[ice2008]

Was the zune really a copy of the ipod? It could just as well have been a copy of the creative zen... And don't forget the sony mp3 players either.


Sent from my ST25i using Android Central Forums

[dougmedia]

I was so disappointed in the verdict but am not the least surprised. CLEARLY Apple more or less bought this verdict. I hope this has a huge backlash effect on Apple, surely there are a LOT of techies who, while they might have a love affair with certain Apple products, don't like the idea of ONE company monopolizing the market to as large a degree as Apple seems to do. Why does it not seem to be addressed the fact that Apple appears to copy aspects of the Android OS - the latest Apple iOS does what Android smartphones have always done (to my knowledge), swiping down the task bar on top to see details and/or clear the notifications. A sad day for technical innovation all the way around...not EVERYTHING innovative comes from Apple, after all.

[cormaster628]

Well I'll be fair in saying Samsung put up a pathetic fight. Apple pretty much had proof of their patents and proof that Samsung violated them while Samsungs defense was "well that stuff shouldn't be patented anyway". While I agree it's not a good defense in court. Samsung might as well of just settled with that kind of Defense. So yes sadly I have to admit the jurors did their job the way they were supposed to. The real criminal is as always the ridiculous patent system. You shouldn't be able to patent things like pinch to zoom, or edge to edge screens, or round corners.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[radar320]

I think the whole point here is not who copied who, but the fact that the patent system is broken in many ways. When a company applies for a patent, imo not enough research is being done by the patent office to ensure that the concept attempted to be patented was not already in use, meaning previous art. Apple as well as a lot of other companies have been granted patents on concepts they have not created, just found other ways to use it. It should not have been allowed to get to this point. Apple should not have been allowed to patent previous art, and now are using it to be the big bad bully on the block, bloodying every one else's noses.

[MERCDROID]

A user on iMore actually has a different take on the case, concerning basically what two of the jurors had to say. "Before Samsung even needs to appeal, these jury comments are giving Samsung ample ammunition to file a Rule 50 challenge
[ ] that the jury was not behaving reasonably. In a separate interview, the jury foreman [ ... ] seems to tell a different story of the deliberations than Ilagan. He also said the jury "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist" to Samsung, which would suggest the jury either did not read or ignored Judge Koh's instructions (repeated twice, in sec 35 and 53) that damages are purely to compensate losses and not to punish the infringer. That, combined with the inconsistencies in the jury's first set of answers -- awarding damages for products they deemed not infringing -- would suggest the jury might have been playing a little fast and loose with both instructions and damages, giving Samsung room to try and throw the case out.

That is not to say Samsung would *win* such a motion, but there seems ample grounds here for them to try."

[cormaster628]

Someone on XDA suggested we all take our android phones into an Apple Store and tell them we have problems with our iPhones. When the they say "But these aren't iPhones" tell them "Yeah but supposedly no one can tell the difference!"

One of the points apple seems to make is Samsung is misleading the consumer as if people are buying Galaxy S phones and using them for months thinking they are iPhones. As if they went to the shelf and grabbed a galaxy s by mistake. Now if your buying online your going to know what you purchasing, if you go to a store to buy a phone, your going to get the phone you want. Come to think of it I've never met anyone whose gone in for an iphone and accidently got a galaxy s instead.

It is irritating. I'm not going to deny that Galaxy S phones were inspired and feature some of the same cues. But the galaxy s wasn't just a cheap iphone knock off, the user experience was completely different. And what if Samsung didn't copy the iphone at all? What if say Touchwiz was more like aosp with just a few tweaks, and most of their galaxy s phones looked like the Captivate and had the classic 4 android capacitive buttons instead of the gigantic phone button. Does anyone really think the Galaxy S phones would of sold any less? If anything Touchwiz is so hated now that without it they might even have more sales.

I'm sorry but the whole patent suit wasn't apple protecting their image, it was bullying the competition. Samsung has ALWAYS sold more phones than Apple, they've been in the phone business twice as long. Apple has a book the size of the bible of patents and they've managed to slam HTC who hasn't copied a single thing. They got HTC on data tapping, basically tapping a phone number within an email to bring up the dialer. If Samsung copied nothing apple would still of sued them. IIRC most of the patents didn't even deal with the home button or Touchwiz anyway

This is apple vs android. Didn't Steve Jobs go on some rant on how android is a stolen product and he'll use every dime of Apples billions to destroy it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[JHBThree]

