|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
The verge said:
Still waiting on Judge Koh. It's dead silent in the courtroom, save for the
frantic typing on dozens of keyboards.
Seems very indecorous! (grin) (Christenson)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
I thought today's news was supposed to be Google's Supplemental Filing on the
Existence (or Lack Thereof) of Google-Paid Bloggers, Journalists and Carnival
Barkers...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
If I was a betting person, my money would be on the jury declaring most of the
patents invalid due to prior art but giving some money to Apple for Samsung
copying trade dress.
-Jeremy
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
| History in the making. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Just speculation on my part.
I would think if one juror got a hold of that info, it could make for one speedy
verdict.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
They are saying Yes on most claims.
For shame. US justice system. For shame.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Dent on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
| I wish there was a list of the patents in suit handy (1 line summary). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
I think Samsung has taken a hit here! It's so so so sad to
say the least. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
| Uh oh, Apple won't be able to claim it was a clone product anymore. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
Seems like the jury bought Apple's lies, but Samsung was denied the opportunity
to defend themselves, so the appeals will start.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
| Jury sucks. The whole industry subdoed by a bunch of idiots. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Considering Samsung wasn't allowed to defend themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: vidstudent on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
OUCH
---
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
The jury is awarding 1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand
dollars to Apple? How pathetic can this get.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
People don't like bullies. There's a reason that Microsoft is
not the company it was; it lost support and goodwill. I think
Apple just won a courtcase, and turned many people from being
mildly pro-Apple into enemies. If I was an Apple shareholder,
I would not be rejoicing, thinking of all the damage to
goodwill.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
4:09:37 PM PDT
'460 no across the board
4:09:22 PM PDT
'516 No
4:08:52 PM PDT
'460: literally infirngement for 3GS: no
4:08:46 PM PDT
'893 iPhone 3GS No
4:08:38 PM PDT
'711 iPhone 3GS: No
4:08:31 PM PDT
'711 Patent on iPhone 3G No. '460 on iPhone 3G: no.
4:08:11 PM PDT
Samsung's claims against Apple up next
Ouch[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
This Jury is ridiculous.
From the quick verdict to the utter one-sidedness and clearly wrong stuff.
Samsung has tons of room for appeals.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
What was the big hurry to reach a verdict? Were their minds made up before the
trial started?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
In Oracle vs Google, Google invalidated most of Oracle's bogus patents before
the trial started.
Did Samsung even try to invalidate Apple's bogus patents? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Time for pitchforks and torches. Apple wants to control the entire market
and enslave you. The end of freedom is nigh. It is a very sad day for us
all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
I think mighty Quinn may have something waiting to play out..
This is not good for Apple as public tide is shifting,
something all the paid astroturf bloggers cannot block..
Also, we have Google-Moto motions bringing more...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
C'mon folks, be positive. Read the important stuff on the posting page and make
links clickable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: N_au on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
I don't know how a johnny come lately isn't infringing on any hardware patents
at all. Shesh!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
Please make the title of your post the title of the news pick. Make links
clickable if possible because it scrolls so fast.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
| You know the drill. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Damages number several orders of magnitude off - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- PJ - it is about one Billion and not one Million - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- 1,051,855-->1,051,855,000 ( yup, it is a BILLION)(n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- 1,051,855-->1,051,855,000 ( yup, it is a BILLION) -> $1,049,343,540 - Authored by: vidstudent on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- 24 - "iPad touch" - Authored by: lunarship on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- Docket 1929 and 1930 links - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
Err $1,051,855 is not "$1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand
dollars". You've missed out some zeroes there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/08/24/apple-
samsung-patent-trial.html
they are asking for 2.5 billion
guess the two might cancel each other out OR it might
prevent apple from making products in south korea ...and it
might spread to other asian nations and you will see the
apple products sky rocket in price.....
haha this system is boneheaded and funny , welcome to a
trade war.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: reiisi on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
Trade dress for iPhone, yes, but no for iPad?
