Ridiculous verdict in Apple/Samsung case

[ScandaLeX]

Yeah of course. It a board game by Milton Bradley


Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Hahahaaahahaaaha!!!! This is priceless!!!

Tap'n from my White SGT2 7.0 SE

 

[cormaster628]

Hahahaaahahaaaha!!!! This is priceless!!!

Tap'n from my White SGT2 7.0 SE

I have to keep my sense of humor no matter how aggravated I get.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Look ok they aren't a monopoly yet but can anyone argue that that's not what they want to be? Honestly if they had released the original iphone on 4 carriers with 3G and mms on 07 android probably would of never taken off. Even i was intrigued by the first generation one

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

They don't care about having the highest market share considering that they have 60% of the profits.

 

[g1toevo678]

So... how long before we see an online petition calling for a congressional inquiry into judicial bias and jury tampering in this case. Android users always willing to fight the good fight in the name of "justice" .

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Paul627g]

Could we move onward and drop the whole "colorful" metaphors, etc.... I think we still achieve our point without going down that street.

Thanks everyone...

 

[radar320]

what it boils down to, in my mind, is that from what I have read, a lot of the patents that Apple has been granted, and probably shouldn't have been able to, is previous art. If things are going to change, then there needs a overhaul of the US patent office for allowing all these silly patents. Yes Apple may have improved things that were already out there, but they should not be granted patents for something that already existed and they did not create. This in my mind is the root of the problem. Steve Jobs had said he would do everything he could do to wipe out and destroy android, thus squashing any and all competition. This in my mind is anti-competitive, and would leave people with this choice, if you want a smartphone Apple would be the only one out there, if you didn't want a smartphone then you could buy from whoever. Beyond that, if you didn't want a basic phone and you didn't want an iphone, then you are pretty much SOL.

 

[g1toevo678]

Steve Jobs had said he would do everything he could do to wipe out and destroy android, thus squashing any and all competition. This in my mind is anti-competitive,

Competitors competing in a free market by utilizing all legally available means is anti-competitive? What business isn't out to beat, and ideally, destroy its competitors? What should he have said or done? Maybe met with Google and Android phone manufacturers to come to an agreement on how to divy up the smartphone market (in secret obviously since that would be collusion)?



Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ry]

I give up. It just me and 2 apple defenders now. With android phones in their signatures

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

For the record- Android is my smartphone operating system of choice. I have never purchased any Apple products for myself.

Just because I prefer Android, it doesn't mean that I have to blindly follow every Android OEM in their fight with Apple. If I feel that there is enough evidence to prove right or wrong, I can accept that regardless of who the involved parties are.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Ry]

Competitors competing in a free market by utilizing all legally available means is anti-competitive? What business isn't out to beat, and ideally, destroy its competitors? What should he have said or done? Maybe met with Google and Android phone manufacturers to come to an agreement on how to divy up the smartphone market (in secret obviously since that would be collusion)?



Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

Spot on. Thank you.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Andrew Martonik]

They don't care about having the highest market share considering that they have 60% of the profits.

Having a high % of the profits and high margins isn't illegal though.

 

[swyost]

Well for starters it is all too common given Korean court ruled that they both infringed on one another there. But there the Galaxy S2 got banned but also did the iPad1 & 2, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone4. Which I found hillarious Apple lost bigger than they gained in that country. Made up for it in this case though.

The judge didn't let Samsung present the same type of evidence that Apple presented. Emails and documents that said Apple was using designs from other companies like Sony to design the original iPhone and iPad. In truth it is common practice for companies to buy a competitors product, disect it, and then design their own thing based off the various things that they find and creating their own tech to a point. Samsung had their documents shared in court stating to that fact. That's what killed them.

I own a lot of Samsung things, dislike Apple for the fact they lock so much stuff down and charge more or at all for things I can get for free or use otherwise. My sadness about all this is as a tech lover and geek. This just opens the flood gates for people to create devices left and right just to patent design and make it harder for individual companies to come out with their own because the corners look too much like the iPhone or any other companies devices. This case will be used as precedent in so many other patent cases that it will kill a lot of innovative start ups before they can start.

