Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[akugami]

And funny thing about all this talk about innovation: Apple doesn't really innovate at all. They just take other people's ideas and call it their own. It has a fantastic marketing department though.

Another claim that you make that is false. Like how Apple are bigger thieves than Samsung. Or how Apple does more social/consumer harm than Samsung.

Fixed that part for you

The prior art was very important part and never should have been skipped over. To me it looks like Samsung was doomed from the get go.

Agreed.

The jurer interview isn't a good thing for Apple I'd think. Sounds like it was game over from the start.

Agreed.

Would like to see the jururs stock portfolios to see how much Apple.stock they purchased after day one.

Hope you're joking. If you're serious, then this comment falls under the tin foil hat section.

 

[Mopetar]

And funny thing about all this talk about innovation: Apple doesn't really innovate at all.

Just because someone else posts a load of bullocks doesn't mean you need to join in. Can you honestly say that iOS wasn't a major game changer in the smart phone market. The iPod/iTunes/Store combination was also a pretty big deal as well and had a major impact on the digital music industry. Even the original Mac OS, although based on work done by Xerox, was a pretty big refinement over what Xerox had developed and modern operating systems use many of the conventions that Apple developed for Mac OS.

Sure they didn't design the transistors, the hard disks, the RAM, or the circuit boards, but they put them together in a way that completely changed things. In some cases, they probably help advance those technologies though. They invested a lot of money into display manufacturers which have allowed them to product better displays.

If Apple truly weren't making remarkable products, they wouldn't be in the position that they are in today. You can't even put it down to an amazing marketing department or fanboys. Apple's market share has grown so much since the 80's and 90's, that it can't just be attributed to longtime Apple diehards buying products or marketing.

 

[BladeVenom]

If Apple truly weren't making remarkable products, they wouldn't be in the position that they are in today.

They are in the position of suing the competition, because the competition is better.

 

[MrX8503]

copying =/= infringing patents

if you don't understand that, you're as dumb as the members of the jury who ignored prior art and other obvious things.

The verdict outcome was that Apple's patents were deemed valid and that Samsung infringed on those patents.

So much anger. Lol

 

[abaez]

The verdict outcome was that Apple's patents were deemed valid and that Samsung infringed on those patents.

So much anger. Lol

You didn't respond to my previous point so I'll ask again:

Here's a video of multitouch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dq...ailpage#t=349s being used a full year before Apple patented it.

Do you think Apple should have been given this patent with this prior art? After that, if the jury was supposed to figure out whether or not the patents were valid, why didn't they with this OBVIOUS prior art?

 

[Mopetar]

They are in the position of suing the competition, because the competition is better.

Or you could just accept that Apple feels Samsung infringed on their trade dress, believes that some of Samsung's phones looked entirely too much like Apple's own design, and thinks that Android in general infringes on some of their utility patents. You know, what they've been saying all along.

You can certainly think that those things aren't the case, that Apple's patents should not have been granted or are invalid for other reasons, etc.; however, to claim that Apple is suing the competition because the competition is better (whatever that may mean) seems to lack any factual basis.

 

[Kenmitch]

You didn't respond to my previous point so I'll ask again:

Here's a video of multitouch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dq...ailpage#t=349s being used a full year before Apple patented it.

Do you think Apple should have been given this patent with this prior art? After that, if the jury was supposed to figure out whether or not the patents were valid, why didn't they with this OBVIOUS prior art?

If they viewed and debated the prior art for the validity of the patents in question then Apple would have most likely lost the patents.

I find it hard to believe the jury hammered thru all 700 questions in such a short time....Unless there minds were made up from the start.

 

[BUTCH1]

Or you could just accept that Apple feels Samsung infringed on their trade dress, believes that some of Samsung's phones looked entirely too much like Apple's own design, and thinks that Android in general infringes on some of their utility patents. You know, what they've been saying all along.

You can certainly think that those things aren't the case, that Apple's patents should not have been granted or are invalid for other reasons, etc.; however, to claim that Apple is suing the competition because the competition is better (whatever that may mean) seems to lack any factual basis.