With apologies to Koh, because I don't know yet whether she was materially
bought or simply meta-bought by the Apple distortion field, but now we know for
sure why Koh wanted the tight schedule.
If Samsung had been allowed the time to pick Apple's arguments apart properly,
none of them would have stood.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
I guess because the S III is new, it was not part of the suit. I specifically
chose an S III over an iPhone because I really, really dislike Apple's O/S and
ecosystem, while I love Linux's. Although I don't like Android as much as
Linux, it is close enough, for a phone, for now.
I was not confused whatsoever. I chose purposefully and am happy with my
choice. I like the way that the Galaxy works better then the way the iPhone
works. And, perhaps contrary to the jury, they do work differently, very much
so.
While my family currently owns three Apple products, I will never purchase
another Apple product again. One reason I chose the Samsung Galaxy over the HTC
One was out of sympathy for Samsung in this silly lawsuit.
In the total spectrum of things, I know that the decision makers at Apple
couldn't care less what I think or do. But, I do care. I refuse to support
evil companies. In my opinion, Apple is trying to suppress legitimate
competition and that is evil in my book.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
Was expecting a couple of weeks.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
It looks like this "jury" gave Apple a free-ride on Samsung's patents
that were infringed.
I mean didn't Apple even admit that these were Samsung's patents, but they
didn't want to pay what Samsung was asking?
So is the message: "Apple can steal anyone's real patents, but no one can
infringe on Apple's bogus patents?"
So much for the "Mighty Quinn". I think I'll hire Van Nest instead.
;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
So are these damages multiplied by 3 because of the wilfullness or is that
included? 3 billion damages?
Still, unless there is an injunction, and even if the appeal fails, I guess that
Samsung will still be in a great position as market leader. They should now be
able to design around all of these problems without losing too many customers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
If I add numbers from theVergeLiveblog I only get what SEC
claimed was owed Apple namely $250 million..
Folks hold your breathe we need to see the actual verdict
filing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Samsung has got to hope that the Appeal Court finds a BIG failure in the
process... or this is going to hurt.
I wonder how all of this will impact future products?
Will it hit the Samsung Galaxy 3?
/goes looking...
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
Apple won the FUD battle today.
After this decision gets eviscerated on appeal, that's all they win.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Torinir on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
The Verge's live updates from the trial are showing that at least two
inconsistencies were found in the verdict form. One was the award of damages
against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE, because it was found to have inducement of
infringement without a finding of actual infringement.
---
Gaming like it's going out of style.
West/Zampella vs Activision should be covered on Groklaw. :o[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
1) Wow, damages are a lot higher than I thought they should be.
2) Samsung's appeal will focus on getting the trade dress patents declared not
novel; Quinn was not successful at being able to argue this in court.
3) The patents on functionality bounce back, two finger gestures need to be
challenged. They are not novel ideas, if anything Apple was the first company
that built something that implemented these ideas, but in movies like 2001,
Alien, and the Matrix (3rd one), these ideas were simulated.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You really need to pay more attention - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 09:22 PM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
If Samsung has to pay up, will the components Apple buy for their products from
Samsung get more expensive? hmmm????[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: lunarship on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:25 PM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:25 PM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT
- True, but not until their contract is up! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:38 PM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
The damages, by device, are as follows:
$57 million for the Samsung Prevail
$44,792,974 for the Infuse 4G
$53,123,612 for the Mesmerize
$3,350,256 for the Replenish
$954,060 for the Transform
via the theverge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266391/apple-samsung-patent-damages-verdict
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jjon on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
A lot of people are reporting that the damages are $1bn.
Remember, the judge told the jury to figure out whether the
infringement was "willful" or not, but not to factor that into
their damages calculation.
