Samsung v. Apple

[Andrew H.]

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.

This is good news for anyone who likes good tech devices. If 4 years of design work can be copied by another company in 3 months, you won't get carefully designed devices at all.

Originally Posted by Graham

Good job the jury were so thorough on that:



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

Graham

This implication is that they skipped it during the first day of deliberations because it was bogging them down.

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

Juror comments relating to deliberation are never grounds for a mistrial (unless they relate to bribery or another outside influence).

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

The first day of *deliberations,* not the first day of trial. The first day of deliberations came after four weeks of trial.

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

See above.

Originally Posted by Dave_S

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

Groklaw is a FOSS advocacy site (which is fine), but all of their "analysis" goes through that filter. Their analysis in this case has been horrible.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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

No; see above.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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

Maybe. But battle is won. HTC and Moto and Samsung will not copy again.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This implication is that they skipped it during the first day of deliberations because it was bogging them down.

Have you any link that shows that they went back to it on the remaining one and a half days of their deliberations?

The reported statements clearly suggest that they went on to tick off the items for look and feel violations after skipping the prior art evidence. Why would they spend time doing that if they were going to go back to reviewing prior art later?

Graham

[BadBilly]

It seems that finding on patent infringement without considering whether there is prior art is like deliberating on a murder charge without first making sure the victim is dead.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is good news for anyone who likes good tech devices. If 4 years of design work can be copied by another company in 3 months, you won't get carefully designed devices at all.

Right, because the iphone was totally original and did not rely on any previous inventions. Some people here are blind and do not see that the iphone, like any other contemporary smartphone, exists only thanks to devices that came years earlier, and thanks to the inventions of people in varied fields and companies. Whoever says that the iphone was all new and magical and that everybody else after the iphone has simply copied is living in a parallel universe or has been seriously affected by the reality distortion field.

Apple are good at taking what's there and improving it, but they are equally good at PR and having people believe there was nothing prior to them, and apparently that PR is working wonders judging by what people say on this and other forums.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by afv011

exists only thanks to devices that came years earlier, and thanks to the inventions of people in varied fields and companies.

That's right. You didn't build that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Maybe. But battle is won. HTC and Moto and Samsung will not copy again.

Clearly Apple copied and probably should never have been issued the patents in any case. Hell Jobs even admitted or at least claimed it was the "right thing to do"

By ignoring the 'prior art' the jury clearly screwed up, they just wanted to get out for the weekend. I'm sure this will play heavily into the appeal and perhaps we can actually get some justice done.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

But battle is won.

Maybe so, but the war is far from over. There will be other battles.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Clearly Apple copied and probably should never have been issued the patents in any case. Hell Jobs even admitted or at least claimed it was the "right thing to do"

By ignoring the 'prior art' the jury clearly screwed up, they just wanted to get out for the weekend. I'm sure this will play heavily into the appeal and perhaps we can actually get some justice done.

This.

The more the jury talks, the more ammunition Samsung will have for the appeal. What I have read, in my eyes, presents a jury with a predisposition to find Samsung guilty. They even went against the instructions when awarding compensation to apple: according to the instructions, if they found that Sammy had infringed, they should calculate the reasonable royalties that apple would have earned from Sammy, but instead the jury went beyond that.

"We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is good news for anyone who likes good tech devices. If 4 years of design work can be copied by another company in 3 months, you won't get carefully designed devices at all.

That is a statement based upon ideology, rather than evidence. While it may be true, there are also plenty of counter examples that suggest that it may not be true. Consider royalty free patents, open source, or even scientific progress.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Groklaw is a FOSS advocacy site (which is fine), but all of their "analysis" goes through that filter. Their analysis in this case has been horrible.

The jurors awarded Apple 2 million for a device that they ruled as non-infringing.
How do you analyze this?

And how do you analyze the quote from the foreman:

“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

How do you analyze this?

Here:

Friday’s jury verdict faces U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s scrutiny and the appeal that’s been vowed by Samsung, so there’s no guarantee it will stand as is.

Regardless, the portable devices business won’t be the same from here on out. Apple’s competitors are on notice that the paradigm established by the original iPhone isn’t something to be copied at will. The big question is: How will that manifest itself in the design of smartphones and tablets going forward?

Manufacturers have already moved on.
http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2012/...r-be-the-same/

[HarryT]

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.

So you think it's OK for one company to spend large sums of money developing innovative new features, than for everyone else simply to copy them for free, do you?

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you think it's OK for one company to spend large sums of money developing innovative new features, than for everyone else simply to copy them for free, do you?

What company do you think spent large sums of money developing innovative new features? It certainly was not Apple. They simply combined the best of ideas from prior art at other companies. There is nothing wrong with that when Apple does it, so why should it be wrong for other companies? The point is not to just copy, but to create an improved copy, that is progress. Apple and Samsung and many others have been doing just that. Apple just hates to be outdone in copying from the past to create the future.

Steve Jobs himself said "Good artists copy great artists steal". Link

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

What company do you think spent large sums of money developing innovative new features? It certainly was not Apple. They simply combined the best of ideas from prior art at other companies.

Wait. Is it consensus here that there was not a single new thing, large or small, in either the iPhone or the iPad?