Samsung to Appeal $119M Patent Verdict as Foreman Says Apple Should Target Google Instead

[Renzatic]

So, if someone disagrees with you, they are automatically a "hanger-on". Thanks so much for your contribution.

Ooh, the rolleyes emotes. THINGS JUST GOT REAL!

Where did I say that? Hell, where did I even imply that? What I'm saying is that people who don't have an emotional investment in the case don't see it as being all that important. The patents are vague, little things that can't even rightly be considered inventions or even improvements, and are hardly worth the price demanded in the trial. It's a lot of hulabaloo over nothing much at all, and it's only here that we're acting like it's a life or death situation.

----------

LOL, seriously. The jury found Apple's infringement was worth $158K. Apparently you missed the significance of that.

Ooh, there's that rolleyes again! OH THE DISDAIN AT THE IGNORANT!

Apple got 5% of their asking price, Samsung got 3%. The biggest message of this whole trial was basically "both of you, shut up".

 

[Gasu E.]

Ooh, the rolleyes emotes. THINGS JUST GOT REAL!

Where did I say that? Hell, where did I even imply that? What I'm saying is that people who don't have an emotional investment in the case don't see it as being all that important. The patents are vague, little things that can't even rightly be considered inventions or even improvements, and are hardly worth the price demanded in the trial. It's a lot of hulabaloo over nothing much at all, and it's only here that we're acting like it's a life or death situation.

----------



Ooh, there's that rolleyes again! OH THE DISDAIN AT THE IGNORANT!

Apple got 5% of their asking price, Samsung got 3%. The biggest message of this whole trial was basically "both of you, shut up".

Gosh, you are one sensitive fellow. Here. I'll look you in the eyes this time.

 

[Renzatic]

Gosh, you are one sensitive fellow. Here. I'll look you in the eyes this time.

The rolleyes emote makes me mad.

 

[Gasu E.]

The rolleyes emote makes me mad.

SOR-RY. Here. I'll keep my eyes covered now.

 

[macs4nw]

It kind of confirms the articles floating around re Samsungs business practices.

Steal an idea. Delay. Delay. Delay. Delay. Countersue. Delay. Delay. Delay.

You forgot: and meanwhile rake in the profits, and build up your market share to the point of just about running every other competitor 'out of town'; $119.6 million well spent, right?

Is anyone else offended by these tactics?

 

[apolloa]

Because in the case of this suit Samsung had infringed on apples patents. Not googles version of android. Apple has no case against google. They did against Samsung. Also because Samsung refused to license the patents as others have.

Wait a second.... Samsung has just been convicted. For the second time. So what do you suggest is bogus about Apple's claims?

Hard to sue a company that can claim no profit to the sell of product i.e. cell phone. The nexus is a flop b/c they don't make that much of them. Samsung, any way you want to cut it, is a piece of S&%$ company aggressively stems any real creative productivity in the market. It's only my opinion that we are doomed for another 90's era flatbed of churning out junk without any innovation. That is if companies like SAMSUNG can cheat and cut into everything innovative someone can make.
What it boils down to is pure human greed at it's best.
Lets keep in mind that Apple has had everybody duplication every hit product they have ever made. Can you call it prejudice that they are defending they're main stake profit generator. It's not like Apple is making appliances or running a huge search engine. They simply sell products and rent for media access i.e. music, movies.

MAIN POINT: Samsung creates an uncompetitive market that drains innovation motivation. Just ask Sharp and other companies they've stolen from. Just pull our forces from the 38th parallel and let them fend for themselves.

Have you even considered that vanilla android doesn't have the violations in question. That they were added by Samsung and thus why Samsung is getting sued, not Google. It's also,why Samsung's first act wasn't to request the cases be dropped because the issues were in Android as written by Google and Samsung licensed such in good faith.

Just because some jury foreman who claims to be a patent expert says it's all google doesn't make it true. A deep analysis of Android as written by Google and the changes and additions made by each licensee would need to be done.