Samsung's excellent phones at good prices and the fact remains they are gaining huge chunks of market share for smartphones IS factual evidence.. Just like in the '80's as soon as hardware became available to run a GUI the DOS command-line was gone and with phones as soon a SOC's that offered decent performance came around a GUI based phone was going to happen, maybe Samsung should have had triangular icons but they didn't steal any of Apple's code to make their phones work, it's a sad day for everyone when asinine lawsuits like this one are upheld...ugh...

 

[rchiu]

Samsung's excellent phones at good prices and the fact remains they are gaining huge chunks of market share for smartphones IS factual evidence.. Just like in the '80's as soon as hardware became available to run a GUI the DOS command-line was gone and with phones as soon a SOC's that offered decent performance came around a GUI based phone was going to happen, maybe Samsung should have had triangular icons but they didn't steal any of Apple's code to make their phones work, it's a sad day for everyone when asinine lawsuits like this one are upheld...ugh...

I agree Samsung makes some good phone at good price, but that has nothing to do with this case or the outcome. They make good phone and have a big market share doesn't mean they did not steal Apple's design, those are two completely different matter, and I don't see any fact backing your statement that this is an asinine lawsuit.

The jury made the decision based on evidence, email from Samsung exec saying certain Apple design they were going "incorporate" into their phones, testimony from Samsung exec that were dodging the questions, comparison of Apple and Samsung phones. In other word, jury had the hard evidence, they made the decision based on those evidence, and your claim is based on nothing but your opinion.

 

[Mopetar]

Samsung's excellent phones at good prices and the fact remains they are gaining huge chunks of market share for smartphones IS factual evidence.

Of what though? It's merely evidence that Samsung has gained a large amount of market share, but I'd argue that most of it is not at the expense of Apple (which is also why I don't think Apple deserved anywhere near what they asked, as I don't believe that they made a good case that Samsung took away sales from them, or at least not as many as purported.) as their market share really hasn't changed much and their phone sales are still growing exponentially. If Apple's sales had fallen off a cliff, there'd be more merit to such an argument, but that's not the case.

Also, these lawsuits are not something that simply began a few months ago. Apple and Samsung were in talks in 2010, and at that point in time, Samsung was nowhere near the dominant position that they're in today. That's why I believe that the argument that Apple is merely suing Samsung out of fear doesn't hold much water. They legitimately do believe that Samsung has wronged them in the ways that I listed. Even if Samsung were not doing as well as they are now, I doubt that Apple's position would have changed.

I'm not trying to imply that anyone is stupid for feeling as though Apple shouldn't have received patents for some of the things which they have patented, but merely pointing out that the BladeVenom's opinion about Apple's reasons for filing a lawsuit against Samsung seem at odds with what Apple has said.

 

[PlatinumRice]

The verdict outcome was that Apple's patents were deemed valid and that Samsung infringed on those patents.

So much anger. Lol

Actually, they infringed on some patents, but I think only 1 was valid.

 

[pm]

There's a section of posts - starting at 209 and going up into the 220+ range - that venture into racist comments. I would request that we do not discuss this particular aspect of the court case any more.

Plus I would request that people take a deep breath and calm down. This is one court case among many others going on in the US and throughout the rest of the world. Please relax and discuss the case and the decision on it's merits (or lack thereof) and resist calling each other names.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Moderator PM

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEq_M2aIxts

Look at the comments. They speak for themselves.

 

[kaerflog]

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.

You are really smoking something there.
The Galaxy S is nowhere close to the IP4.
When the IP4 came out, there was nothing in the ballpark of the IP4.
It was the IP4 that made me an Apple fan.
The design, the retina display, the fluidity of the OS was untouched at the time.
At that time, Android didn't even have dual-core yet.
The Galaxy S(while a nice phone) was a lag fest.
I couldn't even text on that damm phone cause it lagged so bad.
It was the Galaxy S that made hated Android.
It wasn't the phone's fault. Single core just wasn't enough to run Android.
Until dual-core Android phones came out, they were unusable to me.
However, I do agree that Android by far has the better phones out now.

