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 Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know why it would "reduce consumer prices." Prices aren't set based on a company's wealth or cash reserves, they're based on what the market will bear.
They started talking about the evidence, reviewing bits and realized they were agreed on the general concept.
You've never been on a jury, have you? There's no requirement to sit down and together say "OK, first witness said this". The first thing usually done is a preliminary vote on "where does everyone stand on the issues" to know where there is disagreement and thus deliberation is to occur, and where there is common agreement.
Again, remember, every one of them sat through the same trial. Every one of them saw all the evidence. There was no need to review the evidence to bring some up to date about what they missed.
Dude, not by any stretch does Apple have a monopoly here in the U.S. or Worldwide, and in the U.S. a monopoly isn't illegal, unless that power is abused.
What part of Apple creating the iPhone is not innovation in a competetive market, and why shouldn't Apple be able to defend its IP against infringement?
You are aware that they heard the evidence as it was presented to them in the first place? Over hours and hours and days and days of painstakingly detailed testimony?
Yes, it is possible for a juror to make a determination after hearing the evidence presented at trial and without a lot of "review," if any. But as noted, this jury deliberated for three days.
If you want "international patent law" (whatever that means!) to apply inside the US of A, you'd still have to repeal the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution. As I said to our friend from across the pond, "Good luck with that."
...but no such "monopoly" exists.
We might also want to also consider what a lack of patent or trademark or copyright protection could bear. Why spend thousands or millions or billions of dollars designing a product, formulating a medication, or writing a novel, when a competitor can turn around and start selling a knockoff the next day at a fraction of the price? Talk about stifling innovation!
I am Italian, lived in many places of europe, so I am not biased by nationalism. Not only that, but I would never go to the states, not even for an holyday, until they have laws like death penalty and free guns, because to me this make them look civils, democratics and contemporary like Iran or China or North Korea (other places I would never visit for a matter of principles).
That said, you are totally wrong. Each country has its laws and the right to have them observed by the ones who live on their national soil. It's called democracy. Democracy is not "I don't think americans are impartials so I think their trials should be judged by foreign judges". This is you raving. There is no "this is a global matte" argument here, because what he jury has deliberated it's only valid in the usa.
well look at iOS. It took them how many years to add notificaiton bar to iOS and they copied the entire design from Android. Hell most of the stuff added in iOS 5 is pretty blanted copies of another OS.
Hell I believe Android becoming a real threat to Apple forced them to do some much needed long over due improvements to iOS. Hell they are finally added voice Navigation. Something long over due.
look at the stuff they are adding. iOS for the most part is several years behind everyone else. Yeah when iOS first came out it was way ahead of the pack but they did not keep moving forward and adjusting. Everyone else improved and then starting passing iOS.
I heard on last night's CBS News coverage of the patent verdict that three Android phones are sold (or are given away) for every iPhone that's sold (or is given away). If true, there's no way Apple has anything approaching a "monopoly".
You said advocate. I'm in the Apple community, do you think of me as an Apple advocate ? I'm also part of the FOSS community by my various contributions, yet I don't "advocate" their party line.
*sigh*. Black or white, black or white, black or white. As always in the Apple discussion forums.
And again, what part of "the information is neutral" don't you get ?
Keep spreading the FUD.----------
What does "Internation patent law" have to do with Amendement 8 and what does that even have to do with "ceding rights" as you say Europeens do when joining a Union of independant States (remind you of some other nation you speak so proudly of ?) ?
Wow, are you really believing anything you say here or are you just trying to stir the pot with your bashing of anything non-American ?
Disgusting posts...
http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/03/ap...d-together-a-better-ios-notifications-system/
We don't know what Apple has been working on that hasn't been implemented within iOS, but we do know that if Apple is infringing the items you speak of, no person or Corporation has made any noise about it, most likely as it isn't protected by IP.
Contrast that with Apple's patents and trade dress.
Microfost stagnated because its core business it is always been the corporate market where compatibility is paramount. They kept intact (and are still keeping) problematic parts of their os because changing them would have meant losing the majority of their customers. Corporates buys thousands of licenses, buy thousands of machines, develop custom programs for the os they choice, and all of that has to work for decades.