Now, whilst I'm flattered you all replied to me, I am pretty 100% certain NONE of you are anywhere near a patent expert, so let me reiterate what someone who does know about patents states in this story:

"If you really feel that Google is the cause behind this, as I think everybody has observed, then don't beat around the bush," said Mr. Dunham, whose job at IBM was to oversee developers expected to file patents. "Let the courts decide. But a more direct approach may be something to think about."

He can see it, and no doubt so can Judge Koh, but the facts are if it went after Google it won't gain any market share, I've heard this talk about it being due to Samsungs implementation before, but I don't buy it because of it's position in the market Apple will go after them no matter what.

For instance slide to unlock... well that's implemented the same way across all Android devices, yet Apple isn't going after them? Even if it is a bogus patent.

The infamous '721 "slide-to-unlock" patent, was found to have been infringed on by some Samsung devices, like the Samsung GALAXY Nexus.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Jury...le-patent-Apple-awarded-119.6-million_id55776

Also of note is this:

This trial was very much about Google, with Google witnesses testifying on all patents-in-suit and Google having agreed to indemnify Samsung with respect to a couple of patents and the GMail app's alleged infringement of the '647 patent. I agree with Re/code's Ina Fried that Google is a winner today and with USA TODAY's first take that this time around, Samsung and Google won.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/apple-wins-119-million-in-patent.html

 

[ogun7]

These idiots that say Apple should go after Google don't realize: GOOGLE GIVES AWAY ANDROID FOR FREE. THERE ARE NO MONETARY DAMAGES TO BE HAD. Each company that chooses to use Android chooses to violate Apple's IP and that's why Motorola & HTC have paid up.

If companies are forced to make DIFFERENT products than the technology will be pushed forward and we all benefit.

What tech would we have if everyone wasn't copying Apple and really competing on innovation?

Look at the stagnancy in PC's before the MacBook Air. That industry needed Intel's Ultrabook program to push them forward. And they're still stuck there, since IBM's out the game and Apple's priorities are on iOS and OS X.

 

[Renzatic]

These idiots that say Apple should go after Google don't realize: GOOGLE GIVES AWAY ANDROID FOR FREE. THERE ARE NO MONETARY DAMAGES TO BE HAD. Each company that chooses to use Android chooses to violate Apple's IP and that's why Motorola & HTC have paid up.

Like I said before (maybe in this very thread...hell, I don't remember), Google makes money off of Android through its services. And even if they didn't, Apple could still very easily sue them, since giving something away for free doesn't protect a potential infringer from being slapped with damages if it's violating another company's IP.

 

[bearcatrp]

Its up to the appeals judge to determine if the appeal is valid or not. Samsung can appeal all they want. If the judge determines it does not merit an appeal, then samsung will be required to pay. Time will tell. It is suprising that google wasn't dragged into this IF the patent apple is claiming was part of android. Or did samsung add it? Anyone know?

 

[apolloa]

These idiots that say Apple should go after Google don't realize: GOOGLE GIVES AWAY ANDROID FOR FREE. THERE ARE NO MONETARY DAMAGES TO BE HAD. Each company that chooses to use Android chooses to violate Apple's IP and that's why Motorola & HTC have paid up.

If companies are forced to make DIFFERENT products than the technology will be pushed forward and we all benefit.

What tech would we have if everyone wasn't copying Apple and really competing on innovation?

Look at the stagnancy in PC's before the MacBook Air. That industry needed Intel's Ultrabook program to push them forward. And they're still stuck there, since IBM's out the game and Apple's priorities are on iOS and OS X.

What has Motorola and HTC paid up for? And did you not read my post where I linked to a report mentioning how Google representative were witnesses in this case?
Oh and the MacBook Air hasn't done anything for the PC market, Apple have been making laptops for years, oh and we have had thin small PC laptops long before the MacBook Air also:

2004 Sony Vaio X505

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/before-2010-macbook-air-there-was-2004-sony/

Another example where Apple merely copied and improved on a pre-existing idea, not invented one.

