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)
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
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)
I encourage you to work on having the existing laws that you don't like changed.
Please report back when you've completed your work. We'd love to review it.
Thank you very much and good luck!
Were all those cases exactly the same as this one?
I thought the Holland case was about 3G implementation.
Funny how people compare Coca-Cola and Pepsi the wrong way. I mean I don't see Pepsi logo or colors similar to those of Cocacola (Trade Dress), and regarding the taste they both taste differently so not only the formula is different but also the perceiving flavor, even the Pepsi bottle is less curvy.
I'm all for Apple protecting it's IP, but I'm still not sure how I feel about how this was taken out.
I can tell a bigger difference when I use Apple vs Samsung products than when I taste Pepsi and Coke.
I can tell a bigger difference when I use Apple vs Samsung products than when I taste Pepsi and Coke.
I encourage you to work on having the existing laws that you don't like changed.
Please report back when you've completed your work. We'd love to review it.
Thank you very much and good luck!
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what with all those smilies
The answer would be maybe
but you're starting one step in.Here's the problem that bounce back addresses - You click in a box and move your finger to scroll up, down, and sometimes sideways. What happens if, say, you are at the top and try to scroll up?
The "obvious" answer is, don't scroll, but in Apple's testing, people sometimes thought the scrolling was "broken because it wouldn't scroll. You don't have scrollbars to show "hey, I'm at the top".
The next "obvious" answer is, let them keep scrolling into blank space. User testing showed people would sometimes scroll beyond showing any text and the box would look blank.
So here's what my non-infringing solution would be. Have an extra "border" around the scrollable area, so if you over scroll, you see this marker. Maybe yellow and black stripes, a fairly common "caution" sign, to show you don't go beyond it. You can't scroll past the caution border.
I think you could go one step further and, if the caution border is show and there has been no touch for 2 seconds, slide the scrollable area to hide the caution border. I'd want someone who has fully read the bounce-back patent to see if this hiding after two seconds would be in violation, but it feels different, and it's visibly very different.
(I am releasing this concept into the public domain and will have no claim on any device that implements it but I'll never turn down free hardware
)Pinch to zoom would be harder to come up with an alternative and I strongly recommend Apple license it and the "double tap to center and zoom" patents for a reasonable fee, there is a value to a standard "language" of gestures across devices.
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.
I was checking in here to see if I might be able to find some intelligent conversation on the subject.
An inauspicious beginning, to be sure.
Yes, software code is copyrightable. See 17 USC § 101 and 17 USC § 117 and also, but not limited to: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 725 F.2d 1240, 1246-49 (3rd Cir. 1983); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1246-49 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. dismissed, 104S. Ct. 690 (1984); Williams Elecs., Inc. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 876-77 (3rd Cir. 1982); Midway Mfg. Co. v. Strohon, 563 F. Supp. 741, 750-52 (N.D. Ill. 1983). (Granted, it is also worth noting that it originally was not copyrightable (Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp, 545 F. Supp. 812, 817-22, 824-25 (E.D. Pa. 1982), rev'd, 714 F.2d 1240, 1246-49 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. dismissed, 104S. Ct. 690 (1984); Data Cash Systems v. JS&A Group, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 1063, 1067-68 (N.D. Ill. 1979), aff'd on other grounds, 628 F.2d 1038 (7th Cir. 1980))).
As for your second question, copyright only protects the particular program realization, not the idea itself. As a result, if I came up with a novel solution to a problem, e.g., the SIFT (Scale-Invariant Feature Transform) descriptor for object recognition in imagery, and did not patent the idea, yet made the code available, you would be free to manipulate and use that code according to fair use laws and associated legal precedence. In fact, provided you recoded the algorithm, e.g., in another language or by rewriting a sufficient portion of the software, you would be able to package and sell that implementation and I would not have a claim to any royalty/licensing monies.
On the other hand, software patents protect the underlying idea, as you mentioned, which, in my example above, would be the use of specific processes and transforms in order to recognize objects in imagery. Consequently, if I invented and patented SIFT, an individual or company would be required to license the associated patent(s) from me if they wanted to incorporate that technology into a product that they sold without running afoul of pertinent laws.
In any event, although software patents are often overreaching, there are plenty that do serve, like regular and design patents, to protect critical and non-trivial ideas.
And more importantly - this jury got the 3G patent decision right.
Apple didn't wire a bunch of transistors together for the 3G wireless radio (or more accurately design a chip to handle the wireless and have it built to its specifications), they bought a chip from Intel that implemented the 3G stuff. Intel licensed the relevant patents from Samsung and others, and baked the patent license fees into the price it charged Apple. This is in fact the way a lot of companies making things with wireless like hotspots, tablets, phones, etc. implement the WiFi and cellular functionality. Normally it's better for Samsung and the other patent holders, they just have to deal with Intel instead of a bunch of separate small guys making widgets.
