Samsung v. Apple

[greenyouth]

Apple has won. They now have the patent. This is a good news for everybody who loves Apple products and bad for Samsung fanatics.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by greenyouth

Apple has won. They now have the patent. This is a good news for everybody who loves Apple products and bad for Samsung fanatics.

It won't help Apple fanatics. Just the opposite, they will have to pay higher prices (or rather continued high prices) for the magic products.

And what is really important is: can Apple come up with new things in the future? What does it matter for Apple fans that a court has ruled that 1-2 years ago Samsung have been bad boys and brought some products to market that were deemed very similar to Apple's? The current crop of competitive products certainly does not fall under that ruling -- they have moved far ahead of Apple's offerings. These days, who in his right mind would copy the iPhone anymore (except some local Chinese companies)?

In the end, now if Apple comes up with a bigger screen, NFC, and LTE for iPhone 5, shouldn't they be sued for copying on the basis of this ruling?

[kennyc]

Wait, doesn't Motorola have a design patent on "Bigger Screens?"

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by greenyouth

Apple has won. They now have the patent. This is a good news for everybody who loves Apple products and bad for Samsung fanatics.

It's bad news for anyone who likes tech devices. Patents are way out of control. I have quite a few apple devices and much prefer the iPhone/iPad over the android devices, but these fights should be in the court of consumer demand, not in a court of law.

[sadievan]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's bad news for anyone who likes tech devices. Patents are way out of control. I have quite a few apple devices and much prefer the iPhone/iPad over the android devices, but these fights should be in the court of consumer demand, not in a court of law.

Totally agree. I like my iPhone/iPad also. But these suits are getting stupid.

Carol

[Graham]

Originally Posted by greenyouth

Apple has won. They now have the patent.

Good job the jury were so thorough on that:

The jury deliberated this at length, but then rather interestingly, eventually decided to skip this evidence, because it bogged them down:

"After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art -- because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down".

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/13959/ (among many reporting this)

Graham

[speakingtohe]

Now I am really confused.

Helen

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Graham

Good job the jury were so thorough on that:



http://www.legitreviews.com/news/13959/ (among many reporting this)

Graham

Seems grounds for a mistrial right there, if this was officially said by a juror.

[joehunt]

From the same article:

In an interview, juror Manuel Ilagan has spoken about Apple's high profile patent infringement court case in which they soundly beat Samsung yesterday. He said that the nine-person jury believed after just the first day that Samsung had infringed Apple's patents, "We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented," Ilagan said. "It was clear there was infringement."

Hmmm a jury discounting all evidence presented with the exception of what was entered by Apple's attorneys on the first day of trial

[Graham]

Originally Posted by joehunt

From the same article:

Hmmm a jury discounting all evidence presented with the exception of what was entered by Apple's attorneys on the first day of trial

His comments are even more astonishing when you note that Samsung didn't start to present evidence until the second week.

And the juror also appears to completely miss the point that if the prior art evidence was pursued and found to invalidate the patent, then it was irrelevant whether Samsung infringed.

Graham

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Graham

His comments are even more astonishing when you note that Samsung didn't start to present evidence until the second week.

And the juror also appears to completely miss the point that if the prior art evidence was pursued and found to invalidate the patent, then it was irrelevant whether Samsung infringed.

Graham

A jurist would probably be dismissed by one side or the other if he/she was a patent expert.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

A jurist would probably be dismissed by one side or the other if he/she was a patent expert.

Part of the jury's job, regardless of expertise, was to review the prior art. If they found it convincing, then the design patent was invalid. If invalid then Samsung could not have infringed.

The juror appears to be saying that they found the prior art stuff a bit too complex so skipped it and concentrated on the infringement.

If they did do this then they completely missed the point on the trade dress issue.

Graham

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by greenyouth

Apple has won.

Here is another interesting point of view on that at Groklaw.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Here is another interesting point of view on that at Groklaw.

This is getting curiouser and curiouser. Does a mistrial loom ahead?

[tubemonkey]

Also, are these jurors bucking to get on some reality TV show?