 

[grkM3]

I dont get how apple is coming up with its numbers,I mean I work with about 8 people that use iphones and not one of them were confused when they bought them.They didnt accidently buy a samsung and new what they were buying from the get go.

people are buying androids for its os and not because it kinda has a bounce back and a few icons that look like an iphone.

I didnt buy my s3 for its touchwiz software as I rooted and unlocked it the day I bought it and ran my own custom os on it.

That is why samsung is selling so well and has nothing to do with the iphone.

 

[PlatinumRice]

S2 was better than the iPhone

S3 completely destroyed the iPhone

 

[grkM3]

You are really smoking something there.
The Galaxy S is nowhere close to the IP4.
When the IP4 came out, there was nothing in the ballpark of the IP4.
It was the IP4 that made me an Apple fan.
The design, the retina display, the fluidity of the OS was untouched at the time.
At that time, Android didn't even have dual-core yet.
The Galaxy S(while a nice phone) was a lag fest.
I couldn't even text on that damm phone cause it lagged so bad.
It was the Galaxy S that made hated Android.
It wasn't the phone's fault. Single core just wasn't enough to run Android.
Until dual-core Android phones came out, they were unusable to me.
However, I do agree that Android by far has the better phones out now.

From memory there were plenty of dual core androids before iphone 4s came out with its dual core setup and If Im not mistaken the galaxy s2 game out before the 4s and blew the doors off of the reg iphone 4

the funny part is apple dual core a5 chip in the 4s was made by samsung lol

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKItEG2xy6Q

 

[MrX8503]

You didn't respond to my previous point so I'll ask again:

Here's a video of multitouch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dq...ailpage#t=349s being used a full year before Apple patented it.

Do you think Apple should have been given this patent with this prior art? After that, if the jury was supposed to figure out whether or not the patents were valid, why didn't they with this OBVIOUS prior art?

The way I interpret the patent laws is that prior art COULD invalidate patents not that they automatically do. Apple has the multitouch patent and that has to be invalidated first. Aside from that, you nor I know anything specific about Apple's patent to make claims about whether or not the prior art has any bearing.

There were many other patents as well, not just multitouch.

 

[PlatinumRice]

Bill Flora, creative director at a design firm in Seattle called Tectonic, acknowledged both positive and negative feelings about the verdict. On the one hand, it could force mobile companies to focus more on design rather than simply acting as copycats, said Mr. Flora, a former Microsoft designer who played a central role in creating the look of its Windows Phone software.
But he said the decision could also create a “minefield” for product designers, in which they are constantly second-guessing whether functions will step on someone else’s patents. Mr. Flora is concerned, for example, that Apple’s patent on the pinch-to-zoom function covers a gesture that now is so common that touch screen products without it would be like cars with square or triangular steering wheels.

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

verdict is likely to be overturned by a higher court

proving the jury were complete morons

 

[kaerflog]

S2 was better than the iPhone

S3 completely destroyed the iPhone

Nice of you to make a new account just to troll.

 

[kaerflog]

From memory there were plenty of dual core androids before iphone 4s came out with its dual core setup and If Im not mistaken the galaxy s2 game out before the 4s and blew the doors off of the reg iphone 4

the funny part is apple dual core a5 chip in the 4s was made by samsung lol

Damm, you need to read more carefully before making stupid replies.
I replied to the other because he said " the Galaxy S was better than the 4".
And I stated specifically in my reply about the 2 phones in question.
No where in my reply that I mentioned the GS2 nor the 4s.

 

[Dari]

S2 was better than the iPhone

S3 completely destroyed the iPhone

I'm not sure how your opinion changes anything...

 

[grkM3]

Damm, you need to read more carefully before making stupid replies.
I replied to the other because he said " the Galaxy S was better than the 4".
And I stated specifically in my reply about the 2 phones in question.
No where in my reply that I mentioned the GS2 nor the 4s.

Your the one that said there were no androids that could compare bro.I'm not talking about the galaxy s...I'm talking about the 50 phones that had 1.2 GHz a9 cores and the many dual core versions that were out before the 4s and easily out performed the iphone 4.

The droid x comes to mind as one that easily could run andtoid well with its single core and 1gb of ram,heck even the 4s dosnt have 1gb of ram lol