Sidebar Sidebar
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

I think the patent system is broken for a reason. If one of us here came up with something innovative in the tech industry, but Apple copied us and sold millions...leaving us with nothing....don't you think that you would be glad it protected you?

I think patents are made for smaller people than larger folk..actually. To long did we have a history of the richer, more powerful folk just copy and destroy lives.

The way I see it, a Lamborghini isn't the only way to make an Italian sports car.:cool:
 
HannKett said:
The compensation awarded for damages is pathetic and should be raised to more like $50-80B to send a message to the asian copyboys.

Additionally all Samsung consumer products should be banned in the WTO member countries for at least 60 years.

$1B is nothing for Samsung, they made much more than that stealing designs and ideas from innovative businesses (not only Apple).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EikcQs-Sxs0
Click to expand...

Considering that Samsung is by far their biggest competitor if Apple was able to completely remove them from the smartphone market it would really open the door for Apple. The smaller companies could never compete and Apple could finally charge what they want for a phone and people would just pay it. Imagine where profits would go at that point? They could make so much money I can't even imagine. Shareholders would love this!
 
tdream said:
Blah, blah, blah, yeah we get it.

Still doesn't change the fact that the court it took place in was not only in America, not only in California, not only in Silicon Valley and only 10 miles from Apple's Headquarters in Cupertino.

With a jury full of americans deciding the fate of multinationals. Now if you started like that from the outset. Some might say the deck is stacked...
Click to expand...

You know that Samsung was in on the jury selection process, right? They got to kick people out. You can't fly jurors in from other countries usually. I think you should probably check out Samsung's history of copying with devices like the Blackjack and the Fascinate before you get too upset that this trial had to happen somewhere (in the country of the company whose trade dress and patents were being infringed, no less).
 
linkgx1 said:
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

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

What evidence should they not have used?
 
Michael Scrip said:
I think the patent system needs reform.

That said... Apple followed the rules as they are written today and are defending the patents they obtained under this patent system.

Should Apple be allowed to patent a black rectangle? Maybe... maybe not.

But they were granted the patent... and it is certainly in their right to defend it.

Like I said earlier... ANY company could have obtained these patents... but Apple did instead.
Click to expand...

Didn't the jury rule against Apple in the case of the galaxy tab/iPad?
 
cmChimera said:
Yeah, which is why Apple is so angry about it lol.
Click to expand...

But is 1 billion really enough in that case? Even if Samsung makes the devices (future ones) look completely different, they still have a name these days (Galaxy) and are still guaranteed sales. Meh, it's complicated.
 
cmChimera said:
Yeah, which is why Apple is so angry about it lol.
Click to expand...

Quick question since your studying in this area. The software code is protected by copyright ? If so why do we need software patents, often there very broad and cover an idea.
If the code is covered by copyright and someone does something similar with different code then we have another way.
With software patents quite often this would be classed as infringing as the idea was the same ?
 
slattery69 said:
Quick question since your studying in this area. The software code is protected by copyright ? If so why do we need software patents, often there very broad and cover an idea.
If the code is covered by copyright and someone does something similar with different code then we have another way.
With software patents quite often this would be classed as infringing as the idea was the same ?
Click to expand...

Which begs another question. If Samsung found a different way to code "bounce back" and it bounced in a different way....would that still be infringement?
 
tdream said:
Blah, blah, blah, yeah we get it.

Still doesn't change the fact that the court it took place in was not only in America, not only in California, not only in Silicon Valley and only 10 miles from Apple's Headquarters in Cupertino.

With a jury full of americans deciding the fate of multinationals. Now if you started like that from the outset. Some might say the deck is stacked...
Click to expand...
Well, the jury trial was based on American patent law. It's not like they're going to hold it in Cameroon.

Where the other company is headquartered is irrelevant to the jury's decision. Note that the same court also covers legal action for a wide range of companies. It could be two locals such as Oracle (Redwood City) vs. Google (Mountain View).

If Samsung wants to sue Apple in South Korea, they are perfectly free to do so. The trial would be based on South Korean patent law.

If you ever took a civics class, you should know that jurisdiction matters. In a case like this, the plaintiff can decide where to file.

Many patent trolls actually file in East Texas, a court that is known to favor patent trolls.

Both sides are obligated to follow the rules of American litigation since they are judging whether or not American law was violated. It wouldn't be legal to have the trial in a different country.

Contrary to what you have said, you don't seem to have gotten it.
 
