Google should bring Apple to court over that.
That is... if Google has a patent on the notifications bar.
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
Google should bring Apple to court over that.
That is... if Google has a patent on the notifications bar.
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.
They tried that once when Microsoft stole their idea and the idea of a consumer, personal computer. They saw their business diminish to single digit marketshare. So you see how well "playing nice with others" worked for them.
They need to stand up against those who steal their ideas this time, especially now that software patents are commonplace. I applaud them doing this and insuring that innovation is rewarded.
This will force Samesung to innovate, now that they learned that they can't copy and get away with it.
This is actually a win for customers.
New, original ideas will flow from this loss for Samsung. Their product lines will change.
It's inevitable.
"National IP court?" No offense, but you don't get a say in our legal system. We won that in our War of Independence with England. Patent and copyright law is embedded in our Constitution, as is the right to a jury trial.
If you still don't think these jurors were competent to decide the facts of the case, go back and read the CNET article.
Last edited:
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.
It's clear that Samsung looked at the phones they were selling, said "damn, we are screwed, we need to step our game up and make something a lot more compelling like the iPhone". And based on Google's warning to Samsung, what Samsung came up with from that project looked a whole lot like the iPhone.
But whether they broke the law in doing so is something that is still a matter of debate (jury said they did, juries are wrong sometimes) and whether they did something immoral in doing so is even more in debate.
Me - I think they went overboard, did copy too closely to be legal. I think some of those legal violates are also moral violations, but I have disagreements with others.
And the best solution of this would be an agreement, first with Samsung and then with others, of "these aspects are Apple's territory (like the bounce back), these need to be licensed for a reasonable fee (like the multitouch zoom and rotate patents), and just generally respect each others design and don't go too close"
I'm not a European but that's the stupidest comment I've seen all day.. America can't decide what's best for the whole world, people have different values, & beliefs.. We certainly don't have to agree with them, but people should have the right to choose what they feel works for them..
There is no halo. Its self evident. Murder is wrong. I don't need to know what others think. Stealing is wrong. Lying is wrong. Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone. If you can't clearly see that then nothing anyone says will help you to see it. If every court sided with Apple you would still not believe it. If Samsung came out and said "guys, lmfao, we copied the **** out of it, we had to, we had nothing and had to catch up" You would still probably not believe it, but have to admit it out loud to your friends.
...which may have something to do with the major differences in copyright, trademark and patent law between those countries and the USA. For one thing, EU law doesn't allow 'pure' software patents (there are some work-arounds involving "computer-implemented inventions").
1. I hope Samsung has learned it's lesson. Don't copy. Innovate.
2. This is a huge win for Samsung customers. It will force them to innovate new products, new ideas, and new ways of solving problems. It's much harder, more expensive, and time consuming the but the results can't be beat.
3. Don't blame Apple for what happened to Samsung. It's like getting mad at kid who told the teacher that someone copied his/her homework.
2. This is a huge win for Samsung customers. It will force them to innovate new products, new ideas, and new ways of solving problems. It's much harder, more expensive, and time consuming the but the results can't be beat.
3. Don't blame Apple for what happened to Samsung. It's like getting mad at kid who told the teacher that someone copied his/her homework.
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.
What makes it clear to me is what Samsung had produced prior to the iPhone, then what they produced after it came out. Like the juror said, pretty damning stuff. I mean come on, they had memos saying what features they should copy. How do you not see this as infringement?
I'm not saying they deserved a billion. I'm not saying what they deserved. Not talking about morals, or ethics to much either. Just saying they copied the **** out of it. Clearly.
Did I imply otherwise? I don't think the comment is dumb either
. If thats the stupidest post you have seen all day, then grats! Your lucky today .I think every country has the right to operate the way it's citizens want. I am just saying that i personally value the individual more than most do these days. Mark my words. The idea that the "individual" has to be sacrificed for the sake of the "community" is going to go way to far. This will end up ruining the "community" that the individuals are giving up everything for!
There are a ton of good sized companies(Nokia, HTC, Sony, LG, etc) that could collectively easily fill the void even if Samsung was completely gone from the phone market. One thing that differentiates the mobile phone market from others is the amount of control exercised by the carriers. They'll find other platform and heavily promote other makers to fight off Apple's influence.
Besides, all Samsung need to do is simply use the same hardware and adopt Windows Phone. If both carriers and all big players push Windows Phone, eventually it'll be successful and it's licensed with Apple. The latest Galaxy S3 is already sufficiently different from the iPhone design. Just put Windows Phone 8 there. In fact that might even be better for consumers in many ways, which shows Samsung's statement is largely bogus.
Would that some of the Fandroids posting here had just a bit of the common sense shown by these jurors.
BS....... Apple tried to get Samsung to license their patents instead of stealing them, but they refused. Samsung got what they deserved.
Despite what the Android fans will say, forcing Samsung and others to stop copying will lead to more creativity and innovation, not less. This is good for the consumer in the long run, whether you believe it or not.
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.
You still haven't explained how emails and documents presented as evidence in trial are not actually evidence.
this is known as grasping at straws: "wow the jury is dumb, they used evidence presented at trial in making their decision!" Your suggestion is baffling.
What makes this more special than any other jury trial? I'm sorry but if jury trials are good enough to decide murder cases where someone can be sentenced to life in prison or worse get the death penalty then they're good enough to decide intellectual-property cases.
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.
Well the difference is if coca-cola had a patent on a clear (what the user sees), lemon-lime (how the item interacts with the user), carbonated drink (the category the said item is in), which in most instances are distributed in a can (how the user identifies the said product, I would think yes, you wouldn't be drinking much sierra mist. But coke obviously doesn't have a patent on that or it has expired and so you are free to choose from a plethora of copies and even with that I would be far from surprised if coke even was the first itself.
Anyway, sent from my iPhone
Could you please clarify what you mean by "Due to the lack of congressional foresight, current patent law has no actionable provision for 'finders keepers, losers weepers' or 'share your toys with the other kids in the sandbox.'"?
That wasn't a serious offer for licensing, it would've been impossible to make any money if they agreed to that. Maybe it was an opening gambit, expecting Samsung to come back with "well, how about..." but if your opening gambit is too high, hard to claim you wanted a deal.
As I've said elsewhere, I am hoping for some sort of deal coming out of this. Samsung is highly motivated to strike a deal, particularly since Judge Koh already granted an injunction on a phone before the trial started so she's probably going to grant a bunch now there's a jury verdict. If Tim Cook is smart, he'll grab the opportunity and make a deal that gives Apple some unique space but also comes off as a fair competitor.