The jury decided that some of the infringement was willful, so
now the judge gets to increase those parts of the damages -
perhaps triple.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:47 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: kawabago on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
Now everyone will be enforcing design patents on everyone
else and the patent mess will spiral so far out of control
we'll have another depression.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
On a lighter note:
Dr
Evil
One Billion
Dollars
:-|---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
I guess the story isn't over yet; Samsung will certainly
appeal, and have multiple grounds for doing so.
I may be missing something, but this appears to me like a
tactical win for Apple, if some of these decisions even
stand on appeal. While $1B is a lot of cash [that Apple
doesn't need], I would think the longer term cost, and what
Samsung seems to have avoided (from what I can tell), is the exorbitant per-unit
licensing costs, which would make them
less competitive for years.
So Samsung will appeal, take whatever hit they get from
that, which I see as shrinking, and meanwhile will continue
actually producing great products and dominating.
One of the problems Apple has is that it has positioned
itself as being the leader, the premium brand, the
innovator. But to maintain that, they need to keep
innovating, which becomes increasingly difficult as the
markets they are in mature. IMHO Samsung's main strength is
not innovation, but using their strength in high quality,
high volume manufacturing to be in early in commoditizing
new markets. Longer term, Apple cannot maintain market
dominance in those markets.
So the legal shenanigans will continue to stave off the
inevitable falling-off-pedestal, and we all pay for it in
the higher prices of the products.
Disclaimer: I use a Samsung phone, a MacBook at work and
Ubuntu at home. Apple make great hardware. Software... not
so much.
M
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
...
to judgment for Apple. They clearly weren't thinking and voting for Apple.
Samsung should be objecting and trying to keep this jury over the weekend.
Maybe one will realize what they did and change up. They have to throw some
thoughtful things at Koh and try and keep that jury around at the risk of it
getting worse.
They should object to the rush. They are clearly not taking time. They don't
care. They just want to go home. Apple can do no wrong.
Forget about the appeal. Samsung will now settle rather than Bond a billion for
an appeal. If Koh doesn't cut it, Samsung will have to do some heavy-loss
bargaining. Half a billion is better than one.
That part about Google telling Samsung to design away from iPhones was fatal.
It will be interesting to talk to the jurors. They were easily led.
Koh has to be a little concerned that this inconsistency betrays a rather
indeliberate jury in such a complex case.
Remember this is just one skirmish in their global battle. Maybe Samsung can
get some sympathy elsewhere.
Better go out and get that Samsung now. It's months overdue. The HTC Hero is
obsolete.
.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
Much of this is about design patents.
If GM copied a Ferrari or Porche 911 design of their car, Ferrari or Porche
would certainly win a design patent lawsuit. Yes, cars have the same basic
parts, but it is the design of the car that differentiates them. GM can easy go
about designing its own cars - which they do.
Samsung, on the other hand, clearly and overtly copied the iPhone piece by
piece. It even had an over 100 page analysis and instruction to do it - the
smoking gun.
Smartphones can come in various designs - combining the various pieces - such as
rectangles and such - into unique configurations. These can be design patented
just as books can be copyrighted - books being unique collections of words.
Samsung, the evil copyist, was slapped hard by the jury and clearly told to be
more original. The parts can be the same but the design cannot.
Respect the jury.
The judge bent over backwards for Samsung - even minimizing Samsung's
destruction of evidence from the jury, even letting Samsung's lawyers flagrant
abuses of procedure go.
Respect the jury.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: EnragedBeaver on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
You all know this is going to be appealed, right?
---
The Enraged Beaver wants to help gnaw away at anti-OSS claims[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jheisey on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
Why did this judge not require the parties to have experts prepare damages
reports like the judge in the Oracle/Google trial did? How can damages
determined by lay people with no technical training be of any worth? This
surely would be appealable by Samsung. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cassini2006 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
I can't see this stopping Samsung. It needs to make a few user interface
design changes, and to stop making product that is so similar to Apple's.
I
really wonder about the sanity of a patent system that permits this to continue.