You can have large market share with costant innovation. Look at iPod, or Intel Core CPUs. Both Apple and Intel came costantly with new products year after year despite a very large market share. Technology is a market where innovation has to be costant or you costantly risk to be beaten by a competitor. Having a little advantage wouldn't make any CEO comfortable to rest on its laurels.
It's coming
All of this is ridiculous. Apple though is bringing it on themselves. They woke the sleeping beast.
I'm equally disgusted by the "non-American"s' (your words) insistence on meddling in the US legal system, and especially with their view that an "international panel of judges" should decide US legal issues.
Disgusting is right.
New products is not exactly akin to innovation though. And iPods and Intel CPUs are not quite the best examples to show non-stagnant product lines.
Good lord, some of you talk as if patent disputes were unheard of before Apple filed a lawsuit.
They weren't unheard of, but they weren't as widespread and weren't as hurtful to the consumer through ridiculous patent licensing fees being proposed (40$ per device ? yeah, that's going to help keep costs down...) or through product injunctions limiting choice.
Apple has brought more litigation to the phone arena that we've ever seen in the last couple of years.
Of course they are! People had other, portable ways of listening to music prior to the invention of the iPod. It was certainly an "innovation."
...
I have just one question :-
How else can you implement "bounce back" ?
What Apple must of REALLY been saying was you cannot use bounce back.....
That kinda says it all.
Apple is the leader in bring stuff to the market, then everyone follows, then Apple turns round to other companies and say "oh,... and by the way, you can't do the same stuff we do"
Why the heck not ?? Its a phone....
The only thing stopping this is patents... which, i'm not saying its bad to have, but it goes too far as to "you can patent anything including this "tap to zoom" or "bounce back"..
Real patents should be better for going after like a complete copy cat of a phone, not the technology it uses to do something.. These so-calles "technology based patents" is just a waste of money.
I have just one question :-
How else can you implement "bounce back" ?
What Apple must of REALLY been saying was you cannot use bounce back.....
That kinda says it all.
Apple is the leader in bring stuff to the market, then everyone follows, then Apple turns round to other companies and say "oh,... and by the way, you can't do the same stuff we do"
Why the heck not ?? Its a phone....
The only thing stopping this is patents... which, i'm not saying its bad to have, but it goes too far as to "you can patent anything including this "tap to zoom" or "bounce back"..
Real patents should be better for going after like a complete copy cat of a phone, not the technology it uses to do something.. These so-calles "technology based patents" is just a waste of money.
You said advocate. I'm in the Apple community, do you think of me as an Apple advocate ? I'm also part of the FOSS community by my various contributions, yet I don't "advocate" their party line.
*sigh*. Black or white, black or white, black or white. As always in the Apple discussion forums.
And again, what part of "the information is neutral" don't you get ?
----------
What does "Internation patent law" have to do with Amendement 8 and what does that even have to do with "ceding rights" as you say Europeens do when joining a Union of independant States (remind you of some other nation you speak so proudly of ?) ?
Wow, are you really believing anything you say here or are you just trying to stir the pot with your bashing of anything non-American ?
Disgusting posts...
So if I go to fosspatents and use the scribd link to download the same documents I'm neutral as the documents are neutral?
Kudos to the jury on their collective decision in the award. The key notion here is the supply constraints. Apple, for their brilliant innovation, cannot and will not be able to supply the whole world. There will always be inspiration to copy the look and feel of Apple GUI. We saw that in 90's in Apple vs. MS on Windows in which MS prevailed.
What's been deliberated in the U.S.A. will be valid in the U.S.A. only. Others identical trials beetween Apple and Samsung are going on in many other nations (Korea, Germany, Netherlands and so on) . The results of these trials will be valid in the respective nations. Because each nations has it own laws. This is how the world works.
If you want to change world, an honorable proposition ,I would suggest to pick out a better objective than some stupid fight beetween multinational corporates.
Would you like americans to demand their right to come to Canada with guns? What would you think on some fanatic zealot telling you can't have the right of euthanasia because God doesn't want it? Or some american "republican" keep telling your trials are not fair because you didn't have death penalty?
You wouldn't like it.