Apple v Samsung: Can Look and Feel Be Patented?

[afv011]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think appeals are usually limited to the evidence that was in the original trial. If you want to bring in new evidence, you need a new trial.

IANAL either, but what about cases that are reopened when new evidence surfaces?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by afv011

It's no problem that Samsung can't present evidence. This trial is just the warming up phase, it is a given that whoever loses will appeal - they should be able to present the evidence then, I would presume.

At this point Samsung's behaviour is so odd it looks like they have almost given up on this trial and just want to go straight to the appeal. They seem to be trying to either cause a mistrial, or to provoke the judge into making a ruling in frustration that they can then overturn on appeal.
Latest cock-up is that it looks like they had part of their case argued by a lawyer who had not been admitted to practice in the court.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by afv011

IANAL either, but what about cases that are reopened when new evidence surfaces?

Then you ask for a retrial.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by kennyc

They can now. And this is wrong. It inhibits creativity. And gums up the supply channel (as is evidenced by this apple/samsung/ apple vs world case).

The biggest thing these suits are doing is pointing out to the public how vastly under chared patent holders are for their patents, considering the burden all this nonsense places on the public courts.

Patents and copyrights need to have annual fees, and those fees need to adjust to reflect the cost of enforcing them.

[ScotiaBurrell]

http://techland.time.com/2012/08/09/...-already-over/

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Patents and copyrights need to have annual fees, and those fees need to adjust to reflect the cost of enforcing them.

As long as the fees are progressive. In other words, the bigger you are, the more you pay per patent/ copyright. After all, only the big boys can afford these battles.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

http://techland.time.com/2012/08/09/...-already-over/

Interesting viewpoint.
Following the same logic, one could say Samsung isn't even the real target for Apple, but a proxy. The real target being China, Inc.
The warning: "rip us off all you want in your domestic market where we can't touch you. But try to ship that stuff in volume outside and we'll sue you to within an inch of your life."

For all their propensity to take competitors to court at the slightest provocation, Apple does ignore a lot of blatant trade dress violations simply because the copiers are small and don't hit their bottom line. Samsung is simply too big a player to ignore. And even if they win in court, Samsung *has* been stung enough to fall in line.

(Even their UK "win" was somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.)

Unless Samsung can get the judge to invalidate Apple's design patents even a win on *their* patent claims isn't going to make up for what Apple has already achieved. And with their...odd...legal performances a full Samsung win does look unlikely right now.

Out-designed, out-marketted, and out-lawyered.
Ouch.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Interesting viewpoint.
Following the same logic, one could say Samsung isn't even the real target for Apple, but a proxy. The real target being China, Inc.
The warning: "rip us off all you want in your domestic market where we can't touch you. But try to ship that stuff in volume outside and we'll sue you to within an inch of your life."

For all their propensity to take competitors to court at the slightest provocation, Apple does ignore a lot of blatant trade dress violations simply because the copiers are small and don't hit their bottom line. Samsung is simply too big a player to ignore. And even if they win in court, Samsung *has* been stung enough to fall in line.

(Even their UK "win" was somewhat of a pyrrhic victory.)

Unless Samsung can get the judge to invalidate Apple's design patents even a win on *their* patent claims isn't going to make up for what Apple has already achieved. And with their...odd...legal performances a full Samsung win does look unlikely right now.

Out-designed, out-marketted, and out-lawyered.
Ouch.

Out-sold: Samsung sells 52 million smartphones in Q2 2012, double what apple sold. Ouch.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by afv011

Out-sold: Samsung sells 52 million smartphones in Q2 2012, double what apple sold. Ouch.

I think that's healthy. Apple is going for a high-price market, Samsung is competing in all markets. Both models are needed.

When it comes to making money, Apple is still doing fine:

Although Apple shipped only about 6 percent of the industry’s smartphones and tablets in the second quarter, they accounted for 43 percent of the industry’s revenues. More importantly, Apple took 77 percent of the industry’s operating profits, despite being “a seasonally weak period,” for iPhone sales.

The other 94% of sales by volume accounted for only 23% of profits. Ouch?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The other 94% of sales by volume accounted for only 23% of profits. Ouch?

Ouch because people are so willing to pay for an overpriced product.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Ouch because people are so willing to pay for an overpriced product.

Indeed. To me, it reads as "iPhones are largely overpriced", or "people will pay anything for an apple logo". Take your pick.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Ouch because people are so willing to pay for an overpriced product.

Is everyone who bought an iPhone a mindless unthinking drone? Of course not.

They are only $99 and up on contract. Some people legitimately prefer IOS

[ScotiaBurrell]

Samsung alone is responsible for 44 percent of Android sales, more than the next seven vendors—including Google-owned Motorola—combined. The company recently released its third-generation Galaxy SIII handsets and the oversized Galaxy Note, accounting for a large portion of sales.

The market is a bit different in the US, though. Apple still dominates with the iPhone, despite declining sales that follow a typical pattern as Apple gears up to release a new model in the fall. Along with Samsung, those two companies are responsible for 55 percent of the domestic smartphone market according to NPD. HTC, Motorola, and LG round out the top five spots.

The burgeoning US pre-paid market is where the current action is, it seems. Year-over-year smartphone sales to post-paid contract subscribers was flat, while pre-paid smartphones grew 91 percent.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08...tes-worldwide/

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Is everyone who bought an iPhone a mindless unthinking drone? Of course not.

They are only $99 and up on contract. Some people legitimately prefer IOS

Some people indeed prefer iOS. Just as well there those who simply see the apple logo on the back, or just want to jump on the "me too" bandwagon.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by afv011

Just as well there those who simply see the apple logo on the back.

oR who see an Android logo? cuts two ways.