The long-term danger is that foreign competitors start spamming the US patent
office the same way Apple, IBM and Microsoft do. After a while, every American
company will become patent violators, and congress should (may) get the
message.
Also, I wonder if some of the trial was fundamentally fair to
Samsung. Firstly, Samsung lost on a number of software patent issues.
Secondly, I wonder if Samsung fully understood the process and was able to fully
present the evidence it had. In particular, the 25-hour limit helps the company
with the simpler story to tell, and hurts the company that is trying to present
the avalanche of previous advances. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
...to make it unprofitable for Samsung
(and other Android phone makers) to
continue to sell phones in the USA?
As I understand it, patent verdicts go by
percentages of profit; so pushing prices
up does not pay for a future lawsuit
(though it can help pay for a previous
verdict). Given the minefield that is
patents, it seems likely after this verdict
that more court cases, against other
phone manufacturers, will follow...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT |
Since the judge disallowed Samsung from submitting evidence of designs predating
the iphone, the jury probably HAD to find them accountable for infringement.
I'm not sure about the 3G patents, although I thought that licenses aren't
typically transferable between manufacturers. In fact, I thought Apple tried to
license them but complained that the fees (~2.5%?) were unreasonable. To me,
what really erodes all credibility on the part of the jury, is the
non-infringement of the utility patents. Particularly obvious is the '711
patent which covers all aspects of playing music in the background. It
describes exactly what the iphone does, and probably every other smartphone as
well. It might not be a strong patent in my amateur opinion, and I don't know
if it would stand up against reexamination, but it's valid and should have been
recognized by the jury. It's the easiest Samsung patent to understand in the
case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The '711 patent is garbage - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT
- Attempt two at a link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT
- The '711 patent is garbage - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Well, no ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT
- There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855,000 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
A bit surprised that no one caught this yet, but after the jury
corrected some "inconsistencies" in the jury form the damages
were reduced slightly (at least according to the Verge live-
blogging)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
What I think needs to be said is that Apple is probably in the hole for this
entire exercise. Their worldwide legal fees probably exceed the damages won so
far.
Samsung had global revenues of $247 Billion and net income of $18.3 Billion.
Apple has global revenues of only $108 Billion but a net income of $25.9
Billion.
Apple has fewer real assets, $116.371 billion vs Samsung's $384.3 billion.
Both companies can afford to pay the legal fees and the judgments. Apple is more
a figment of the market that Samsung.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
Sure, it could be expected that a home town jury would give the
home team a win. Remember this game was played under home rules.
But the jury seem to have let their eye(s) stray off the ball for a moment
and it's not over yet, a steward's inquiry will certainly be called.
All the other teams seem to have designed around the offending patents.
But what I'd like to see is a flood of those $15 "iPhones"
as a salutary lesson on copying, and customer confusion.
How to get them in? A border that leaks $12Bn illicit drugs
wouldn't notice a few truckloads of cellphones.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
No, this will not be the last word.
Sorry Koh. Your verdict will be overturned becuase you didn't let the jury see
the Samsung or LG phones, the visually obvious precursors to the Apple iPhone.
http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Samsung-F700-LG-Pra
da-Phone.jpg
Yes, both these phones were from 2006. The iPhone was introduced in 2007.
BTW, did you see this?
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/07/30/apple-vs-samsung-us-trial/
"Shin Nishibori, the designer Apple hired from Sony to create a
Sony-inspired iPhone prototype, no longer works for Apple and Nishibori’s lawyer
wrote in a letter to the court yesterday that his client has no plans to testify
in the upcoming trial."
Hmmm. Why wasn't Apple's chief designer in court?
No plans to testify? Why would Koh accept that? I can't see what stops her,
unless he lives abroad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:55 AM EDT |
Unlike Hyundai, which designs cars with a unique and creative flair and style
all its own, which compete
extremely successfully against other companies including Toyota, Lexus, Mercedes
Benz, GM, Ford, etc,
Samsung has no design skills. And unfortunately, it decided to copycat Apple.