But in Samsung's case, they tried to double-dip, have Apple pay for 3G even though the patent implementations were in the chip that was already licensed. And they demanded a pretty outrageous payment for the double-dip licensing, big money plus use of all of Apple's patents.
No not the same because you can only sue for patent infringement in the country where you have the patent. I don't know if Apple has the same patents in all these countries, but I think the aim was the same on Apples' part. To inflict damage on Samsung and get their products taken off the shelves in those countries. In the case of the UK the judge ruled that Samsung had not copied Apples' design and instructed Apple to make a public apology. That case is pending an appeal just like this case in the US will almost certainly go to an appeal and possibly all the way up to the supreme court.
Guys and gals of all levels of intellect... Samsung copied the iphone. This is a fact. If you think they should be able to shamelessly copy it then say that. Say "So what, they should be allowed to copy whatever they want with no repercussion!". But if you are saying or implying that they didn't copy the iphone, you are lying, irrational, or insane. Period. Doesn't matter what this court decided. If they decided for Samsung, what I said is still fact. It just would have meant the jury lied, was irrational, or was insane. Ie North Koreas court.
I sense a lot of anti-USA bias on this thread, mostly from the Europeans.
Did you even read the articles? The jurors were clearly competent in working through the facts of the case.
Did you even read the articles? The jurors were clearly competent in working through the facts of the case.
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.
PS I wonder if the decision had gone the other way you would be shouting out what a bunch of idiots the jury was, I rather think so.
Apple made offers that specifically were meant to be rejected by samsung. They wanted 40 dollars per phone on all samsung phones. That is a ridiculously high fee for the patents in question. A more realistic fee would have been well under a dollar. Also I don't know how double tap to zoom differs from the double click to zoom that google maps had for years before the iphone came out. Not to mention android reflows text on double tap to zoom which is different than apples way. Also the patents in question hardly warrant 1 billion dollars in damage.
I'm starting to loathe this kind of forums where people have arguments for spite.
Obviously, there's been a lot of thought put into the judgement, and the people of the jury acted honestly and wholeheartedly. The people have spoken and I don't understand the whole debate that arises afterwards.
Obviously, the jury sat thru the whole damn thing, have gotten all the evidences presented to them, BUT you bunch of buffoons still find something to argue about!
What is wrong with you?
If the judgement had been pointing the other direction, I wouldn't have given it a second thought either! Case closed!
Obviously, there's been a lot of thought put into the judgement, and the people of the jury acted honestly and wholeheartedly. The people have spoken and I don't understand the whole debate that arises afterwards.
Obviously, the jury sat thru the whole damn thing, have gotten all the evidences presented to them, BUT you bunch of buffoons still find something to argue about!
What is wrong with you?
If the judgement had been pointing the other direction, I wouldn't have given it a second thought either! Case closed!
Guys and gals of all levels of intellect... Samsung copied the iphone. This is a fact. If you think they should be able to shamelessly copy it then say that. Say "So what, they should be allowed to copy whatever they want with no repercussion!". But if you are saying or implying that they didn't copy the iphone, you are lying, irrational, or insane. Period. Doesn't matter what this court decided. If they decided for Samsung, what I said is still fact. It just would have meant the jury lied, was irrational, or was insane. Ie North Koreas court.
Unless I'm wrong, but didn't Apple copy the notifications bar that's on iOS5? It looks a lot like the Android notification bar.. So doesn't Apple have to suffer some repercussions as well??
No doubt. The Europeans are socialists. They mostly believe everything should belong to the government to be handed out to the "community" to make sure everything is equal. You can't be surprised they are against the idea of profit and protecting "individual" companies property. Profits and the word "individual" are considered profane over there, and becoming that way here too. Mores the pity.
Guys and gals of all levels of intellect... Samsung copied the iphone. This is a fact. If you think they should be able to shamelessly copy it then say that. Say "So what, they should be allowed to copy whatever they want with no repercussion!". But if you are saying or implying that they didn't copy the iphone, you are lying, irrational, or insane. Period. Doesn't matter what this court decided. If they decided for Samsung, what I said is still fact. It just would have meant the jury lied, was irrational, or was insane. Ie North Koreas court.
Who made you God? Who decided that only you have all the answers? Who decided that you have all the answers and nobody else's opinion matters. Were all idiots if we disagree with you. It must be difficult walking around with that halo on all day.
Typical arrogant American. And you wonder why so many people around the world hate you.
Microsoft was not a monopoly either until the governments
(Europe first, then the U.S.) deemed them too controlling and powerful (and RICH). Now Apple is going to be viewed in the same light.
I'm not saying that Apple has not copied anything from Android. If they did, and it was patented by Android or whomever, then I think Apple should be held to the same standards. I'm just saying if you look at the iphone, and then the Samsungs offerings that came out after the Iphone was released, you can not sanely think that they did not shamelessly copy the Iphone in an effort to catch up to it. I would not feel bad for a sec if Apple was found guilty of patent violations and fined or whatever. If they violated the law, then they can pay the price.