MisterK said:
You know that Samsung was in on the jury selection process, right? They got to kick people out. You can't fly jurors in from other countries usually. I think you should probably check out Samsung's history of copying with devices like the Blackjack and the Fascinate before you get too upset that this trial had to happen somewhere (in the country of the company whose trade dress and patents were being infringed, no less).
Click to expand...

Yes, they can veto around 20% of the jury. In this case the total number was 9, so they can veto 2. Doesn't change the fact that it's difficult to get a fair trial in a home game.
 
tdream said:
Blah, blah, blah, yeah we get it.

Still doesn't change the fact that the court it took place in was not only in America, not only in California, not only in Silicon Valley and only 10 miles from Apple's Headquarters in Cupertino.

With a jury full of americans deciding the fate of multinationals. Now if you started like that from the outset. Some might say the deck is stacked...
Click to expand...
You're just whining because you don't like the result, and don't mind if you smear the hardworking jurors who spend 8 hours a day for three weeks listening to all of the testimony.

Nokia certainly had no problem bringing a patent infringement suit against Apple in Calif.
 
Lets be honest here....I got the Samsung Vibrant because it was the closest thing to the iPhone I could get...and it was $50.:p
 
Rogifan said:
Didn't the jury rule against Apple in the case of the galaxy tab/iPad?
Click to expand...

Yes they did. I'm not sure Apple had a patent on the look of a tablet... just on a phone.

In regards to phones... the jury ruled that Samsung's phones looked a little too similar to Apple's phones.
 
cvaldes said:
Well, the jury trial was based on American patent law. It's not like they're going to hold it in Cameroon.

Where the other company is headquartered is irrelevant to the jury's decision. Note that the same court also covers legal action for a wide range of companies. It could be two locals such as Oracle (Redwood City) vs. Google (Mountain View).

If Samsung wants to sue Apple in South Korea, they are perfectly free to do so. The trial would be based on South Korean patent law.

If you ever took a civics class, you should know that jurisdiction matters. In a case like this, the plaintiff can decide where to file.

Many patent trolls actually file in East Texas, a court that is known to favor patent trolls.

Both sides are obligated to follow the rules of American litigation since they are judging whether or not American law was violated. It wouldn't be legal to have the trial in a different country.

Contrary to what you have said, you don't seem to have gotten it.
Click to expand...
That's great. It's still doesn't change what I said and nothing you say will.
 
tdream said:
Yes, they can veto around 20% of the jury. In this case the total number was 9, so they can veto 2. Doesn't change the fact that it's difficult to get a fair trial in a home game.
Click to expand...

What if it was a fair trial... but you just didn't like the outcome?

:D
 
alhedges said:
You're just whining because you don't like the result, and don't mind if you smear the hardworking jurors who spend 8 hours a day for three weeks listening to all of the testimony.

Nokia certainly had no problem bringing a patent infringement suit against Apple in Calif.
Click to expand...

Aww the poor jurors. 22 hours of deliberation, that must be tough. They had a job to do, and boy did they zip through it like a hot knife through butter.
 
linkgx1 said:
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

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


Except....
7up was available in 1929, sprite in 1961 and teem in 1964.
Coke gave 7up a 32 year head start before ripping them off, more than 15 years after the patent would've expired
 
zorinlynx said:
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.
Click to expand...

How could you read what these two jurors said and still believe that? The jurors clearly say that the copying was blatant and other smartphones are capable of having similar features without directly copying Apple's features. Copying != innovation.

N.B. It's not "monopolistic practices" if you don't have a monopoly (which Apple clearly doesn't have).
 
Michael Scrip said:
What if it was a fair trial... but you just didn't like the outcome?

:D
Click to expand...

It's can't be a fair trial for the reasons I've already stated. If the decision came about in a neutral venue, in a neutral court with an international neutral jury. Then I would gladly accept the decision.

You know America has history of getting it's own way regardless of what anyone else says. If they included some international outside objective counsel then I would consider it fair and balanced. But how things turned out it's all a bit too easy and comfortable for my taste.
 
The funny thing is it's not just Samsung's Mobile division that has problems playing by the rules. Their Appliance division (along with LG) has had tariffs placed against it by the U.S. Commerce Department for dumping clothes washers into the U.S. market. Dumping kills our U.S. manufacturing companies just like stealing designs can kill innovation. In the end it only adds to unemployment.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-30/us-imposes-duties-on-samsung-lg-washing-machines

It appears to me they will do whatever it takes to make a dollar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back