Apple / Samsung Court Ruling

[1812dave]

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.

I was referring to Apple's propensity to unleash their cadre of lawyers. No entity has lawyered-up as much as Apple. You'd think they would chill out a bit, seeing as the company's value is astronomical. I know I'd sleep well at night if I was heading a company as rich as Apple.

And my main gripe (moving away for the moment from lawyers) is with the Patent Office. They are granting patents for things that are so freaking broad that it's beyond ridiculous. Apple has had no compunctions about copying the work of others. My respect for Apple sits at around minus 10.

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

I was referring to Apple's propensity to unleash their cadre of lawyers. No entity has lawyered-up as much as Apple. You'd think they would chill out a bit, seeing as the company's value is astronomical. I know I'd sleep well at night if I was heading a company as rich as Apple.

And my main gripe (moving away for the moment from lawyers) is with the Patent Office. They are granting patents for things that are so freaking broad that it's beyond ridiculous. Apple has had no compunctions about copying the work of others. My respect for Apple sits at around minus 10.

Who writes the laws to allow the patent Office to do that?

Sent using my Verizon Galaxy Nexus

 

[1812dave]

Who writes the laws to allow the patent Office to do that?

Sent using my Verizon Galaxy Nexus

Our broken government.

 

[nmoira]

Who writes the laws to allow the patent Office to do that?

Sent using my Verizon Galaxy Nexus

The Verge ran a good article awhile back explaining just this:

www.theverge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/

Best read accompanied by a strong beverage.

Sent from my GS3.

 

[Ry]

When it comes to design and trade dress patents, can anyone show me examples of Apple copying prior released phones?

People on this very site who were upset about the ruling also mentioned that they too saw similarities with the iPhone and the first generation of Galaxy S devices. IIRC, some were even saying "yes, this looks too close to the iPhone. Samsung is probably going to get sued."

Pinch to zoom does feel like it should be something un-patentable. The bounce-back though, I'm not too sure about. I mean, you could have fully functional scrolling without bounce-back.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[gabbott]

To those saying a lot of the items infringing are core android, Google says differently
http://engadget.com/2012/08/27/google-responds-to-apple-v-samsung-verdict/

I don't agree with a lot of how things turned out. But it is hard to not see that there are similarities with some Samsung phones and the iphone.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[pauldroidr2d2]

To those saying a lot of the items infringing are core android, Google says differently
Google on Apple v. Samsung: most infringed patents 'don't relate to the core Android operating system' -- Engadget

I don't agree with a lot of how things turned out. But it is hard to not see that there are similarities with some Samsung phones and the iphone.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

There are definitely similarities between the old iphone and galaxies. I also think that Apple's team made a good argument when they said, that the two could confuse people. Especially people who are not very tech savy. I think of how my parents would be if they saw the two devices side by side.

 

[Chex313]

In my book Android is safe....The new iphone going to have a bigger 4" screen.

I always look forward to the Keynote, but wake me up when they get to 4.5" .

My eyes are not getting any younger.

 

[Tom S.]

Read this:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

This is what you get from a jury in the US. The sad thing? People qualified to serve on this jury would be disallowed. The judge is amazing. Banned prior art, which clearly shows Apple's case is without merit.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[1812dave]

It was held in San Jose in the heart of Apple land. Not going to find an impartial jury for a trial between Apple and a Korean company

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[Tom S.]

The reason Apple goes after hardware manufacturers is very simple. Just compare the approaches of Microsoft and Google. Microsoft sells OS licenses and indemnifies the hardware partners. That means that if someone wants to sue over Windows, Windows Phone, etc., they will typically only sue Microsoft and even if they try to sue a hardware partner, they are insulated by Microsoft and its legal department. Google gives away android (technically) and makes money off the back end, which places the hardware partners between them and any legal action. I expect Apple will continue to sue hardware companies who have not reached patent agreements with them until they design well clear of the patents, drive a wedge between Google and those companies, or draw Google out to settle the original dispute.

FWIW, the Samsung suit was not heard by an idiot jury and anyone who says that understands neither the patent system nor trial by jury. Whether people like it or not, Apple did demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, that Samsung engaged in practices that violated a series of patents. Some were technical and some were look and feel - both are modern versions of things patented for as long as there has been a patent system. BTW, Microsoft licensed the relevant patents from Apple. Samsung could have done the same thing....