Copycatting is commonly done in Asia when the society is in an immature level of
technological prominence.
Japan use to copycat a lot of American products. However, when Japan matured,
it started developing its own
unique designs in products. And in many areas - such as in cars, consumer
electronics, etc. - Japan leads the
US in design. Unfortunately, Samsung is stuck at the immature copycat level,
unlike Hyundai.
It was obvious, unlike Sony, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, LG etc., that Samsung very
closely copied Apple's designs.
Apple argued successfully that you have to be blind not to see it. And even if
you were blind, if the design was
made palpable, you can easily feel the similarity just like reading Braille.
As Florian Mueller predicted, Apple won by slam dunk over Samsung. With this
verdict, Samsung is now known
worldwide to have intentionally and willfully copied Apple. Thus, like
Microsoft being branded a monopoly, this
verdict will seriously affect Samsung going forward in other patent lawsuits.
---
From Florian's FOSSPatents blog:
This ruling is not thermonuclear on its own, but in its aftermath, we will not
only see a lot of wrangling over a
judgment as a matter of law to overrule the jury and over injunctive relief but
there will also be, even more
importantly, a push by Apple to enforce many more design patents and utility
(hardware and software) patents
against Samsung. Since Samsung has been found to have infringed intentionally
and recklessly (partly on its
own, partly in conjunction with its "partner in crime", Google), the
United States District Court for the Northern
District of California will adjudicate more of Apple's asserted patents in the
future. In particular, Apple has the
right to reassert all of the patents it dropped ahead of this trial in an effort
to narrow the case. Apple's legal
team -- in-house lawyers as well as the law firm managing its offensive claims,
Morrison & Foerster, with a
team led by Harold McElhinny and Michael Jacobs -- made just the right picks to
focus on slam dunks for this
trial. Some of the patents that were temporarily withdrawn are harder to
enforce, but they could do much more
damage to Samsung, and we will see them resurface soon. Also, Apple has a second
California lawsuit going,
which was filed in February over eight more patents, which are on average also
more impactful than the ones
the jury found Samsung to infringe. And courts around the globe will hear and
read about a finding that
Samsung knew full well what it was doing -- a fact that was clearly established
by Apple's mountain of
evidence. I wrote more than two weeks ago that "Samsung can hardly explain
away all of Apple's smoking guns
for intentional copying".
Today's verdict also shows that the only country in which Samsung can score any
serious win with its own
patents -- some of which are standard-essential and the rest of which isn't
impactful -- against Apple is Korea.
Samsung already lost three German lawsuits against Apple (four more will go to
trial between mid-September
and mid-October, and I'll attend all those trials) and it lost in France and
Italy. In the Netherlands, it will only
receive a tiny amount of damages -- but not an injunction. Samsung has now lost
on all of its offensive claims
against Apple in California.
---
As Pamela Jones wrote to us numerous times: Respect the Jury.
I surely hope Samsung can mature and gain design acumen. It should compete like
mature companies do. As a
copycat company, it is distasteful to me to use Samsung products even if they
are competent. I value originality,
ingenuity and individualism - American ideals. Not pack or lemming mentality as
Samsung would argue for.
And I am definitely not a troll. Using such a label is an invalid argument - an
argumentum ad hominem.
I am simply stating a position that is politically incorrect on Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sonicfrog on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
| Breaking News! Apple Patents Breathing –
Lawsuit
Against Biosphere Iminent!
Fresh off its stunning billion dollar
victory over rival
phone / tablet maker Samsung, Apple has revealed it owns the
patent for breathing and plans to take the biosphere to
court next week.
It
is unclear if they are going to demand damages, or demand
a cease and decease
desist order against all breathing
animals on the planet.
