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
Lol..... Trust me when you start working in a real law job, the law school students are the whiners. Just wait
The big boys can handle this oneDid you form this opinion before or after you read the license that Intel got?
----------
List of companies that the graph indicates are not suing anybody.
HTC
Sharp
Sony Ericsson
Samsung
Motorola
Hitachi
Toshiba
LG
That probably explains a lot of the anti-Apple sentiment, as well. If this were Ford or GM who won a $1 billion judgment against Hyundai for copying a car design, would we see the same level of vitriol? Would we have hordes of Hyundai Sonata buyers claiming hometown bias?
I had read elsewhere that Apple's argument was that they licensed the module, though not the specifics.
And from what I understand of people making consumer electronics (no direct experience but had contact with people who do), they rarely implement things like WiFi or cellular data themselves. They can get a module that handles the tricky technical stuff and let them deal with all the licenses on patents.
And patent owners usually like that too - they'd rather make a license to a few module makers then hundreds of phone makers or wifi router makers or whatever. They only have to sign contracts with a couple, they are usually big enough that they've got a lot to lose by trying to cheat.
The U.S. is so beloved by all, I assume American-based companies waltz into foreign courts on a daily basis without a care in the world. Or perhaps it's only U.S. juries that are unfair, while other countries refuse to submit to this alleged bias.
Myself, I wouldn't care to much ( not that it would happen, I don't hate any country, but Korean cars are lacking in quality massively )
The Anti Apple senimate to me, comes from people who actually think Apple cares about them, then people who aren't " pro apple " look and see how stupid it is.
Being loyal to a company is stupid. That is a fact, not an opinion.
The point is not that you are subject to the laws of other countries, the point is being subject to laws jointly agreed upon by elected governments and elected parliaments from several countries. In the same way as you are subject to laws jointly voted upon from senators and congressmen from your own state and from states not your own.
Why does the US have state laws and federal laws? And why are patent laws not different in every state? According to your logic, if the individual states in the US cannot have their own patent laws there is no point in distinguishing between states. Doesn't the federal government in the US has legal powers in particular to regulate interstate commerce and aren't those laws policed by federal courts? Shouldn't the same apply to inter-country commerce, ie, rules governing inter-country commerce, eg, regarding customs or import or export restrictions be policed by international bodies?
It's a post of the image I think DeathChill was referring to, which is a sampling of the situation in 2010, it's in no way complete. I don't know why you felt making a list from the graph was necessary.
NYT said:
Not sure what that has to do with my post.
The sole point of my reply was that it can make sense to first try to invalidate a patent, or failing that, to prove there was no infringement, before settling on any royalties.
For example, when Nokia sued Apple in Delaware in 2009 for refusing to negotiate to use their FRAND patents, Apple's countersuit claimed patent non-infringement and invalidity as their first two defenses.
Except the individual states are united by a set of shared beliefs and positions.
OK, inter-country commerce. We hold freedom of expression very highly, even allowing neo-nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods, holding up the swastika. If you want to sell a T-shirt with a swastika in the U.S., that's freedom of expression. In Europe, which suffered far more from the crimes of the Nazis, things are different. Whose views should be imposed, the American "freedom of expression is key" or the European "respect for those who have suffered" view.
On patents, the U.S. has been broader than other countries in what can be patented. Whose views should be imposed on the world?
And those are the easy questions, where there's more overlap than distance in these sort of beliefs. There are other countries whose views are far more divergent about what sort of things should be allowed. Do we impose our values on them (and will they take that) or do we impose their values on us (and will we take that).
Lol..... Trust me when you start working in a real law job, the law school students are the whiners. Just wait
Handle what?
I am so terribly sad... Underpants demonstration!
I was one of the first Apple users, one of the first iPhone users but somehow I would love to go in UNDERPANTS @ work to demonstrate against this incorrect and close-minded judgement.
Another billion Apple? Feeling happy? Feeling satisfied?
Well let's take away a nice slice for all the lawyers. Still feeling satisfied?
