|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
The jury clearly goofed, that is why the damages were reduced due to an
inconsistency.
So if there were inconsistencies, it puts the whole verdict into doubt. Simply
because the other answers were consistent with each other doesn't mean they were
consistent with the evidence.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
Jumped on who's shoulders? I think we could all see they
were onto a winner with their own tech. It all started with
the iPod.... and that would have been a winner if they
carried on using firewire! Instead lets abuse USB and hook
up to wintel PCs, use somebody else's file format and then
stick some DRM in it as well! After we have conned the world
into using a substandard music player (cheaper and better
alternatives existed) we'll bundle some communications tech
into it and make an iPhone. Then we will claim that we own
all the IP....In fact we invented 3G and multitasking....In
fact we invented the landline, mobile, internal combustion
engine and your toaster. We are Apple...Resistance is
Futile!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Here's another thought to contemplate. Samsung's
position was that form follows function and that
once the market demands something, no one company
should be allowed to monopolize it. For example,
and this was an example Samsung used, once flat
screen TVs were built, should the first one to
do it get to be the only company in the world allowed
to offer flat screen TVs?
If you answer yes, then Apple is in the right. But
if you say no, that's silly. We want competition,
and if something becomes what everyone wants, like
a rectangle with rounded corners, it should not be
actionable to provide it.
And just so you include this in your contemplation,
patents are expressly not supposed to cut off
competition in an entire field.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Yes, merit. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Kilz on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- What bias and outright unfairness. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- No Apple copied Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung etc. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture? ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
What's obvious is that none of Apple's design ideas are original and actually
come from within Apple. Apple used a combination of works from throughout
history, just as other companies have, but Apple now wants the US legal system
to ignore the fact that the design works are from the hard work of non-Apple
individuals and just give Apple claim to the whole thing. Put that in a bag, put
the Apple logo on it and sell it as fertilizer.
From the shape and function of the devices it sells, to the art in its software,
it was all the work of people not affiliated with Apple, but Apple wants to a
claim to all of it?
From its slave labor deals to refusing to pay for the patents it uses that
belong to other companies, Apple is not a business I would want to be associated
with. The mere idea that a company the size of Apple, guilty of rampant global
piracy of patented and copyrighted works of others, accuses others of piracy, is
ludicrous. So is Apple now going to go after the clip art sites and users whose
works look amazingly like Apple's software art? Is Apple going after anyone who
makes anything that looks remotely like an Apple product?
OMG, this is so insanely ignorant. Apple's not the only company that will want
to get some of this insanity in the patent design cesspool. Monitors, speakers,
mice, cables, televisions, washing machines, weed line trimmers, automobiles,
flat screen TVs, clock radios, pots & pans, watches, vehicle tires,
architecture, heavy equipment. The list is endless.
Once the gates have opened on litigation in other business and manufacturing
sectors, let's see how funny the Apple sycophants think it is then.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
| This article seems relevant & to me, if not self
conflicting... ยป
Samsung Juror Speaks Out [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
| I *really* don't see a resemblance. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
| I wasted too much time yesterday ranting on many of the topics you raise.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
that Apple will not tolerate the copyright infringement of the
technology and design that they envisioned
and created.
There
were no copyrights at issue in this trial. There were design patents, utility
patents and trade dress. No copyrights whatsoever, so what are you babbling
about?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
You are a moron. The IPhone came out in 2007, so if Samsungs
phones in 2005 looked like the IPhone, then I guess the IPhone
copied Samsung.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
I looked at all of the devices and, in my opinion, only two infringed Apple's
"Dress". Prior works should have invalidated the icon issue (see Lotus
vs Borland as referenced, wasn't there a similar 'look and feel' Apple vs
Microsoft case as well?); pinch to zoom? should have been invalidated because
anyone presented with "How would you do that?" would come to the same
solution (didn't the MS Tabletop screen do that years before Apple and don't
those high tech news screens do it); the scroll bounce should stand... The jury
members most stupidly have admitted in public that they ignored prior use
examples, Samsung was not given equal treatment, they didn't follow nor probably
read the instructions, and set damages to 'punish' and they did not provide a
measure to determine how they assigned the compensation but rather picked
numbers out of a hat.
The judge should have queried the jury if they had done any of the things they
should have done before hearing the verdict. But that didn't happen, so now we
threats of product bans and monopoly both of which are the actual antithesis of
the intent of the original patent act.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
