Apple / Samsung Court Ruling

[Ry]

Someone who built a chair, doesnt owe dues to the first person that made the chair.

Usually true, but that really isn't what is being argued in this case.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

The jurors must be loving their new ipads...


Apple stole from Palm.....Samsung stole from Apple.....Apple's wins suit....says..."it's wrong to steal?.......everyone believes Apple........

The next iPhone might have wireless charging......then everyone will know Apple invented it....

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

If any of the above is even remotely true, something that you are overlooking is that Apple was smart enough to patent some of those technologies. Like it or not, Apple does hold patents on various features and designs. Samsung was arrogant and stupid. Even after being offered the option to reach settlement outside of court, they chose not too. The email's that were presented in court were pretty damning and from everything I have read helped the juror's make up their mind.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

Myself and several others have mentioned that this whole thing could have and should have been avoided if the patent office wasn't broken and was actually doing their job. How can you grant a loosely worded patent on a concept you didn't create, just find another use for, and was prior art? These patents are so loosely worded that it is imo entrapment. This is going to be hurtful to innovation, and is an attempt to kill off any and all competition. I say it is going to hurt innovation because with how broad and loosely worded these patents are, by the time a company comes up with a new innovation, Apple is going to find a way to say that it infringes on one of their sham patents.

Don't blame Apple for taking advantage of existing patent laws. If you dislike them and feel they need to be changed, that isn't for the courts to determine. The courts have to interpret the laws, the legislative body needs to change them.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous allowing technology companies to patent software for as many years as they do. But, no matter how you cut it, those are the laws and rules as they stand now.

 

[Joelist]

Samsung will be appealing, and they have a pretty strong case. Groklaw is far from the only source that caught that the jury disregarded instructions and it sounds a lot like the foreman was biased (in the general sense - being a patent holder he is more likely to decide that the patents are valid and being infringed). Juries don't get to just decide not to review valid evidence.

Then there are the multiple highly questionable rulings Judge Koh made during the trial. Remember that basically the same case in South Korea was lost by Apple and in the UK they not only lost their patents were invalidated. This nonsense is far from over.

 

[jschu22]

A foreman being a patent holder is hardly justification for an appeal and don't forget that Samsung allowed that juror to be there as well.

Apple did not lose the same case anywhere else because they weren't arguing US patents there. That could have been a key element in those situations. Additionally, while our system is far from incorrupt, I seriously question a foreign company getting a fair shake against the largest Korean corporation, during a case in Korea.

 

[Joelist]

Sorry but yes it was basically the same case. And the fact that both of the other courts kicked it and the UK even went the extra step and invalidated the Apple patents should tell you something.

And yes the information coming out about the jury deliberations is powerful ammunition for the appeal - an appeal that was already going to happen based on Judge Koh's questionable (to put it lightly) rulings earlier in the trial that caused the jury not to see a lot of evidence that the patents were invalid because of prior art. Then again, the jury just decided to ignore evidence in any respect, and also apparently just arbitrarily assigned damages even where they found no infringement.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

US Patent law is the same as what they have in the UK and South Korea?

 

[Ry]

Sorry but yes it was basically the same case. And the fact that both of the other courts kicked it and the UK even went the extra step and invalidated the Apple patents should tell you something. .

You're acting like Apple won every ruling. They didn't.

More specifically- trade dress vs. the Galaxy Tab. Apple didn't win there, just like they didn't win in the UK.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[retsaw]

Don't blame Apple for taking advantage of existing patent laws.

Why not? Something being legal doesn't make it right.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[retsaw]

Even after being offered the option to reach settlement outside of court, they chose not too.

What settlement offer were they made? While I remember the judge strongly recommend that Samsung and Apple talk and reach a settlement, I don't recall Apple actually making an offer, if I missed it, please enlighten me, I got the impression that Apple aren't really interested in damages or licencing and would only be content with Samsung's products being banned from sale.

The email's that were presented in court were pretty damning and from everything I have read helped the juror's make up their mind.

Yes, it seems clear that Samsung copied Apple quite a bit with the Galaxy S design, but what isn't clear is why Apple should be allowed a design patent on what is basically a rounded rectangle with a single button at the bottom. Although the Galaxy S is quite like the iPhone 3GS, in my non-legal opinion I personally think it is sufficiently different that it should be allowed.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[icewater106]

Did the nexus 7 get banned or something?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Android Central Forums

 

[varsityhacker]

Did the nexus 7 get banned or something?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Android Central Forums

Not yet, but will be shortly after the launch of the Ipad mini

 

[varsityhacker]

Does anyone really believe that Samsung didn't copy Apple design, feel, and look?

 

[NickA]

Does anyone really believe that Samsung didn't copy Apple design, feel, and look?

That point of view depends on what site you are on

Samsung copied. They knew they were doing it and didn't care. Regardless of what you feel should have a patent or not, and what is actually copied (rounded corners, come on), the fact is Samsung "borrowed" designs from Apple knowing they shouldn't be.

No offense to anyone, but I've seen some really immature and ridiculous comments posted in this forum and others about this topic.

Let's face it; if you are a true technology fan like myself and many others here, we lose. When the iPhone 5 comes out with a 4" screen, I'll set aside my GNex for now and get it. Same with the iPad mini. And I'll ditch the iPhone 5 and get the latest/greatest Android powered device when it comes out. It doesn't matter who makes it or what OS; I just want cool (original) stuff.

 

[1812dave]

Why not? Something being legal doesn't make it right.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

LOL! Must be ONE of the reasons most people despise lawyers!

 

[jschu22]

Did I log into "Iknoweverythingabout worldpatentlaws.com" and mistakingly click on the "Samsung v Apple: Expert analysis and insider info here!" thread?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Seriously, Samsung was chosen because they slavishly copied the iPhone. Their internal memos say as much.

Now, as for the Nexus 7?

Asus didn't copy the iPad.

Edit: For the record, I don't like the ruling... because I think the law is wrong.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

Does anyone really believe that Samsung didn't copy Apple design, feel, and look?

At this point, it doesn't matter what any of us think regarding the above. The simple fact of the matter of is, after the ruling, they did copy Apple's design at least for the products that were listed in the suit. Samsung should probably be thankful (even though I'm sure they aren't) that the judge had Apple limit their list.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

LOL! Must be ONE of the reasons most people despise lawyers!

The lawyers are the wrong ones to hold accountable though. They do not make the laws. In this case that would be the Congress and the President. For this type of thing, they are the ones who are responsible for Apple even being to hold patents on these things and especially for the number of years.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

Seriously, Samsung was chosen because they slavishly copied the iPhone. Their internal memos say as much.

Now, as for the Nexus 7?

Asus didn't copy the iPad.

Edit: For the record, I don't like the ruling... because I think the law is wrong.

No, they didn't copy the iPad itself, but there are features on it, which are similar to the iPad, that I think potentially be another suit for Apple. I think that depends on how threatened Apple feels though.

Let's face it guys, the product that is ultimately Apple's life line right now is the iPhone. I think the current leadership at Apple will do whatever they need to try and do in order to maintain that type of lead. If I was one of the shareholders, I think I would expect them as well.