A user on iMore actually has a different take on the case, concerning basically what two of the jurors had to say. "Before Samsung even needs to appeal, these jury comments are giving Samsung ample ammunition to file a Rule 50 challenge
[ ] that the jury was not behaving reasonably. In a separate interview, the jury foreman [ ... ] seems to tell a different story of the deliberations than Ilagan. He also said the jury "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist" to Samsung, which would suggest the jury either did not read or ignored Judge Koh's instructions (repeated twice, in sec 35 and 53) that damages are purely to compensate losses and not to punish the infringer. That, combined with the inconsistencies in the jury's first set of answers -- awarding damages for products they deemed not infringing -- would suggest the jury might have been playing a little fast and loose with both instructions and damages, giving Samsung room to try and throw the case out.

That is not to say Samsung would *win* such a motion, but there seems ample grounds here for them to try."

Federal appeals courts tend not to take any argument impugning the integrity of the jury well, especially when both parties approved of the jurors. Likewise, Samsung could attempt to use those statements, but they would be greeted by a skeptical court as to whether they have any legitimate right to use them.

In other words; the court is going to prefer whatever conclusions the jury came to over any allegations of impropriety by Samsung.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Chex313]

A user on iMore actually has a different take on the case, concerning basically what two of the jurors had to say. "Before Samsung even needs to appeal, these jury comments are giving Samsung ample ammunition to file a Rule 50 challenge
[ ] that the jury was not behaving reasonably. In a separate interview, the jury foreman [ ... ] seems to tell a different story of the deliberations than Ilagan. He also said the jury "wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist" to Samsung, which would suggest the jury either did not read or ignored Judge Koh's instructions (repeated twice, in sec 35 and 53) that damages are purely to compensate losses and not to punish the infringer. That, combined with the inconsistencies in the jury's first set of answers -- awarding damages for products they deemed not infringing -- would suggest the jury might have been playing a little fast and loose with both instructions and damages, giving Samsung room to try and throw the case out.

That is not to say Samsung would *win* such a motion, but there seems ample grounds here for them to try."

Unless that was Renee Ritchie writing that(Who in my opinion is the most knowledgeable and concise of all the mobile nations staff), I don't think that applies to the largest infractions....Those are the ones where it was proven that Samsung copied Knowingly.

When that happens the damages are tripled and the sole purpose of them is to punish the infringer. Are we sure that's not what that Juror was referring to?

If a jury finds that someone willfully infringed on a patent, the Patent Act says ”the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Guess what? The jury found that Samsung’s actions were willful. This means that Apple can now go to Judge Lucy Koh and ask her to triple the figure. But that doesn’t mean she has to do it.

[Ry]

I just sold my original zune 30 for money towards my Nexus 7 and i'll agree with you that the software was completely different but the fact it used software is an apple concept as every other media player is drag and drop. And the cable, nearly identical to the ipod. Even the reviews said "about the only reason to buy it, is to not buy an ipod". I had one because I needed a high capacity media player and newegg had a refurbished with the free car kit for 100. I had no complaints but still it looked like an ipod and functioned like one.

..but here's the thing. Does Apple have a patent on using software to sync media to a different device?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[Ry]

As far as "those sales could of been apple sales" so what competing companies aren't allowed to compete? And I can't speak for everyone but Apple wasn't selling me an iphone regardless. As far as I'm concerned, HTC lost a sale as I was drooling over the nexus one, then Samsung showed off their galaxy s phones and I was in love, and even more excited finding out it was coming to at&t and I could get one on contract. So I got a captivate instead.

I'm not going to lie, I really kinda wanted an iphone when they came out. But while they were a step ahead of many things, they were a step behind on the basics like multitasking, 3G, and mms and that's why I never bought one and eventually android came along and then I no longer cared to own one. Apple basically created their own worst enemy by keeping it on one carrier till 2010 and not including certain base features. Had it been on all 4 android would either cease to exist or might be more of a blackberry alternative. Form follows function. Apple definitely changed everything with the iphone but they gotta let people compete and they gotta be more innovative theirselves. I even have a friend who just sold his iphone 4s after owning a 4 and a 3G and bought a galaxy nexus for something different. The iphone has only really had minor changes over the years and is terribly outdated compared to say the Galaxy S3 or HTC one X.

The point is above all this is Apple people buy apple, android people buy android, and if apple people are buying Samsung instead then it their own fault.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Competing companies shouldn't be able to sell blatant ripoffs of another company's product. To steal an acronym from Engadget, Apple basically thought that Samsung KIRF'ed the iPhone and iPad with the Galaxy S phones a Galaxy Tab tablets.