If the company does
decide to pursue the latter strategy,
New York University bio-ethics law
professor Medina Clorion
sees a potential silver lining in an Apple victory. “A
win
in this lawsuit would have many positive effects for the
environment” he
says. “Yes, people would die, but a win here
for Apple would take care of so
many of the problems that
humans are so reticent to correct: starvation,
plagues,
global warming, you name it!. There would of course be no
more war,
and that would certainly earn Apple the Noble
Peace Prize, a very rare
accomplishment for a large modern
corporation to earn!”.
It is unknown at this
time if plant life will be covered in
this lawsuit. But, with its victory over
it very powerful
competitor, many speculate that Apple is feeling like it is
in a position to act in a bold fashion.
:-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
Well, OK, now we know Apple has the patent on rectangles with rounded corners.
Presumably, Samsung's and everyone else's phone won't.
Now we'll know instantly what phone is an Apple -- and we'll know instantly
which one not to buy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:17 AM EDT |
A Samsung spokesperson said the following: ""Today’s verdict should
not be
viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will
lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices."
I would argue that this is a win for American consumers because it will lead to
MORE choices, MORE innovation.
If Samsung could design its smartphones more originally - like Microsoft,
Nokia, Sony, LG, RIM, Apple, etc. do - then consumers would have MORE
design choices and MORE innovation.
This is why we have copyrights and patents: to force innovation and stop
copycats.
Certainly some patents are standards essential and cannot be worked around.
But such patents generally have very reasonable costs and licenses. But when
you have a proprietary patent, you can work around it - unless you are lazy
and prefer to copycat despite the risk of litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
We have seen many times how juries work really hard to understand what the judge
has explained to them about the law and what the facts of the case actually mean
in the eyes of the law. That is what the jury instructions are for; to explain
to the jury what the law means with respect to the questions put by the verdict
form.
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had
reached a decision without needing the instructions.
This jury is
the exception that proves the rule.
From Jury Instruction No.
18:Apple accuses Samsung of diluting Apple’s Registered Trade
Dress No. 3,470,983. This trade dress relates to the iPhone. Apple also
accuses Samsung of diluting two unregistered trade dresses relating to the
iPhone. Finally, Apple claims that Samsung has diluted and infringed its
unregistered trade dress relating to the iPad.
For each of
Apple’s trade dress dilution and infringement claims, the first issue you will
have to decide is whether the Apple trade dress is protectable (or valid). An
asserted trade dress is only protectable if the trade dress design as a whole,
as opposed to its individual features standing alone, is both distinctive and
non-functional...
Apple’s trade dress infringement claim will require
you to resolve different issues. You will need
to determine whether Apple’s
trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before Samsung started
selling its
accused products, and whether Samsung’s accused products are likely to cause
confusion
about the source of Samsung’s goods.
If you decide that any Apple
trade dress is both protectable and has been infringed or
willfully
diluted by Samsung, you will then need to decide the money damages to
be awarded to Apple.
Samsung denies that it has infringed or diluted any Apple
trade dress and argues that each asserted
trade dress is not protectable. If a
trade dress is not protectable, that is a defense to infringement
and
dilution.
So, 'wilful dilution' means that Samsung wilfully '
cause[d] confusion about the source of Samsung’s goods'.
From the
Verdict Form:14. Trade Dress Dilution
Has Apple proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are famous?
Answer: Yes on Registered iPhone and Unregisterd iPhone 3G, no on Unregistered
Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade
Dress.
Have the jury misunderstood the question because they did
not read the jury instructions? How could they find that the registered trade
dress was not famous on the iPhone 3G, but was famous on all other iPhones? Have
they confused registered trade dress with mobile phones registered with a mobile
service provider? Did they think that the four, colourful, rounded-square icons
only appeared on an iPhone 3G registered with a mobile phone service
provider?
