Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cuts too much into Samsung’s revenue they are scared

Samsung already paid Apple. It is already off their books. They just want the money back. I’m willing to assume that The money is sitting in an escrow account right now though.

http://bgr.com/2015/12/04/samsung-apple-patent-penalty-payment/
[doublepost=1528785164][/doublepost]
Apple's lawyers are idiots for letting Samsung keep appealing. Tim needs to hire better lawyers.

A lawyer can’t take away a company’s right to repeal from anyone.
 
Just sayin'

OdCPxTx.jpg
 
God, please make it stop. This farce has dragged on and wasted taxpayers money (court time) for far too long.

Demanding a retrial??? Pleeease. And the “no reasonable jury” line? A joke, both pathetic and embarrassing.

Samsung need to accept they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and cough up. Intellectual property theft is not a misdemeanour.

What I don’t understand in this baseline slugfest of litigation though, is why when ruling, the judge doesn’t stop any appeal in its tracks?

Either restrict Samsung’s ability to appeal or apply a warning (reinstating the original fine of $billions) if they make a new application looking to redress (appeal in all but name).

In civil law, normally you can only appeal if there’s been a demonstrable and serious error made by the judge in applying the law, or a fundamental finding of fact that can be shown to be false.

Otherwise the rest of us mere mortals without bottomless funds for legal counsel, have to just suck it up and get on with our lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stevez67
Samsung, you had a PDF document specifically made to show the design team how to copy the iPhone. How could anyone side with Samsung on this?
Well that's not really true is it. Firstly it's a slide show, not a PDF, and was intended to point-out how good the iPhone was/is and how Samsung should strive to succeed in the same areas. No-where does it say "let's do what they do".

You can make up your own mind as it's all here:
http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone/
 
Apple should give Samsung a choice. Pay up, or Apple stops buying components from them as soon as they find other sources. This wouldn't be too hard.
I would like to see that.
[doublepost=1528792164][/doublepost]
Apple has won this trial multiple times now. It's time to pay up and move on. When you have documents created showing how to copy the iPhone, there really isn't anything needed.

You want to say Apple's demands were reduced a cople of times.
 
Your 4 years of facial recognition could be fooled by a Polaroid of your face. Most pathetic attempt at security in the history of technology.

This failure, along with many others (TouchWiz is a complete joke), makes them the laughing stock of the world.

They should be banned from the US entirely.
How is it to live in the world of Apple can do no wrong?
 
Well that's not really true is it. Firstly it's a slide show, not a PDF, and was intended to point-out how good the iPhone was/is and how Samsung should strive to succeed in the same areas. No-where does it say "let's do what they do".

You can make up your own mind as it's all here:
http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone/

In real life, when you hand engineering a document that shows the difference between your product in their product it's a directive to copy their product.

In the original trial the PDF was shown.
[doublepost=1528793936][/doublepost]
Just sayin'

You might not know it, but Apple actually got a license to the PARC stuff at some point. Also Xerox decided not to sue because a Xerox subsidiary was Apple's insurer at the time, and Xerox would essentially be paying itself.

Nice try, though.
 
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.
I believe Apple applied for a Patent for curved glass displays in 2013. In November 2014, Samsung released the edge, which looked an awful lot like that design patent. It could be a coincidence...
 
I believe Apple applied for a Patent for curved glass displays in 2013. In November 2014, Samsung released the edge, which looked an awful lot like that design patent. It could be a coincidence...

Apple apply for hundreds of patents for so many differnet idea's and designs. Very few in the end make it to the final product. I have no doubt that they have designs for curved screens, bendable phones, dual screens and everything under the sun. The idea they decided to rescind from the curved edge because Samsung did it, is what was laughable.
 
What's the bloody point of courts if you can just constantly appeal the decision?!

It should be first court -> appeal -> final.
 
Careful. You’ll get muscle strain doing all that reaching!
Conversation between an iPhone X user and Samsung Galaxy S8 user

iPhone user: The new iPhone X is now out
Galaxy user: Oh ok what's new?

iPhone user: It's got facial recognition
Galaxy user: We've had that for four years. What else is new?

iPhone user: it's got wireless charging
Galaxy user: We've had that for the last two years. What else is new?

iPhone user: It's got water resistance
Galaxy user: We've had that for the last three years. What else is new?

iPhone user: It has the best display available
Galaxy user: The screen is supplied by Samsung....

iPhone user: What am I paying all this money for then?
Galaxy user: To fund Apple's drive to catch up with Samsung.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FFR
Precisely but there are so many on here that are so brainwashed to face the truth that Apple do copy other manufacturers products.

At the end of the day, everyone copies everyone (hell, look at the 1000s of Android phones with notches which magically appeared after the X)

I think Apple are right with this one though - this wasn't Samsung nicking a sneaky feature here and there - they blatantly copied the entire bloody phone!

Apple should ask for the amount to be adjusted for inflation after the initial judgement ;).
 
I believe Apple applied for a Patent for curved glass displays in 2013. In November 2014, Samsung released the edge, which looked an awful lot like that design patent. It could be a coincidence...


LoL are you comparing applying for a patent with the release of a fully functional phone with an Edge Screen?
If Samsung was able to apply that patent in less than a year and release a real phone it means they are incredible geniuses capable of anything.
 
LoL are you comparing applying for a patent with the release of a fully functional phone with an Edge Screen?
If Samsung was able to apply that patent in less than a year and release a real phone it means they are incredible geniuses capable of anything.

Well we know that isn’t true, but this
court case is proof they have endless buckets of money to throw at stuff.

If Samsung really wanted to get something out in a year they could. I mean, it’s not like they waste any time testing their phones.... *KABOOM*
 
Well we know that isn’t true, but this
court case is proof they have endless buckets of money to throw at stuff.

Of course they have money for this king of stuff, Samsung is one of the biggest conglomerates in the world. Simple logic.

If Samsung really wanted to get something out in a year they could. I mean, it’s not like they waste any time testing their phones.... *KABOOM*

Are you implying that the Galaxy Note Edge had battery problems or that the Edge Screen was defective?
How many of the phone models Samsung manufactures have or had the same general battery problems the Note 7 had?
 
In real life, when you hand engineering a document that shows the difference between your product in their product it's a directive to copy their product.

In the original trial the PDF was shown.
.
Your opinion, another would be it's an example of the edges to skirt around.

When submitting something as evidence changing the format would be considerd "tampering"; no lawyer would let that fly.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.