ??? My dad, who is technologically inept and has never used a smartphone ever of any kind saw my HTC Glacier for the first time when I was showing him some pictures on the phone. When he wanted to zoom, on his own he pinched to zoom and I asked 'uh, how did you know to zoom like that?'

His response: Because... it just felt obvious.

And thats where Apple should never have gotten these ridiculous patents. None of them are anything special, all of those patents are obvious features. That bounce effect when scrolling down a page is just like a ball falling down and bouncing back up or a stack of papers falling down and bending as it lands.

Sure it felt obvious, now. Why didn't anyone implement it on a phone before? Heck, even the court in Korea thought that the bounce-back patent was valid.

You are correct, it is designed to protect all large American incumbents and the USA in general, and stifle smaller startups or overseas companies that cannot afford cross-licensing agreements or a massive defensive patent portfolio of their own.
...

So anyone trading with America needs to pay respect to (i.e. pay royalties or design around) any American company with the appropriate patent - even if the patent deserves no protection.

Uh, foreign companies hold lots of patents in the US. Actually, until recently, US law was even more accommodating of inventors since it was a "first invented," not "first to file" system like most of the rest of the world. We're switching to the latter next year. However, non-US companies still obtain lots of patents. Just ask all the European drug companies (e.g. GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis) who operate here.

I'm feeling mixed emotions.. While most of us

The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface.

If I recall correctly, the original Surface used cameras. The current PixelSense, which interestingly is made by Samsung (in partnership with Microsoft) uses touchscreen technology.

 

[jibern]

There is no patent available on recipes.

If you invent a unique cooking or processing method, you can patent that, but anyone is free to sell carbonated water, sugar and lemon-lime flavour in exactly the same proportions as their competitor.

Why the words "would've" were used, and not more definitive wordage

----------

Dammit, I'm talking about Sierra Mist!

Sierra mist that replaced Slice Nationally in 2003?
And slice that replaced teem In 1984?
Teem, which was pepsis lemon-lime drink, introduced in 1964?

 

[MVallee]

Apple is not the only company who holds patents. I'm pretty sure every company who makes some sort of product owns at least one patent. So many people seem to be attacking Apple based on them having patents. Apple didn't invent the patent system. If that is the current (possibly broken) system then I don't see anything wrong with them using it. Samsung is using it and same with every other tech company. If someone spends millions to develop something and they don't patent it because they think patents are "broken" then their innovation would be copied. I don't know why people think stealing an idea is ok.

 

[macsmurf]

QUOTE=pandamonia;15529444]Apple has stolen more iP than anyone else.

Facts, Proof? Or just propoganda?

Half of OSX was stolen from Xerox.

Incorrect. You really need to check your facts. Apple entered into a Licensing Agreement with Xerox, they stole nothing. OSX improvements where built on top of Xerox's design. Hence no lawsuits.

Erm, there actually WAS a lawsuit.

"Xerox sued Apple in December, seeking more than $150 million in damages. It asserted that the screen display of Apple's Macintosh computer unlawfully used copyrighted technology that Xerox had developed and incorporated in a computer called the Star, which was introduced in 1981, three years before the Macintosh."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html

 

[Gandir]

I still don't understand how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is stifling innovation...

Well simple Samsung have not copied anything that apple have done, they have copied the same companies and individuals that Apple have copied.

 

[apolloa]

I just think if it is true, the fact Google warned Samsung about the things it implemented says it all.
No Apple should not have been given the patents it was, but no knowing Apple held these, Samsung should not have copied some of the features.

I sadly don't think anything will change though?