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.
Samsung Demands Another Retrial, Says 'No Reasonable Jury' Could Have Sided With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It looked like an iPhone. You can't purposely make something that looks like something else with the purpose of riding on their success and taking their sales. It's dishonest to the consumers, and it's a big slap in the face to the company who put forth all the effort in making the original device. That's why there's even such a thing as design patents.
So Samsung want to keep trying until they get a jury that sides with them. Idiots. You have lost this more than once so pay up losers.
Easy for you to say. Your design work wasn't blatantly copied. It's more about the precedence.
"Yes, they both are rectangular and have rounded corners, but similar devices had been seen for many years prior in science fiction movies that were rectangular and had rounded corners, which makes this something that can't be patented."
Sorry, fictional devices are, by definition, not real. Most science fiction works describe fictional technologies without going into the full details of how they work, insisting rather on what they enable. In order to be prior art, the devices would have to not only show that a particular effect is achieved, but explain how to achieve this effect in sufficient detail that a person skilled in the art could recreate the invention. This is very rarely the case. Tapping on a PADD doesn't tell you whether there are buttons or touchable icons. They're pieces of painted wood or plastic, not real communication devices. They tell you nothing of how it works.
Sorry, fictional devices are, by definition, not real. Most science fiction works describe fictional technologies without going into the full details of how they work, insisting rather on what they enable. In order to be prior art, the devices would have to not only show that a particular effect is achieved, but explain how to achieve this effect in sufficient detail that a person skilled in the art could recreate the invention. This is very rarely the case. Tapping on a PADD doesn't tell you whether there are buttons or touchable icons. They're pieces of painted wood or plastic, not real communication devices. They tell you nothing of how it works.
Cleary from Someone who has never created anything of value and thinks others work should be free to them. Now let’s see how often you work for free at your job with no compensation. Bosses love people who do that.
There's a difference between being inspired and outright ripping someone off.
Wanna know why Google's tablets flopped? Because Eric Schmidt was kicked off the Apple board while the iPad was being developed. No one to rip off.
Funny enough, Microsoft's Windows Mobile was at least original and not a rip off.
How much did Apple and Samsung spend in total so far in attorneys and legal fees for this battle?
I don’t agree it’s ridiculous when two consecutive juries rule for the same company two times in a row. It shows Apple had a strong case from day 1 and that they had a point to begin with.
Samsung can fight a third time if they want. And they’ll lose again. And the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth time....etc, etc, etc....
Now how much do you think that would hurt Apple relative to the $500M owed?
I'm glad you people don't run this business. I'd sell my shares immediately.
[doublepost=1528758014][/doublepost]
Logic also shows Apple has a strong case.
In the end, it's only the fanboys who try and make this all personal. It's all a dance. Companies steal from each other as much as they can get away with. They deny it and seek to avoid punishment if they're caught, and at the end of the day they still do business with each other when it's mutually beneficial.
Care to evidence Apple’s supposed interested in doing an edged screen, only to then no longer want to do it because they was afraid of being called copycats?
This is tinfoil hat territory. Apple would never base a decision based on being called copycats. Maybe they should have not included wireless charging too since Samsung did it before them?
[doublepost=1528758946][/doublepost]
Think they’d happily pay lawyers before Apple.
The key part of your post is "copied in some way". That's not the same as infringing, or indeed "ripping off". Doug Engelbart at Stanford actually invented the "mouse" in the early 1960s.Xerox PARC took the concept and replaced the rollers with a ball. Apple just took it much farther (assuming that one button is considered an advancement. Based on sales, it was), and at a fraction of the price. They didn't have to steal it.
By the way, in 1979, the director of Xerox PARC, Steve Hoover, gave Jobs and Apple engineers the famous facility access (twice) in exchange for their pre-IPO investment in Apple. Nothing was ripped off, but the fact that Xerox had a working mouse and graphical interface were used as a basis for expanding the Apple engineering perspective beyond the then current limitations in their thinking. The Apple Lisa had already started in 1978 with its own version of a graphical interface, but it was not up to what they were shown.
Xerox, much later, tried to sue Apple over those ideas, but 5 of the 6 claims were tossed by the judge and Xerox ended up not getting anything.
Samsung's argument appears to be that it hinders creativity when you can't copy the work of others for free.Samsung said:
it sounds like they are trying to argue that they didn't exactly copy the iPhone after all so the cost should be less. cause different home button etc
[doublepost=1528759364][/doublepost]
i was waiting for that urban legend to pop up. Jobs didn't really 'rip off' Xerox. they had an idea that they undervalued when Jobs wanted to buy it so he got it for peanuts. not his fault that it turned out to be THE idea of the decade.
I would agree with you wholly if not for that damning piece of evidence that is the internal document created solely on how to make their product look like the iPhone. Trust me, I believe this case has dragged on much further than it has to, but Apple became successful in the mobile arena by changing the game - other companies shouldn’t just be allowed to copy that formula and create internal documents and not have some kind of punishment.
And what do you base this statement on? The iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus use LCD supplied from other companies and neither is sitting on shelves indefinitely. But I guess good leadership allows everyone to steal from you without any form of real retribution. Am I right? Or is it that you would rather spend millions of dollars on further legal battles to where even if they were to garner the money due them it just goes in the pockets of lawyers?
I will entertain the idea that another option they have is to simply pour more money in R&D for creating their own displays (as has been rumored) and just cut them out for good. Apple's business means more to Samsung than this piddly $500 million or what damage pulling out would mean to Apple.
Xiaomi is actually more blatant about copying Apple than Samsung ever was, and that's saying something. I wonder when Apple will notice.
[doublepost=1528761059][/doublepost]
Patent trolls sue a lot of companies, not just Apple. I haven't followed Samsung much, but I'm sure Samsung has been sued by their fair share of patent trolls as well. Not everyone suing Apple is a patent troll, but seeing as that's what patent trolls do, you can expect it to be more common.