You're right. They're not idiots, they're geniuses. Over 100 pages of jury instructions and 700 questions answered in 3 days. Impressive.

Oh, and the foreman specifically mentioned punishing Samsung, when the jury instructions specifically specified damages were not to be punitive.

You obviously know nothing about patent law, or law in general. Read this article and get back to me.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tom S.]

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

Actually, Apple stole its UI from Xerox.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jschu22]

Its funny how so many are willing to believe assumed factors like geography, corruption and judicial imprudence resulted created this verdict but shun actual evidence that was admitted. Just goes to show that many people will only believe what they want to believe.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Android Central Forums

 

[Johnly]

Apple has the cardboard sign flying, they be dying, watch fool.....

 

[milesmcever]

You're right. They're not idiots, they're geniuses. Over 100 pages of jury instructions and 700 questions answered in 3 days. Impressive.

Oh, and the foreman specifically mentioned punishing Samsung, when the jury instructions specifically specified damages were not to be punitive.

You obviously know nothing about patent law, or law in general. Read this article and get back to me.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Tom I misses the part about the jury instructions specified damages were not to be punitive if so why were they? Sorry but I've ignored a lot of this stuff, but I will have to say on some of the earlier Samsung devices I stayed away they to me looked too iphonish and I really didn't want that look or feel. Don't bash me for saying that as I love my Samsung nexus but that was my observation at the time.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[TheIowaKid]

The reason Apple goes after hardware manufacturers is very simple. Just compare the approaches of Microsoft and Google. Microsoft sells OS licenses and indemnifies the hardware partners. That means that if someone wants to sue over Windows, Windows Phone, etc., they will typically only sue Microsoft and even if they try to sue a hardware partner, they are insulated by Microsoft and its legal department. Google gives away android (technically) and makes money off the back end, which places the hardware partners between them and any legal action. I expect Apple will continue to sue hardware companies who have not reached patent agreements with them until they design well clear of the patents, drive a wedge between Google and those companies, or draw Google out to settle the original dispute.

FWIW, the Samsung suit was not heard by an idiot jury and anyone who says that understands neither the patent system nor trial by jury. Whether people like it or not, Apple did demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, that Samsung engaged in practices that violated a series of patents. Some were technical and some were look and feel - both are modern versions of things patented for as long as there has been a patent system. BTW, Microsoft licensed the relevant patents from Apple. Samsung could have done the same thing....

I don't want to get into an argument, but if you think that jury was well informed, intelligent, and took their time and due diligence.....my friend you're wrong. Here is one of many stories that paint a different picture. The flew through the process, guessed on damages and even admitted to making up their mind on the first day of proceedings. The foreman owns a patent, so somehow that makes him an expert? Ridiculous.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Actually, Apple stole its UI from Xerox.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

No. They paid for it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

Read this:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

This is what you get from a jury in the US. The sad thing? People qualified to serve on this jury would be disallowed. The judge is amazing. Banned prior art, which clearly shows Apple's case is without merit.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

The judge didn't ban prior art. Samsung attempted to game the system by introducing evidence very close to the start of the trial, which violated the rules of the court. There was nothing improper about her denying their request to improve it. Given the moves samsungs lawyers made during the rest of the trial, they were attempting to game the system by setting up opportunities for their appeal.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

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.

The UK does not have software patents, so it was not the same case.

You people also keep bringing up supposedly questionable rulings by the judge, and yet cannot cite a single instance of an order that was legally questionable. Almost every ruling you guys claim was questionable was precipitated by samsungs pathetic legal team trying to be clever but failing miserably.

Also, please cite the evidence the jury ignored.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ry]

I don't want to get into an argument, but if you think that jury was well informed, intelligent, and took their time and due diligence.....my friend you're wrong. Here is one of many stories that paint a different picture. The flew through the process, guessed on damages and even admitted to making up their mind on the first day of proceedings. The foreman owns a patent, so somehow that makes him an expert? Ridiculous.
http://m.gizmodo.com/5938219/why-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling-may-not-hold-up

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I guess I need to be an expert in murder to serve on the jury of a murder trial.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums