Ridiculous verdict in Apple/Samsung case

[cormaster628]

I apologize for being a jerk last night. I was really angry and thinking irrationally. I'll be fair in saying that when I got my Captivate and used touch wiz for the first time my first thought was "Apple is going to sue them". If apple forces them to kill touchwiz then the verdict is a good thing. Touchwiz is absolutely terrible, even worse than HTC Sense. At least sense is original and doesn't mimic apple.

As far as apple goes I try not to be an android fanboy. Let's face it iphones are easy to use. A buddy of mine whose not a techie at all bought an evo 4g when they came out, returned it the next day for a basic Sanyo flip phone because he couldn't figure it out. More recently I recommended by get a iphone because it's easier to use and he did and loves it. I've also recommended them to my parents too.

Honestly if they jury did side with Samsung it was a loss too. Imo android and Apple can peacefully coexist but not with apples ridiculous book of patents. Overall I'm sick of all patent trials, whoever wins, we the consumer loose. It time to change the patent laws.

I guess for me I just don't get why else apple would need retribution for damages. It doesn't seem to make that Samsung has cost apple any money at all, Apple people will buy iphones regardless and they just got labeled the most valuable company of all time. I really don't think Samsung was hurting anything.

But yeah Samsung did a bad job presenting itself so yes I agree in that aspect the verdict was fair. Samsungs case seemed to be "yeah we copied because this stuff shouldn't be patented anyway". Fail Samsung, fail.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MERCDROID]

Honestly, I can understand people being angry at this verdict, but the fact is that Samsung copied Apple, blatantly. And this is coming from someone that has the Galaxy S3 and absolutely loves it. We criticize iOS users as being cultist, but when we hear news that we don't agree with, our inner fanboy comes out and clouds our judgement. This may seem bad at first, but in reality it is a blessing in disguise. And to be honest, it is a short term and hallow victory at best for Apple. Why? When a company is backed into a corner, they are forced to change. In this case, Samsung is forced to think out of the box and innovate. Because of this ruling, the Galaxy S4 may be even more amazing when it launches next year. Many or all of Samsung's future phones will have different design language, and possibly have stripped down versions of Touchwiz or even be exclusively AOSP. And not just Samsung, but all Android OEMs can benefit from changing their tactics. Just my opinion

 

[cormaster628]

Yeah maybe it'll make Touchwiz more appealing. Touchwiz used to be pretty light but now it's over intrusive and the whole point of it seems to be that it's different from stock Android and has a apple look to it. It's not better. Kudos for Htc because at least sense does try to actively improve android, though for a purist like me I don't care for it much.

Also the verdict at this point won't change anything. Samsung owes apple a billion dollars, pocket change to the largest company that came out of Korea, and they are going to appeal anyway. Nothing is banned, if your wanting a galaxy nexus or a galaxy s3, today, the day after, they are still being sold and will continue to be for any foreseeable future

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[crackberrytraitor]

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

I think you'll find Glass Pepsi bottles look nearly indistinguishable from coke bottles. Devices like the Galaxy Nexus look NOTHING like the iPhone but still supposedly violate their trade dress. It's like a car company patenting round wheels. This is the same company who patented multi-touch after someone else invented it.

Look, I wouldn't take issue over Samsung receiving a fair fine over the fact that touch wiz honestly looks similar to iOS. But a BILLION dollars because Apple's patented the rectangle and freakin rubber banding?! Microsoft used to try to pull this kind of crap too and it was just as despicable and against the spirit of Capitalism. If you think Apple won't be going after every other Android manufacturer now that they've set a precedent than you've got another thing coming.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[crackberrytraitor]

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.

The tab was not. Many phones were. Their trade press patents held up.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

 

[cormaster628]

I really don't see how the tablet is a rip off at all, first of all the ipad has a 4:3 aspect ratio while the tab 10.1 uses 16:9 so the ipad looks more like a square while the tab looks like a rectangle. Secondly the ipad has a physical home button, the tab has no physical buttons on the front. Thirdly even with touchwiz the tabs ui looks more like stock honeycomb and honeycomb looks completely different from the ipads phone like ui. The only thing that is similar at all is the gigantic black slab which imo makes all android tablets infringe on Apple patents

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ry]

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.

Apparently when you activate an Android phone, there's something in the terms that says you must blindly support any and every Android OEM whether they are right or wrong.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Ry]

Honestly if they jury did side with Samsung it was a loss too. Imo android and Apple can peacefully coexist but not with apples ridiculous book of patents. Overall I'm sick of all patent trials, whoever wins, we the consumer loose. It time to change the patent laws.

I guess for me I just don't get why else apple would need retribution for damages. It doesn't seem to make that Samsung has cost apple any money at all, Apple people will buy iphones regardless and they just got labeled the most valuable company of all time. I really don't think Samsung was hurting anything.

But yeah Samsung did a bad job presenting itself so yes I agree in that aspect the verdict was fair. Samsungs case seemed to be "yeah we copied because this stuff shouldn't be patented anyway". Fail Samsung, fail.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2

So you're saying Apple should have won but received no compensation from Samsung after Samsung was found by a jury to infringe on Apple's IP just because Apple is the most valuable company in the world?



Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Ry]

Honestly, I can understand people being angry at this verdict, but the fact is that Samsung copied Apple, blatantly. And this is coming from someone that has the Galaxy S3 and absolutely loves it. We criticize iOS users as being cultist, but when we hear news that we don't agree with, our inner fanboy comes out and clouds our judgement. This may seem bad at first, but in reality it is a blessing in disguise. And to be honest, it is a short term and hallow victory at best for Apple. Why? When a company is backed into a corner, they are forced to change. In this case, Samsung is forced to think out of the box and innovate. Because of this ruling, the Galaxy S4 may be even more amazing when it launches next year. Many or all of Samsung's future phones will have different design language, and possibly have stripped down versions of Touchwiz or even be exclusively AOSP. And not just Samsung, but all Android OEMs can benefit from changing their tactics. Just my opinion

Spot on. Thank you.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[Ry]

I think you'll find Glass Pepsi bottles look nearly indistinguishable from coke bottles. Devices like the Galaxy Nexus look NOTHING like the iPhone but still supposedly violate their trade dress. It's like a car company patenting round wheels. This is the same company who patented multi-touch after someone else invented it.

Look, I wouldn't take issue over Samsung receiving a fair fine over the fact that touch wiz honestly looks similar to iOS. But a BILLION dollars because Apple's patented the rectangle and freakin rubber banding?! Microsoft used to try to pull this kind of crap too and it was just as despicable and against the spirit of Capitalism. If you think Apple won't be going after every other Android manufacturer now that they've set a precedent than you've got another thing coming.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums

I thought the Galaxy Nexus lawsuits didn't involve any trade dress- it was all software patents mainly related to search.

Going back to Coke vs. Pepsi- I'm pretty sure the story was Coca-Cola wanted a unique bottle for their products, so unique that one could tell they were holding a Coke bottle if they were in the dark. This was ages ago though, not sure how long trade dress or design patents last. If Pepsi changed their can to red and their logotype to a white script, I'm pretty sure Coke would sue.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[cormaster628]

So you're saying Apple should have won but received no compensation from Samsung after Samsung was found by a jury to infringe on Apple's IP just because Apple is the most valuable company in the world?



Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

No what I'm saying is how did this go to court anyway? Patents are to protect from another company ripping off and damaging another company. Samsung isn't damaging Apple, not at all so what is the issue exactly? I guess I just get mad when I hear about how the Galaxy s phones did irreparable harm to apple. All the Apple fans are going to by apple regardless so I just don't see how they did any irreparable harm or hurt apples reputation.

I'll bring it fair in saying Touchwiz and the gigantic physical home button mimic apple but even then the galaxy S doesn't look identical to the iphone nor does Touchwiz look and work exactly like ios. Last I checked Touchwiz has this thing called "homescreens" something ios doesn't have. Also every tablet style touch screen phone looks like an iphone to someone who doesn't know better.

You know what was a direct rip off of an apple product? The Microsoft Zune. It looked and felt like an ipod and even had proprietary software to sync to and from the pc similar to itunes. In about every way shape and form the Zune was an ipod rip off but I don't recall apple claiming it did irreparable harm to the company and hitting Microsoft will a patent lawsuit. The difference is the Zune was a market flop while Samsung has had considerable success with their galaxy s phones.

Thats why I can't help but think this is apples way of bullying the competition. I agree the verdict was fair given the cases presented and the evidence. It just their shouldn't have been a case to begin with.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[thenameisnigel]

No what I'm saying is how did this go to court anyway? Patents are to protect from another company ripping off and damaging another company. Samsung isn't damaging Apple, not at all so what is the issue exactly? I guess I just get mad when I hear about how the Galaxy s phones did irreparable harm to apple. All the Apple fans are going to by apple regardless so I just don't see how they did any irreparable harm or hurt apples reputation.

I'll bring it fair in saying Touchwiz and the gigantic physical home button mimic apple but even then the galaxy S doesn't look identical to the iphone nor does Touchwiz look and work exactly like ios. Last I checked Touchwiz has this thing called "homescreens" something ios doesn't have. Also every tablet style touch screen phone looks like an iphone to someone who doesn't know better.

You know what was a direct rip off of an apple product? The Microsoft Zune. It looked and felt like an ipod and even had proprietary software to sync to and from the pc similar to itunes. In about every way shape and form the Zune was an ipod rip off but I don't recall apple claiming it did irreparable harm to the company and hitting Microsoft will a patent lawsuit. The difference is the Zune was a market flop while Samsung has had considerable success with their galaxy s phones.

Thats why I can't help but think this is apples way of bullying the competition. I agree the verdict was fair given the cases presented and the evidence. It just their shouldn't have been a case to begin with.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

As a user with the SGS II (Epic 4G Touch) I can say that it is very iOS like. But the point is Samsung as well as Apple used other OEM's design to base there product off of. No doubt about it. Yes, Apple won. But if the leaked pictures of the iPhone 5 is true, then best believe that phone is darn skippy based of Samsung-Model phones.

 

[Ry]

No what I'm saying is how did this go to court anyway? Patents are to protect from another company ripping off and damaging another company. Samsung isn't damaging Apple, not at all so what is the issue exactly? I guess I just get mad when I hear about how the Galaxy s phones did irreparable harm to apple. All the Apple fans are going to by apple regardless so I just don't see how they did any irreparable harm or hurt apples reputation.

I'll bring it fair in saying Touchwiz and the gigantic physical home button mimic apple but even then the galaxy S doesn't look identical to the iphone nor does Touchwiz look and work exactly like ios. Last I checked Touchwiz has this thing called "homescreens" something ios doesn't have. Also every tablet style touch screen phone looks like an iphone to someone who doesn't know better.

You know what was a direct rip off of an apple product? The Microsoft Zune. It looked and felt like an ipod and even had proprietary software to sync to and from the pc similar to itunes. In about every way shape and form the Zune was an ipod rip off but I don't recall apple claiming it did irreparable harm to the company and hitting Microsoft will a patent lawsuit. The difference is the Zune was a market flop while Samsung has had considerable success with their galaxy s phones.

Thats why I can't help but think this is apples way of bullying the competition. I agree the verdict was fair given the cases presented and the evidence. It just their shouldn't have been a case to begin with.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Are you possibling buying into Samsung's "this phone's sales were miniscule so you shouldn't bother us" argument?

There should be monetary damages because Samsung was found to have been ripping off Apple.

Plus those sales could have been iPhone sales- copying to create confusion.

Samsung is the top phone maker in terms of volume. It's not like Apple is bullying a Meizu in this case.

I own a Zune. The original and the HD. The only thing similar between the two was that they played back media. The Zune desktop software was NOTHING like iTunes. The Zune interface on their devices was NOTHING like any iPod's interface. The Zune basically started Microsoft's shift to the "don't call it Metro anymore" UI style, which looks nothing like anyone else's interface.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[cormaster628]

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.

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 SIII 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

 

[cormaster628]

You also gotta figure Samsung is the top phone maker because they make 100 different models from android phones to windows phone 7 models to bada phones to dumb phones. Samsungs was probably one of the top phone makers before the iphone release. I've had more Samsung phones than any other manufacturer and only one was a smartphone. Sgh-X427, Sync A707, Eternity A867, Mythic A897, and Captivate i897. Thats a span from 2003 to 2010.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[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
[ Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute ] that the jury was not behaving reasonably. In a separate interview, the jury foreman [ http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idINBRE8... ] 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."