I think it's too late for a Rule 50 motion that 'a reasonable
jury would read the jury instructions and see that the iPhone trade dress would
not become 'famous' in the eyes of the law in the few months after the iPhone
launch when Samsung began selling their own phones and that the evidence was
that there was no 'confusion about the source' of Samsung’s goods'.
I
wonder if the court is formally cognisant of the foreman's statement. If the
court has 'heard' the comment (and I would expect them to 'hear' any comment
made to a representative of the court) then the judge should declare a mistrial
because the jury came to a verdict in the absence of consideration of the
applicable law. If the foreman had declared to a court representative that the
jury had used the 'phones in evidence to surf Groklaw about the details of the
case then there would be an instant declaration of a mistrial and a sanction of
the jury members.
The judge went to great lengths (reading out the
instructions to the jury and keeping their attention by getting them to stand at
intervals) to bring the law to their notice. The jury has, however, failed in
their duty to consider the law in this case.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:44 AM EDT |
More than curious on this.
Also, any idea if Google patented the notifications system
on Android, as Apple appears to have blatantly ripped it off
on iOS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AH1 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT |
First, let me say that this verdict does not shock me. After following the SCO
fiasco from start to finish, then the Oracle debacle I started becoming
optimistic that the U.S. Judicial System might actually work. Well the RESET
button just got pressed.
That being said, what can be done to deal with this, and the FUTURE bullying
(aka m$soft) techniques that apple is going to attempt to pull. For all of us
poor peons in the trenches what can we do?
Well if there is anything that PJ and Groklaw have taught me is that the power
of the Open Source community is there and can be tapped. So what can WE do to
avoid getting trampled by the tyrants.
1. It is time to start digging for prior art to provide the next
"victim" a way to press to invalidate the crummy patents before these
cases ever get to trial. Given the stupidity of the current ruling and the
ridiculous award fee that the court generated it is in Samsung's best interest
to press this case all the way to the Supreme Court. While most of us can not
help with the legal arguments that will help overturn this miscarriage of
justice, if/when it happens it will be in the best interest of the tech
community to ensure that apple NEVER has the opportunity to use these patents
again. In other words we need to find the Prior Art needed to invalidate each
and EVERY one of the patents used in this case.
2. For those current/future patents that belong to apple needs to be reviewed
for prior art. When it is found it needs to be made available to the outside
world. The ultimate goal is to devalue the apple patent portfolio to the point
where they are afraid to bring a case to court that enforces their patents for
fear of not only losing the case but having the patent invalidated.
3. Start scrubbing any/all apple applications searching for any violation of
their free BSD licenses. While apple was "too chicken" to implement
the GPL they did base their comeback on the open source community. Personally,
they have stabbed that community in the back after they became successful. It
is time for the community to remind apple that it was their work, not apple's,
that gave them the success.
4. Constantly remind the Open Source Community that we need to remain diligent
that there is an ever shifting alliance amongst the tech companies and that just
because a lying CEO embraces the community today doesn't mean they will not stab
the community in the back and "steal" their technology in the future.
There is a fine balance here, without support of the tech community it is
difficult to progress. At the same time, getting too close can put you in the
position of having your projects crippled by short sighted decisions from your
"corporate sponsors."
While this is a BIG setback, history here at Groklaw should teach us that this
is but a battle in the larger war. What I have seen is that the Open Source
community is stronger than the "Corporate Entities" have realized, and
that waging war against the Open Source community is not a good idea. This
battle is not against an "evil" corporate empire, but rather against
an "evil mindset." Sorry apple but you started the war, it is time
for the open source peons in the trenches to end it. YOU PICKED THE FIGHT if
the end result damages/destroys you DON'T BLAME US.
[P.S. I know that apple should have a capital A but that would be giving them
too much credit.][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT |
Various press reports note that the jury foreman is the holder of patent
7,352,953, which appears to
be a patent for a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-PCI, filed after the first hardware
(released in 2000) stopped receiving driver updates because it was obsolete...