And Apple was able to prove this to a jury.

Apple people don't always buy Apple. Android people don't always buy Android. And regular consumers aren't as informed as we are.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[cormaster628]

Alright someone on xda laid it out. What this actually means to the consumer is nothing. I apparently misunderstood some things like what phones were called into question. It seems worst case scenario is Sammy pays the fine, and the original galaxy s phones get banned, which aren't being produced anymore anyway. This lawsuit predates even the gs2 and the gnex and gs3 aren't part of the suit. If Apple attacked those phones today, they would be out of production by the time apple was granted a ban against them.

Android is far too big and wide for Apple to take out all together and the technology moves too fast for Apple to really hurt the consumer. Just because they won this case doesn't mean they can get the HTC One X banned tommorrow. It's going to be another long court battle.

So sit back, relax, and enjoy apple wasting billions of dollars on court fees because android isn't going anywhere!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Ry]

I was so disappointed in the verdict but am not the least surprised. CLEARLY Apple more or less bought this verdict. I hope this has a huge backlash effect on Apple, surely there are a LOT of techies who, while they might have a love affair with certain Apple products, don't like the idea of ONE company monopolizing the market to as large a degree as Apple seems to do. Why does it not seem to be addressed the fact that Apple appears to copy aspects of the Android OS - the latest Apple iOS does what Android smartphones have always done (to my knowledge), swiping down the task bar on top to see details and/or clear the notifications. A sad day for technical innovation all the way around...not EVERYTHING innovative comes from Apple, after all.

Why is this "monopoly" word coming up? Last I checked, Android phones were outselling iPhones.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[Rominucka]

Apple and Microsoft both stole Zerox's GUI design, with the whole mouse and pointer thing. And I'm sure Apple (along with every other company) pulled lots of other underhanded moves of the like throughout their history.

But that doesn't matter. The name of the game is: Don't Get Caught! Samsung f'ed up and basically broadcasted to the world, loud and clear, that they're directly copying Apple's look. They tried no real way of disguising it. Even if they weren't so blatant, Apple still would've sued over Android, it just would've taken a little longer...and from the looks of it, they're probably going try to collapse the entire OS.

When I worked as a VZW sales associate Android phones scared most customers with their comparative complexity. We pushed Samsung phones, more, because they looked more like the iPhone which comforted the customers (and they also yeilded a better profit).

Google and the other companies should've put more thought into the design, to make the phones more usable over the iPhone (as they are) but not take from the iPhone to make it more user friendly.

Android is in trouble and I hope they've been working on a reboot of the OS all this time so that I don't have to use a G'damn Windows phone in the future.

Apple sucks. They make the Toyota Corolla equivalent of electronics but sell them for Lexus IS prices.

Smarten up Google and get us out of this mess.

Sent from my Samsung Droid Charge 4G-LTE

[cormaster628]

Apple and Microsoft both stole Zerox's GUI design, with the whole mouse and pointer thing. And I'm sure Apple (along with every other company) pulled lots of other underhanded moves of the like throughout their history.

But that doesn't matter. The name of the game is: Don't Get Caught! Samsung f'ed up and basically broadcasted to the world, loud and clear, that they're directly copying Apple's look. They tried no real way of disguising it. Even if they weren't so blatant, Apple still would've sued over Android, it just would've taken a little longer...and from the looks of it, they're probably going try to collapse the entire OS.

When I worked as a VZW sales associate Android phones scared most customers with their comparative complexity. We pushed Samsung phones, more, because they looked more like the iPhone which comforted the customers (and they also yeilded a better profit).

Google and the other companies should've put more thought into the design, to make the phones more usable over the iPhone (as they are) but not take from the iPhone to make it more user friendly.

Android is in trouble and I hope they've been working on a reboot of the OS all this time so that I don't have to use a G'damn Windows phone in the future.

Apple sucks. They make the Toyota Corolla equivalent of electronics but sell them for Lexus IS prices.

Smarten up Google and get us out of this mess.

Sent from my Samsung Droid Charge 4G-LTE

Again worst case scenario in this case, Sammy pays the fine and phones that aren't sold anymore get banned. Android is going no where

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[mzanette]

Apple and Microsoft both stole Zerox's GUI design, with the whole mouse and pointer thing. And I'm sure Apple (along with every other company) pulled lots of other underhanded moves of the like throughout their history.