Think twice Apple. Clearly they copied. Everybody copy. And their products got even more advanced and far more open. But... Can you really hold there where you are with your overpriced products? Also the new iPhone wont keep you long @ top as you are way too expensive and way too reach.
Fabio from Switzerland.
I was one of the first Apple users, one of the first iPhone users but somehow I would love to go in UNDERPANTS @ work to demonstrate against this incorrect and close-minded judgement.
Another billion Apple? Feeling happy? Feeling satisfied?
Well let's take away a nice slice for all the lawyers. Still feeling satisfied?
Think twice Apple. Clearly they copied. Everybody copy. And their products got even more advanced and far more open. But... Can you really hold there where you are with your overpriced products? Also the new iPhone wont keep you long @ top as you are way too expensive and way too reach.
Fabio from Switzerland.
I understand the concept being described, I just believe it is unrealistic to believe that any of the biggest players are looking to cede their sovereignty on these matters, particularly when some have very different views of intellectual property policy and enforcement to begin with.
You mean they all have the same view on things like the death penalty or the individual mandate for health insurance? Do you really think the differences between individual states in the US are smaller than, eg, between the US and Canada?
Of course there are shared beliefs and positions within every country. But there are also shared beliefs between separate countries. And wherever that exists co-operation and joined rule creation can happen beneficially.
You know, there is this wonderful term called compromise. And just because we cannot agree on everything does not mean that cannot find areas where we can find a compromise that everybody can live with. If people would not be able to compromise, nobody would ever marry.
This is kind of how I've viewed the entire collection of suits between these technology companies, not just this one. The industry obviously can't answer or solve these issues amongst themselves so they are asking the courts to determine where the lines get drawn.
It will be a long, painful process but in the end the rules will be clearer going forward. No company wants to pay the royalties if they don't have to, so let the courts decide which patents matter and which don't. some will win, some will lose but I bet each company is eager to go through the process to finally get to the end.
There's also this wonderful term called national sovereignty, that the countries get to pick the standards that they choose.
Guess what, these things are happening, just very slowly because as you rightly say, it is hard. Custom unions between groups of states have been formed and are being formed and expanded worldwide. That requires agreement on tariffs and a lot of technical definitions. But in the end, commerce can happen within a custom union with much less paperwork.
----------
Well, and they are free to agree on a common set on standards as they already do on things like trade via sets of rules negotiated within the framework of the WTO and with disputes settled by international panels.
What the jury members thoughts are, or were, is meaningless.
Their job was to reach a verdict. They did so, and that's that.
Their job was to reach a verdict. They did so, and that's that.
And now almost all Windows Phones do NOT have a keyboard.
----------
Samsung didn't invent any of that stuff either.
But that's not what this trial is about.
This trial is about patents that Apple obtained... and the claims that Samsung infringed on them.
Having briefly used a Xerox Star, the differences between the Mac OS and what came from Xerox is worlds apart. And if you've read the history of the development of the Mac, it wasn't "OK, we saw what we need from Xerox, we're shipping next week".
And had Microsoft done the same, you'd have expected some differences. But instead, they clearly took from Apple, took the idea of a menu bar, took movable and overlapping windows, took drag-to-move, and even the same standard menus down to the same keyboard shortcuts.
I had a Nomad, if that's the one you're talking about. Drank batteries, and while you could put thousands of songs on it, good luck getting to the song you wanted.
Apple adds new features, new design elements to create something new that is highly useful.
Apple has never said "now that we have entered a market, nobody else can ship a product in it". The problem is when people say "OK, all that development work you did, Apple? We're gonna use that."
Thanks. I personally thought there were many points made that were either erroneous, or uninformed. That's just IMHO.
"...our out-of-control patent system" (emphasis mine). I thought the Guardian was a UK press, so how can it talk about Apple and UK patent law? The jurisdiction in this case is the USA.
like pull to refresh for mail?
apple has for long time stood on the sidelines and seen what features work and added them to their own software/hardware in one way or another.
It was an opinion piece written by Dan Gillmor, who is an American. (He's also known for being unfriendly to the concept of intellectual property.)