No wonder the jury found none of the patents invalid despite prior art literally
being wheeled out in front of them.
Regards,
-Jeremy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ouch! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:08 AM EDT
- The Foreman... - Authored by: yorkshireman on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- The Foreman... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:21 AM EDT |
The US patent office should crowdsource its prior art
research. I'm sure there are a lot of people willing to pitch
in and help them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
This verdict is decisive in several ways;
: it shows that technical patents are invalid for companies
that are not Apple, that you can patent shapes, and that if
you're the local hero company, you don't need to be
concerned if competition pre-dates your patents with prior
art, as it won't be allowed into the courtroom.
This is clearly going to get worse before it gets better,
and I fear that the US has possibly ruined its software and
technology sectors for a generation. I must hoping this rot
doesn't spread overseas.
I give up on the idea that the legal system that lead to
this can be made sane before it comes to a complete crisis
after realising that apple is the only remaining company
allowed to do business in any field, and that nothing can be
produced by any other companies.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
I was anticipating a farcical verdict from the
beginning...right from the incident when the Judge asked the
Samsung lawyer to identify/differentiate Apple's and
Samsung's tablets (in switched-off mode) from a distance
(instead of a usable distance). It was a ridiculous test to
be used by a judge. My belief of a partisan result
consolidated when I read that the judge was not allowing the
admission of various "prior art" against the claims of
Apple's patents. Further, the manner in which jury
instructions were framed and the way in which the jury
decided to give it all to Apple, it seems the verdict was
pre-programmed.
I do not own an Apple product. After this, I will never buy
one and, as far as possible, I will ensure that my kin buy
from any company but not from Apple.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Winter on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT |
Not South Korean innovation.
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Right On - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
Interesting to call the verdict a farce when almost every action Samsung has
taken since intro of the iPhone and iPad has been to copy as close as possible
the look, feel, packaging etc of Apple's products. Perhaps the word you are
searching for is not farce but "obvious." Can moan all you want about
whether
Apple should have been granted the patents but the fact is they were and jury
has penalized Samsung's clear infringement. Microsoft and Nokia chose a path
that does not infringe. It can be done but it takes innovation and hard work,
exactly what should be rewarded, not a copy machine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Bottom line - As Samsung has been very successful at selling Android
smartphones, they can afford to pay this fine if necessary.
Hopefully sanity will prevail and there will be a retrial.
But even if that does not happen Samsung has still pursued a very successful
strategy in the smartphones market which has made them the market leader, and
that is a very profitable position to be in.
If necessary they can make a deal to cross licence or they can implement
software updates to work around the patents at question.
The main point is they will be able to keep ahead of the law suits by producing
more and more new smartphones each year.
Keeping your eye on the prize - The opportunities in the rapidly expanding
mobile smartphones market - that’s the real key.
If securing that place means you have to take some risks and occasionally you
have to take some lumps, so be it.
If you are successful and profitable... well this is a one off hit, and you will
have many future years of very large profits to set it against.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
In the Samsung case the jury walked into the jury room with a very complex 700
question jury questionnaire and answered all 700 in 21 hours which is 1.8
minutes per question. Does anyone think they really deliberated the merits of
the case? It would take that long just to read the questionnaire and write down
an answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pem on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
If we want to channel our anger into something productive, we could do worse
than working together to attempt to invalidate the jury foreman's patent --
using google's new tool, of course.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Samsung attorney's really made a big mistake when they allowed a patent holder
to be on the jury. He ended up as the foreman, and apparently steam rolled all
the other jurists into submission to his views which were very pro patent. In
my opinion, Samsung's legal firm did a really poor job defending Samsung,
especially considering the $800+ per hour the firms partners were charging.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT |
typo: 1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung
Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA)
has
infringed Claim 19 of the ’381 Patent?
Answer: Yes, Samsung infringes
Apple's '301 patent, all devices
301 should be
381
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