But that doesn't matter. The name of the game is: Don't Get Caught! Samsung f'ed up and basically broadcasted to the world, loud and clear, that they're directly copying Apple's look. They tried no real way of disguising it. Even if they weren't so blatant, Apple still would've sued over Android, it just would've taken a little longer...and from the looks of it, they're probably going try to collapse the entire OS.

When I worked as a VZW sales associate Android phones scared most customers with their comparative complexity. We pushed Samsung phones, more, because they looked more like the iPhone which comforted the customers (and they also yeilded a better profit).

Google and the other companies should've put more thought into the design, to make the phones more usable over the iPhone (as they are) but not take from the iPhone to make it more user friendly.

Android is in trouble and I hope they've been working on a reboot of the OS all this time so that I don't have to use a G'damn Windows phone in the future.

Apple sucks. They make the Toyota Corolla equivalent of electronics but sell them for Lexus IS prices.

Smarten up Google and get us out of this mess.

Sent from my Samsung Droid Charge 4G-LTE

What makes you think Android is in trouble? I think this barely affects Android as a whole. The OS will continue to evolve and flourish in hundreds of different devices.

[corydorcutt]

What you guys aren't thinking about is the precedent this trade-dress nonsense sets for future cases. You best believe Apple will be going after the other OEMs in short order.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

[cormaster628]

Yeah but what I didn't really think about is apple can't just win this case and automatically get say the One X banned tommorrow. They'd have to go through the same process again and by the time they won the one x would be out of production anyway.

Still the patent laws need changed. There are too many stupid patents apple has like bounce back, rounded corners, edge to edge screens etc.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

[Rominucka]

Right, this is more of a precedence setter than a flat out win. Apple's going to want to use this as leverage against Android as a whole...it's their foot in the door.

Say if Samsung Androids never existed...Apple would still have bones to pick with the other OEMs. (Aren't they trying to sue HTC? Or did they beat them already?) Samsung just made it a lot easier for them to build their case. Samsung skinned their devices the same and now that Apple has ripped the skin off...they're gonna go for the guts.
I hope I'm wrong; I hope I'm missing something, but it seems likely.

Sent from my Samsung Droid Charge 4G-LTE

[Ry]

Yeah but what I didn't really think about is apple can't just win this case and automatically get say the One X banned tommorrow. They'd have to go through the same process again and by the time they won the one x would be out of production anyway.

Still the patent laws need changed. There are too many stupid patents apple has like bounce back, rounded corners, edge to edge screens etc.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

Looks like you need to read more about what happened with the One X and EVO 4G LTE.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[corydorcutt]

Greetings Android OEMs. We at Apple are disgusted with your blatant abuse of out patents on rectangles and corners that don't cut people. In order to avoid being duly sued, we suggest you innovate your own shapes, you darn layabout copycats.



Sent from my iPad 3 using Android Central Forums

[pauliphone5]

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 ***** fans wanting to give Steve Jobs his dying wish.

Weren't there some engineers and software engineers on the jury? If so, how can you say the case was decided by people who have no idea what they are looking at?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Ry]

Weren't there some engineers and software engineers on the jury? If so, how can you say the case was decided by people who have no idea what they are looking at?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Easy. If they knew what they were looking at, Samsung would have won on every point. :rolleyes:

Here's a little insight on the jury:


Seems like a knowledgeable group.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[Thirsty1]

So, if Sammy blatantly ripped off Apple, why are the S3 and Nexus variants so much better than any iphone?

[Ry]

What you guys aren't thinking about is the precedent this trade-dress nonsense sets for future cases. You best believe Apple will be going after the other OEMs in short order.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

Not worried at all.

Apple has only gone after Samsung regarding trade-dress. They probably won't go after the Galaxy S3, at least not for trade-dress. Everyone else made/makes phones that don't look like the iPhone.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

[corydorcutt]

Not worried at all.

Apple has only gone after Samsung regarding trade-dress. They probably won't go after the Galaxy S3, at least not for trade-dress. Everyone else made/makes phones that don't look like the iPhone.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

Do you understand what legal precedence is? They went after Samsung first because they were the biggest competitor. LG's ui looks more like the iPhone than Samsung. The Galaxy Nexus doesn't look like the iPhone either, but it's included in Apple's request of phones to be banned and in case you hadn't read up on it, the jury has stated quite clearly they mean to teach Samsung a harsh lesson and make an example of them. Now that they have a precedent to ride on, they'll be filing injunctions against every other OEM as fast as they can think them up. If you don't realize that this lawsuit was Apple's beachhead, then you've got another thing coming.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums