I don't see how any Apple fan can read this and conclude that the Jury reached a fair decision. This was a complete farce.
More fun:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...es-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/
His patent is basically a for a DVR/HTPC device three years after Tivo debuted. I don't see how in the world Samsung's lawyers let him in due to the conflict of interest. Bring on Samsung's call for a mistrial.
EDIT: Jeezus, I just fully read the Groklaw link above. Samsung's lawyers had better be all over the jury's self-admitted screwups and inconsistencies like white on rice.
Just like I don't see how any unbiased person can read the Samsung internal emails stating that they needed to copy the iPhone with a point by point analysis of what the differences were between Samsung phones and the iPhone and still claim Samsung did not set out to willfully and knowingly copy the iPhone.
So, you wouldn't expect a company to do an indepth analysis of a competitors product, especially one that was top selling at the time? Every company does this.
Interesting analysis from groklaw can be found here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390.
Seems the jury decided to skip the debate around prior art because it was slowing them down. Also seems like they failed to read the instructions because the foreman has stated the damages were meant to be more than a slap on the wrist. The instructions clearly stated, twice, that the damages should compensate the patent holder and not punish the infringer.
Finally they had 700 questions to answer which they did in 21 hours. That works out at just under 2 minutes a question.
All companies do do an in depth analysis, but it's like this:
"Our competitor does it like this, let's do it better"
Samsungs way:
"Our competitor (Apple) does it this way, let's do it their way because our way sucks."
Huge difference.
IWith Koh "limiting" due process by saying "You have X hours to present your case, you'll get sanction if you go over, and yes, X hours DOES count towards your rebuttals,"
That's what Samsung did.All companies do do an in depth analysis, but it's like this:
"Our competitor does it like this, let's do it better"
That's what Samsung did.
That's why Apple has sued to block: The Captivate, Continuum, Vibrant, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Indulge, Mesmerize, Showcase, Fascinate, Nexus S, Gem, Transform, Intercept, Acclaim, Droid Charge, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Gravity, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy S II and Galaxy S III.
Apple's way is: "We've got competition. We can't keep up. Let's litigate."
Actually, Samsung did the latter.
Apple was time limited also, correct? If Apple could present their case within the time limit, why couldn't Samsung?
How do you figure that? The Galaxy S is a better phone than the iPhone 3GS and 4, Galaxy S2 is a better phone than the 4S, and the Galaxy S3 is completely peerless right now and it is quite unlikely that the iPhone 5 will even match it let alone eclipse it. That's just in terms of product quality. I will grant that I consider the flagship iPad to be the nicest tablet on the market however. If you go into sales Samsung is crushing Apple right now. So Samsung is the one that can't compete? Samsung didn't sue Apple first.
So, you wouldn't expect a company to do an indepth analysis of a competitors product, especially one that was top selling at the time? Every company does this. Apple almost certainly bought Samsung phones like the Sgs2 and Sgs3. All those emails really prove is that Samsung recognized the superior product at the time and wanted to know why.
Reading the Groklaw article, they skipping the prior art evidence completely? Thats grounds for an immediate mistrial. Nearly every patent should be invalidated by the myriad of prior art.
Actually, if I was Samsung, I would expect a point by point analysis. I've always said this case has a lot of shade of gray. It is due diligence to analyze the competition, find out what they are doing right and improve your product so that it matches or exceeds the competition.
There is a lot of gray in this case. It's not black and white. There are those who make it seem like it's clear as night and day that Samsung did not infringe. That the jury and the judge were out to get Samsung. Bull F'n crap. Take off your tinfoil hats folks.
We all know that a court verdict is not always the truth. I'll let everyone retain their own opinion about what the truth is. The bottom line is Apple's lawyers presented a better case than Samsung's lawyers.
And for what it's worth, you don't find it suspicious that after the iPhone, Samsung's physical phones and custom UI on top of Android wasn't extremely similar to the iPhone's physical and OS look and feel? And that maybe, just maybe, Samsung set out to willfully copy the iPhone? I mean, many news sites reported how similar Touchwhiz (at the time) was to iOS including Anandtech. Hell, even Google thought Samsung was opening themselves up for litigation and Google develops the Android OS.
As for myself, I'm not sure many of those UI patents are valid by themselves but I do think the Trade Dress claims that Apple made are valid. I think there is enough prior art evidence to warrant a look at all of the design patents though I think some like the "bounce back" may hold up, most will likely not.
The jury may have also been hasty in deciding Samsung was already guilty. Unfortunately, and the conspiracy theorists will not like this, this is a case of Samsung's lawyers screwing up. Apple did a better job of presenting their case within the limits imposed and persuaded the jury that Samsung was guilty. That's not the jury's fault. That's not the judge's fault. That's Samsung's lawyers fault. Although this is civil and not criminal, it's easy to dig up cases where a person was clearly guilty but the defense lawyers were good and presented a good case that persuaded the jury to find the defendant not guilty. This was a high stakes game and if the lawyers presenting Samsung's case screwed up, to a degree they have no one to blame but themselves. Even if it is the wrong verdict.
People who can't see the difference between a Samsung phone and an Apple phone are probably too dumb to know how to use an iPhone, so your trade dress claim is invalid.
The company logo is written on the phone, you'd have to be utterly retarded to say someone would buy a Samsung phone thinking it was an Apple product.
I thought there were some internal correspondence between employees where one told the other that they thought the design was biting off of iphone too much. I didn't know that there were memos that expressly state that they wanted to rip off the iphone.Forget the mountains of documents and internal memos at Samsung HQ stating their intention of copying the iPhone.
There's surveys from BB customers stating that people returned Samsung tablets thinking it was an iPad. In any case, that's not the sole reason why Apple was awarded $1B. Android fans will continue to cry till the cows come home though that it was all about rectangles, general public being stupid or that everyone is biased. Forget the mountains of documents and internal memos at Samsung HQ stating their intention of copying the iPhone.
There's surveys from BB customers stating that people returned Samsung tablets thinking it was an iPad. In any case, that's not the sole reason why Apple was awarded $1B. Android fans will continue to cry till the cows come home though that it was all about rectangles, general public being stupid or that everyone is biased. Forget the mountains of documents and internal memos at Samsung HQ stating their intention of copying the iPhone.
So what? What good is any tablet anyway to people that are too stupid to know how to read?There's surveys from BB customers stating that people returned Samsung tablets thinking it was an iPad.