That the judge did not allow Samsung to present evidence Apple used the same tactics with other companies was absolutely the correct decision. There is no tenet in the American legal system that says the laws are waived because you did it yourself to someone else. If Sony was suing Apple then they would be justified but that was not the case.

I am also really tired of these doom saying comments about how this is going to destroy innovation or people are going to patent everything. Innovation is stifled when inventors, whether they be a one person shop or Apple, or Google, or Microsoft, etc., can have their creations appropriated by others with the inventor receiving no benefit. If Samsung benefitted by abusing Apple's patents, that gave them a competitive advantage over other manufacturers. By not negotiating licensing terms, that could have also given Samsung an unfair cost advantage. People on this site otherwise seem rather bright. but on this issue, take off the blinders, look at the patent laws, and consider the evidence in that light. Apple did not win on every count. They won on those that were pretty clear cut and also supported by Samsung's own documents that were produced in the discovery phase.

The patent system actually still works and this is an example of that fact. Samsung could not prove their case, and evidence from their own records supported Apple's contention about copying elements of Apple products that were already patented. As at least one analyst noted, over a decade ago Apple lost its look and feel argument against Microsoft and almost went under as a result. I would suggest, they would not have pulled this trigger unless they were convinced the preponderance of the evidence (and the resulting odds) would be in their favor.

The thing this decision may really influence is the extent to which large companies may be willing to push the envelope with respect to utilizing elements that might be considered part of someone else's patent. Guess what? That might actually lead companies to think outside of the box and really innovate, or put up the money to get access to the patents of innovators. BTW, look and feel have been patented for as long as there has been a patent system. Every manufacturer selling products in the US knows this fact. They also should understand the risk of making their product too much like something else on the market that may be patented.

 

[swyost]

It was not a fair trial. And this is what happens when a judge allows this kind of case to go forward and be decided by people who have no idea what they are looking at or how to judge it. And then withholding the evidence that shows that Apple did not even originate their own design. Some common sense would go a long way too. I mean, how different is a phone going to look. I knew this would happen with this being decided in the Bay Area and idiot fans wanting to give Steve Jobs his dying wish.

Of course if the decision went the other way, the jury would have been composed of the most forward thinking people in the country. While not perfect, the jury system is a lot better than the alternative. I would rather not see elements of fascism in the judicial system any more than I want it in the political system. BTW, the argument that the jurors who have "no idea" shouldn't be on a jury is really just silly. Last time I checked, you do not have to be a murderer to be a juror on a murder trial. Sarcasm aside, jury selection can be a long and tedious process and Samsung's lawyers accepted these jurors. They also didn't exactly try to force a change of venue. My bet is that, statistically, a male skewed jury would also probably be seen to favor Android/Samsung over Apple. As far as "how different can a phone look," grab any Nokia Windows phone (or actually any Windows Phone in reality), any BlackBerry, or any slider phone and then try to ask that question. For that matter, there are lots of Samsung phones, past and present, that were not found to infringe on the iPhone look and feel.

 

[crackberrytraitor]

That the judge did not allow Samsung to present evidence Apple used the same tactics with other companies was absolutely the correct decision. There is no tenet in the American legal system that says the laws are waived because you did it yourself to someone else. If Sony was suing Apple then they would be justified but that was not the case.

I am also really tired of these doom saying comments about how this is going to destroy innovation or people are going to patent everything. Innovation is stifled when inventors, whether they be a one person shop or Apple, or Google, or Microsoft, etc., can have their creations appropriated by others with the inventor receiving no benefit. If Samsung benefitted by abusing Apple's patents, that gave them a competitive advantage over other manufacturers. By not negotiating licensing terms, that could have also given Samsung an unfair cost advantage. People on this site otherwise seem rather bright. but on this issue, take off the blinders, look at the patent laws, and consider the evidence in that light. Apple did not win on every count. They won on those that were pretty clear cut and also supported by Samsung's own documents that were produced in the discovery phase.

