Who Really Lost the Apple vs. Samsung Case? You Did.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As their memos made clear they thought their products were non-competitive and it would take too long to develop ones that were so they chose to copy Apple and even after Google warned them they kept on copying. They did so because they wanted to keep Apple from running away with the market the way Amazon is running away with the ebook reader market in certain regions.
And what better way to keep Apple from running uncontested than to challenge them with their own products in drag?

It was cold, calculated, profit seeking, not philosophy.

Right on the money. If Internet pundits really think innovation consists of slavishly copying Apple products, maybe the punditry business isn't for them.

Other Android handset manufacturers should see this as a win. Samsung rode all the way to its massive market share on Apple's coattails and is currently the only Android OEM making any kind of money. Hopefully injunctions against their infringing products will level the playing field, as well as stimulate Android to differentiate itself from its competition the way Windows Phone 7 has.

And if the biggest losers of this verdict are the telecommunications companies, then consumers are the biggest winners. Any blow against unremovable crapware, lower handset subsidies, and outrageous monthly costs should be praised, not vilified.

Just more linkbait trash journalism.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The reality here is simple: Samsung copied Apple to make money, not to advance any philosophy or principle.

The reality here is simple:


Samsung didn't copy Apple, but Apple applied for a patent for the design.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The reality here is simple:

Samsung didn't copy Apple, but Apple applied for a patent for the design.

If Samsung came up with all the ideas for the iPhone before Apple, why didn't Samsung produce the iPhone? Or a phone even a tenth as innovative? For years?

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by holymadness

If Samsung came up with all the ideas for the iPhone before Apple, why didn't Samsung produce the iPhone? Or a phone even a tenth as innovative? For years?

I would like to see the finished product too instead of their paper.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by holymadness

If Samsung came up with all the ideas for the iPhone before Apple, why didn't Samsung produce the iPhone? Or a phone even a tenth as innovative? For years?

That's irrelevant. Samsung clearly looked at the success of the iPhone and moved closer to its look in the 18 months or so between the release of the iPhone 3G and the Galaxy S.

But the point is that they had similar designs of their own in the past, so the look and feel of the Galaxy S is also rooted in their own past work. Not just these prototypes, but also in the clean styling of their photo frames and TVs, and of at least one of their music players. Yes, the success of the iPhone informed their choice of which of their in-house styles to follow, but no, it's not a case of 100% copying.

Touchwiz is their more blatant attempt to make the phone feel more like an Apple device, and I do think sanctions are in order there, but even with Touchwiz you'll note that the patents that Apple were able to get a verdict on are ones that are raising an eyebrow with the observers of prior art and 'obviousness'. Bounce back, pinch to zoom and double-tap to zoom? Patentable?

Graham

[DiapDealer]

"Who Really Lost the Apple vs. Samsung Case? You Did.

I can't lose. I've never been in the smartphone game. I like my phones tiny and dumber than a bag of hammers.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by holymadness

If Samsung came up with all the ideas for the iPhone before Apple, why didn't Samsung produce the iPhone? Or a phone even a tenth as innovative? For years?

Maybe they were waiting for the OS.

[ScotiaBurrell]

New HTC Android tablet. Again...copying.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

New HTC Android tablet. Again...copying.

Scotia, sometimes it's hard to tell whether you're being sarcastic or not!

But in a related development, since the jury decided that the Galaxy Tab did not infringe on the iPad design, Samsung have moved to get the injunction against Tab sales in the US lifted as soon as possible:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20827143911783

For whatever reason seemed good to [the jury], they didn't find the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringing Apple's 'D889 patent. And that was the only one that the District Court judge and the Federal Circuit thought should be blocked by an injunction pending the outcome of the trial. Neither the judge nor the Federal Circuit seemed to think the other Apple patents were likely to prevail, but with this jury, the Alice in Wonderland of juries as I think of them, it was the opposite.

Graham

[pidgeon92]

The price of my Apple stock went up after the verdict. I won!

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

The price of my Apple stock went up after the verdict. I won!

If verdict is reversed you have to return your gains and the Samsung investors must be given their lost value back.

[david_e]

.....

[Dulin's Books]

one thing that is missing much of the typing from various experts /blogs wetc is that Samsung was not found to be infringing the rounded rectangles patent and yet the jury said the patent was valid. i dont see how that ruling is possible logically.

also the jury found Apple was not infringing Samsung's valid software and standards patents. I suppose a reasonable jury could find that way on the software but on the standards patents? Um the Apple phone works, right? So then they are infringing on those two without a license. Thats the only logical ruling.

anyway interesting news here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20828225612963 about the interview with the jury foreman you may have heard about and a the video itself

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

also the jury found Apple was not infringing Samsung's valid software and standards patents. I suppose a reasonable jury could find that way on the software but on the standards patents? Um the Apple phone works, right? So then they are infringing on those two without a license. Thats the only logical ruling.

No, they were found not to be infringing, because those patents were embodied in a chip Apple purchased from Intel, who has a license for the patents. Samsung had already got their royalties.

The relevant jury instruction:

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 34
PATENT EXHAUSTION
I will now instruct you on how to decide Apple’s defense of patent exhaustion. Apple contends that Samsung is barred from enforcing the ’516 and ’941 patents against Apple’s accused iPhone and iPad products because they incorporate baseband chips that Intel sold to Apple with authorization from Samsung.
To prevail on the defense of patent exhaustion, Apple must prove that the following is more likely true than not:
First, that Intel was authorized to sell the baseband chips under the terms of the license agreement between Samsung and Intel;
Second, that the sales were made in the United States. The location of the sale depends on many factors, and you may find that the sale occurred in several places. A sale occurs wherever the “essential activities” of the sale take place. The essential activities include, for example, negotiating the contract and performing obligations under the contract; and
Third, that, if the accused products infringe, it is because the baseband chips substantially embody the ’516 and/or ’941 patents. The baseband chips embody the relevant patent if they include all the inventive aspects of the patented device.
Apple must prove all three of these elements to prevail on this defense of patent exhaustion. If Apple does not prove any one of these elements, you must reject Apple’s affirmative defense and find for Samsung on this issue. If you find that Apple has proven all three elements, you must find for Apple on this issue.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I can't lose. I've never been in the smartphone game. I like my phones tiny and dumber than a bag of hammers.

Me too