Did the Apple vs. Samsung Jury Fail to Properly Do Their Job?

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by kennyc

it's way bigger than smartphones and with way more players than these two.

But at the moment, these two with their 99% of profit are ones that truly matter.

Is about profit. Otherwise Apple would go after these design infringements too:

The designers at Samsung and HP sure love Apple's laptop design philosophy, but the duo may want to take a step back next generation and innovate a little bit.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...-apple-laptop/

[kennyc]

Interesting you claim it's about smartphones and then put pics and an article about computers. Hmmm....

In any case it's not about provit either, it's about market share.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/04/com...s-to-under-10/

Sheesh! Some day. Some day. There's always hope.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

But at the moment, these two with their 99% of profit are ones that truly matter.

Is about profit. Otherwise Apple would go after these design infringements too:







http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...-apple-laptop/

Wow, they all look like my Sony Vaio Z series from 4-5 years ago! Only difference is that one was black and looked more elegant.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Wow, they all look like my Sony Vaio Z series from 4-5 years ago! Only difference is that one was black and looked more elegant.

Which goes once again to prove my point that apple doesn't innovate anything...

[ScotiaBurrell]

The differences are deeper than the look.

[heySkippy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

In any case it's not about provit either, it's about market share.

Apple has never valued market share over profit margins. They would exit a market before they accepted the margins the bottom tier brands get.

[kennyc]

From the LA Times:

Apple vs. Samsung: Is copying theft or innovation?
Apple's big victory over Samsung underscores a central economic issue: What is the right balance between competition and copying?

By Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman

September 4, 2012

Does anyone own the rectangle? Should anyone own the rectangle?

These questions may sound absurd, but they're at the heart of U.S. patent law's Battle of the Titans: Apple vs. Samsung.

On Aug. 24, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. a whopping $1.05 billion in damages. Apple had accused Samsung of copying its intellectual property, including its very broad design patents for rectangular "electronic devices." And Apple wants to use those patents to stop its competitor from selling items like the new (rectangular) Galaxy tablet and (rectangular) Android-based smartphones.

Now, you may be thinking that a lot of devices in your house are rectangular. Perhaps you're even reading one now. Televisions, laptop screens, Amazon's Kindle. Even the Ur-reading device — paper — is rectangular.

Apple, in designing the iPad and iPhone, created its version of a rectangular reading platform. Yet now Apple has succeeded in punishing Samsung for much the same thing: copying a rectangular design. And this highlights a central issue in today's innovation-based economy. What is the proper balance between competition and copying?

Intellectual property law is based on the notion that copying is bad for creativity. It is usually cheaper to copy something than create something wholly new. If innovators are not protected against imitation, they will not invest in more innovation. At least that's how the story goes.
....

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,1054165.story

[murraypaul]

Does anyone own the rectangle? Should anyone own the rectangle?

These questions may sound absurd, but they're at the heart of U.S. patent law's Battle of the Titans: Apple vs. Samsung.

On Aug. 24, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. a whopping $1.05 billion in damages. Apple had accused Samsung of copying its intellectual property, including its very broad design patents for rectangular "electronic devices." And Apple wants to use those patents to stop its competitor from selling items like the new (rectangular) Galaxy tablet and (rectangular) Android-based smartphones.

Aargh! Can't even the reporters read the actual verdict?
Apple lost their infringement claim against the Tab 10.1 models based on their 'rounded corners' patent. They lost it. They didn't win it. It was not why those models were found to infringe.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Aargh! Can't even the reporters read the actual verdict?
Apple lost their infringement claim against the Tab 10.1 models based on their 'rounded corners' patent. They lost it. They didn't win it. It was not why those models were found to infringe.

I am not sure that we will ever clearly know what was found to infringe, or for that matter, if the San Jose jury even knew what they were doing in their rush to make the weekend.

[david_e]

.....

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think the more interesting bit is the first part:
If that is correct, then there are only two players. There isn't really an Android smartphone market, there is a Samsung smartphone market.

US smartphone market's 52.2% Android (half of which is Samsung), 33.4% for iPhone, 9.5% Blackberry, 3.6% Microsoft's efforts, 0.8% Nokia's Symbian.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...rtphone-market

'Course, profit's a different matter, since both Apple & Samsung sell at a premium far above what their kit is actually worth...

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by david_e

I think I'm going to start thinking of it as a rectangulated circle.

And Samsung will fire off with "No no.... It's just a circularish rectanglelike shape. It CLEARLY doesn't infringe, your honor."

[ScotiaBurrell]

Lululemon, in a complaint filed in federal court in Delaware last month, claims that Calvin Klein is selling pants that "have infringed and are still infringing" on three patents, including one for a distinctive waistband featuring overlapping panels of fabric. The company was awarded one of the patents last year, and the two others in June.

some big players in the fashion industry have started pushing for more IP protection. They've backed bills in Congress that would make it easier for clothing companies to sue each other for infringement. The Lululemon lawsuit is another step in this direction.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/...ent-yoga-pants

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

And Samsung will fire off with "No no.... It's just a circularish rectanglelike shape. It CLEARLY doesn't infringe, your honor."

There will be a rush to patent pancakes and donuts next....

Sigh.....

[RHWright]

Re: the chef analogy upstream (can't seem to get quote working properly today)

I guess my problem is that Apple seems to want to patent the ingredients and not be satisfied with competing as the most innovative and pleasing chef.