The patent system actually still works and this is an example of that fact. Samsung could not prove their case, and evidence from their own records supported Apple's contention about copying elements of Apple products that were already patented. As at least one analyst noted, over a decade ago Apple lost its look and feel argument against Microsoft and almost went under as a result. I would suggest, they would not have pulled this trigger unless they were convinced the preponderance of the evidence (and the resulting odds) would be in their favor.

The thing this decision may really influence is the extent to which large companies may be willing to push the envelope with respect to utilizing elements that might be considered part of someone else's patent. Guess what? That might actually lead companies to think outside of the box and really innovate, or put up the money to get access to the patents of innovators. BTW, look and feel have been patented for as long as there has been a patent system. Every manufacturer selling products in the US knows this fact. They also should understand the risk of making their product too much like something else on the market that may be patented.

When you can patent shapes and contours, the patent system is in trouble.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[swyost]

Plain and simple the patent system was designed to protect start up companies and inventors, not allow multi billion dollar companies to bully the competition. Maybe apple isn't a monopoly yet, but it what they are pushing for.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

The patent system was absolutely not designed to protect start-up companies. It has always been about protecting intellectual property and it doesn't matter whether it is a billion dollar company or a person in their garage. Do you think Ford stopped patenting things once Henry Ford became a millionaire? Actually, I can't remember which car is being advertised since I have only ever heard the commercial in the background on BBC America, but there is an add running on a pretty regular basis that just touts the thousands of patents that went into producing the car.

As much as I dislike Apple they are also not a monopoly and really don't even bring particularly monopolistic practices to the table. You are only locked into their ecosystem if you choose their products but they are not in any way the only option. If you want to consider a company that actually does engage in monopolistic practices, take a look at the one down the road with the smiley faces and lava lamps (Google to those who miss the description). Google uses its search engine to leverage the company's position with respect to internet ad revenues. It also gives away an operating system that then allows Google to further leverage its position in mobile technology and reinforce the dominance of its search engine (and ad revenue stream) . These revenues then allow Google to design or buy software and technology (and companies) that let it further expand its share in multiple markets. The Google trajectory, if unchecked, can lead to a situation where consumers on one level or another have no choice, and may not even be aware that they have been captured by Google (with no easy opt out). It is not a monopoly yet but anyone who does not recognize that is the intent is being very na?ve....

 

[Ry]

When you can patent shapes and contours, the patent system is in trouble.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Doesn't Coca-Cola have a patent on the "Coke-bottle" shape?

Other Android OEMs have made tons of devices that don't look like iPhones. Just sayin'.

Just saying.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Andrew Martonik]

When you can patent shapes and contours, the patent system is in trouble.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Interestingly that's one of the things that the court today didn't hold up. The Galaxy Tab was found to not infringe on the iPad design patent.

 

[JHBThree]

Having a high % of the profits and high margins isn't illegal though.

I know. That's why all of the monopoly talk is nonsense.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Interestingly that's one of the things that the court today didn't hold up. The Galaxy Tab was found to not infringe on the iPad design patent.

Which, like the rest of the decisions, was reasonable. Although the galaxy tab looks similar, it is different enough from the patent not to infringe.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[deucalion]

Why is it anyone speaking rational thought is branded as a cultist or a agenda person. Mob mentality at its best.

Apple won, fair and square because they were right. Samsung and others have to stop copying - pure and simple.

Its easy to hate. Hate Oracle, hate Microsoft and now hate Apple - such poison and irrationality.

People are supporting a cheater and copycat company like Samsung. What a warped sense of right or wrong we have now.

 

[deucalion]

Could we move onward and drop the whole "colorful" metaphors, etc.... I think we still achieve our point without going down that street.

Thanks everyone...

I am a newcomer here mate, and the amount of hate and irrationality spewed against Apple (deserved or not) is evidence of a thread, board and forum already down to mob status.

Its already just another useless Internet board. With the only issues being addressed are peoples hurt egos by this verdict.

Mods need to step up.