 

[ogun7]

There's nothing to sue at Google especially after they won the case against them from Oracle. There were emails showing that ripped Java code from Sun and knew they were infringing but said the momentum would swell before they got sued.

"Back in 2005, well before Android was released, Rubin wrote, "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way."

Regarding that email, Mueller noted that the judge overseeing the case observed, "Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price [to license Java]."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013_11_01_archive.html?m=1

 

[Aidyn's X]

Apple COULD for the past few years of been offering various sized phones at various price points running iOS and not allowed Android to take over.

But no, again, like the desktop they kept things locked down and now Android in ownership terms is miles ahead.

They are great at making what THEY want to make, and making money from their loyal fanbase.

Locked down systems NEVER win in the long term.

You make it seem like Apple only has LOYAL customers that only buy the iPhone because of their loyalty. The most popular phone in the world is being sold to people who are merely settling because they want to remain loyal? I don't think so.

 

[gibstros]

Maybe on the next trial, Apple should hire this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Mark_Lanier

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-07/takeda-actos-jury-awards-6-billion-in-punitive-damages.html

He was even featured on Apple's website at one time, but I couldn't find it. They really, really need to get a plaintiff's lawyer in there who can persuade the jury to give big damages.

 

[Aidyn's X]

Well you are buying products full of Samsung components.

So you won't buy a Case and OS made by Samsung, but you'd but it if all other parts of the device were made by them?

What are your rules?

If Apple make the Case, and iOS and Samsung make all the inside, screen, batter, CPU/GPU would you still buy it as an Apple product despite is really being a Samsung phone in an Apple case?

I know that's not the case right now, but would you buy it?

People who hate Samsung should stop buying Apple products that contains Samsung components, otherwise you are giving your approval.

You can't have it both ways.

I hate Samsung, but happy to buy things full of Samsung parts and I'll pretend they are not in there as I can't see them.

I think the original poster was referring to Samsung consumer products, not all Samsung products such as screens and chips.

 

[medazinol]

Called it a few days ago:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=19065055#post19065055

 

[cdmoore74]

"If you really feel that Google is the cause behind this, as I think everybody has observed, then don't beat around the bush," said Mr. Dunham, whose job at IBM was to oversee developers expected to file patents. "Let the courts decide. But a more direct approach may be something to think about."


Makes sense to me.

Happy Note 3 owner but soon to be LG G3, Nexus 6, One plus one, HTC One "prime" or Note 4 owner. So many choices I can't make up my mind. It's going to be a good battle this year. Competition is great!!!!!

----------

Called it a few days ago:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=19065055#post19065055

Steve Jobs could have predicted that and he's dead.

 

[albusseverus]

Just saw a comment on All About Android about how 'natural' these patents seem.

NOW they do! Android before iPhone had no clue, and neither did Samcopy.

I totally understand Jobs wanting to go thermo-nuclear on such outright theft—frustrating and annoying as it might seem—not as a business tactic, but just out of respect for the people that invented what we know as 'a whole way of life'.

It's how Microsoft stole the GUI from Apple—and don't tell me Xerox invented the GUI—it didn't even have Finder or drag-n-drop file manipulation. All it had was icons. Not to mention Apple paid Xerox for a technology Xerox didn't want.

You can rightly see how Steve thought Apple should have the GUI market and business should still be using DOS if they love Microsoft that much.

There's logic—frustrating as it might seem—in pursuing the legal action to the bitter end. It's the principle of the thing, and without principles, there's no respect.

And Tim Cook is all about respect.

 

[Beautyspin]

Triple Damages? Must be joking..

Standard stuff. Lose then appeal. Everyone does it not just Samsung and Apple.

Samsung usually settle these cases eventually as they don't want a string of losses in patent cases as it sets a negative precedent for them. The more cases they lose and are guilty of wilful infringement the easier new cases against them will be to win. "Samsung has a record of wilful infringement..." will be the opening line of future patent trials against them.

I wouldn't be surprised if they lose the appeal and triple damages are awarded to Apple for the 3 patents that Samsung willfully infringed.

The patents the Jury found Samsung infringed willfully have been invalidated all over the world. That is the reason Samsung used them. They will get invalidated here also. If Samsung knows that a patent is going to invalidated and uses it, then it will look willful till the time it is actually invalidated.

Goodl luck Apple collecting even a dime from this verdict..

 

[Renzatic]

Just saw a comment on All About Android about how 'natural' these patents seem.

NOW they do! Android before iPhone had no clue, and neither did Samcopy.

Do you even know what the patents covered?

----------

The patents the Jury found Samsung infringed willfully have been invalidated all over the world. That is the reason Samsung used them. They will get invalidated here also. If Samsung knows that a patent is going to invalidated and uses it, then it will look willful till the time it is actually invalidated.

1. They have to be invalidated in the US.
2. Even if they are, it all depends on if Samsung can retroactively apply the that invalidation to their verdict.

 

[albusseverus]

2004 Sony Vaio X505

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/before-2010-macbook-air-there-was-2004-sony/

Image

Another example where Apple merely copied and improved on a pre-existing idea, not invented one.

Funny, I thought the Vaio was copied from Apple's original notebook design, only thinner.

If you read that article, you'll see that Vaio and its ilk were crap. And despite this claimed advantage, Sony ultra thins are still crap today.

This is the price Apple pays for waiting until a product is right before releasing it. You copied my piece of junk from years ago…!

 

[apolloa]

Funny, I thought the Vaio was copied from Apple's original notebook design, only thinner.

If you read that article, you'll see that Vaio and its ilk were crap. And despite this claimed advantage, Sony ultra thins are still crap today.

This is the price Apple pays for waiting until a product is right before releasing it. You copied my piece of junk from years ago…!

Oh dear, you have totally failed to notice the several years difference between the two products, and labelled it as crap.

Well done....

Sony made an ultra thin successful laptop WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before Apple even thought of it.
It has nothing to do with Apple waiting, and everything to do with Apple making it because it felt enough people would buy it, but it in no way what so ever invented the ultra thin laptop.
They just copied the idea when they thought they could make enough money on it.

 

[Heltik]

And the 'patent wars' saga continues.

"The clone wars" lol.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Like I said before (maybe in this very thread...hell, I don't remember), Google makes money off of Android through its services. And even if they didn't, Apple could still very easily sue them, since giving something away for free doesn't protect a potential infringer from being slapped with damages if it's violating another company's IP.

You aren't the only person who had tried to explain what is meant by damages.

It's compensation for loss or harm caused. Such a simple concept.

 

[mib1800]

This is so laughable. Apple sued because it can't compete with samsung not because of anything else. Even if samsung did copy then how can Apple with tonnes and tonnes of innovation under its belt (which many clueless ifans here believed) let samsung trounced it in the market?

Apple also copied from Samsung. It was found guilty as in this current case. It was also found guilty previously with the case where the US president vetoed the ban. Many myopic apple fans was in denial that case was not apple copying because it invovled an essential patent. Not matter what apple was guilty of copying as well.

So why is apple feels so threatened by samsung?

 

[Oletros]

There's nothing to sue at Google especially after they won the case against them from Oracle. There were emails showing that ripped Java code from Sun and knew they were infringing but said the momentum would swell before they got sued.

Can you post any single mail that shows that they ripped Java code from Sun? Can you show an email stating that they knew that they were infringing? Perhaps the judge missed them.

"Back in 2005, well before Android was released, Rubin wrote, "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way."

That quote doesn't say that they knew that they were infringing

Regarding that email, Mueller noted that the judge overseeing the case observed, "Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price [to license Java]."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013_11_01_archive.html?m=1

Florian Mueller? The one that has been wrong in all instances in that case?