Jury Reaches Verdict in Apple vs. Samsung Trial - To Be Updated(macrumors.com)
macrumors.com
Jury Reaches Verdict in Apple vs. Samsung Trial - To Be Updated
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/
43 comments
I like juries.
Set aside the details of which particular patent has been claimed -- is this not a just decision? Is it not completely clear that Samsung copied Apple's designs to an extent bordering on fraud?
If Samsung were making knockoff purses as similar to Louis Vuitton purses as many of its phones and tablets (and stores) were to Apple's, its products would be seized and destroyed. But Samsung isn't a hole-in-the-wall designer fashion accessory vendor but a multibillion dollar operation.
Set aside the details of which particular patent has been claimed -- is this not a just decision? Is it not completely clear that Samsung copied Apple's designs to an extent bordering on fraud?
If Samsung were making knockoff purses as similar to Louis Vuitton purses as many of its phones and tablets (and stores) were to Apple's, its products would be seized and destroyed. But Samsung isn't a hole-in-the-wall designer fashion accessory vendor but a multibillion dollar operation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=black%20lcd%20tv&sugexp=...
I wonder why TV manufacturers don't sue each others... they all look the same!
I wonder why TV manufacturers don't sue each others... they all look the same!
A. Pinch and zoom on surfaces was invented by Microsoft Research years ago. Almost all of the "technology innovation" claimed by Apple since the Mac has been stolen/borrowed from other companies.
B. Samsung devices were rounded-rectangle designs WELL before the iPod existed, and the concept of rounded-rectangle iPad-like devices that played video existed back in Stanley Kubrick's 2001. Ei ther should invalidate a "design patent" on such a look -- "black rounded rectangle" is absolutely insane to claim Apple owns!
B. Samsung devices were rounded-rectangle designs WELL before the iPod existed, and the concept of rounded-rectangle iPad-like devices that played video existed back in Stanley Kubrick's 2001. Ei ther should invalidate a "design patent" on such a look -- "black rounded rectangle" is absolutely insane to claim Apple owns!
A. No they didn't. (Samsung didn't even claim this -- they claimed that a multitouch window resize, which is neither as useful nor as intuitive as "pinch to zoom" nor actually zooms anything was "pinch to zoom" ... go watch the video.)
B. If it were simply about "rounded rectangles" you'd be right. But it isn't and you're wrong.
The letters L and V are not protected, but overlay them and print them on a handbag and you are in deep shit. (And yes, trademarks and design patents are different things but work in much the same way and have been used against each other in lawsuits.)
B. If it were simply about "rounded rectangles" you'd be right. But it isn't and you're wrong.
The letters L and V are not protected, but overlay them and print them on a handbag and you are in deep shit. (And yes, trademarks and design patents are different things but work in much the same way and have been used against each other in lawsuits.)
>No they didn't.
OK, pinch to zoom was invented even before Microsoft used it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PixelSense and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
A big part was the rounded rectangles. Apple claimed it and the jury supported that claim. That's reprehensible garbage, and no legal system should support it.
You're revealing yourself as an Apple fanboy; claiming that a rounded rectangle with black borders (that looks identical to previous years-old Samsung products!) is now OWNED by Apple is not sane and rational.
The LV logo is distinctive. The shape of the iPad is at least as similar to products before it as the Samsung products that came later. You can't (or SHOULDN'T be able to) take ownership of a public domain design just because you've created a popular product that uses it!
OK, pinch to zoom was invented even before Microsoft used it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PixelSense and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
A big part was the rounded rectangles. Apple claimed it and the jury supported that claim. That's reprehensible garbage, and no legal system should support it.
You're revealing yourself as an Apple fanboy; claiming that a rounded rectangle with black borders (that looks identical to previous years-old Samsung products!) is now OWNED by Apple is not sane and rational.
The LV logo is distinctive. The shape of the iPad is at least as similar to products before it as the Samsung products that came later. You can't (or SHOULDN'T be able to) take ownership of a public domain design just because you've created a popular product that uses it!
Louis Vitton is a trademark, not a patent, and knockoff designs have been going on legally for many many years.
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1Y3NDUG_enUS498US498&cl...
Louis Vuitton knockoffs are routinely destroyed for infringing exactly the kinds of design IP Samsung has just been nailed for.
Louis Vuitton knockoffs are routinely destroyed for infringing exactly the kinds of design IP Samsung has just been nailed for.
No; no; hyperbole.
It's not anywhere remotely clear to me that Samsung came anywhere close to "fraud."
I've been following the live blogging from the San Jose Mercury News kindly posted by another HN participant:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940
Direct link to the live blogging is
http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-a...
"Jury finds on bounce back patent that Samsung infringed Apple on all the devices in play, smartphones and tabs"
"On the "pinch and zoom" patent, jury also finds Samsung infringed Apple patents on the menu of smartphones and tablets..with just a few exceptions."
"On tap and zoom, jury finds infringement for tap and zoom feature on most of the smartphones and tablets, although no on a few, such as Nexus S 4G...split this one up by various devices, but largely in favor of Apple"
"Jury also finds for Apple on charge Samsung "knew or should have known" it was inducing its telecommunications and electronics divisions to infringe"
"Apple blitzing Samsung so far, jury now finds infringed design of iPhone contours, etc."
"Some products of Samsung being spared the gallows, but not many so far"
"Jury finds Samsung infringed Apple graphical interface on iPhone....so much for those differences Samsung argued for"
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429940
Direct link to the live blogging is
http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-a...
"Jury finds on bounce back patent that Samsung infringed Apple on all the devices in play, smartphones and tabs"
"On the "pinch and zoom" patent, jury also finds Samsung infringed Apple patents on the menu of smartphones and tablets..with just a few exceptions."
"On tap and zoom, jury finds infringement for tap and zoom feature on most of the smartphones and tablets, although no on a few, such as Nexus S 4G...split this one up by various devices, but largely in favor of Apple"
"Jury also finds for Apple on charge Samsung "knew or should have known" it was inducing its telecommunications and electronics divisions to infringe"
"Apple blitzing Samsung so far, jury now finds infringed design of iPhone contours, etc."
"Some products of Samsung being spared the gallows, but not many so far"
"Jury finds Samsung infringed Apple graphical interface on iPhone....so much for those differences Samsung argued for"
A sad day for consumers everywhere, regardless of what technology they prefer. The continuing validity of patents such as "pinch to zoom on a phone" is disastrous for the industry and will just serve to make everyone's products worse.
Live coverage on The Verge: http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/
Oh god, the comments are sad. Not HN's comments, the link's comments.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15520468#post15...
Mac forum comments often approach YouTube comments in terms of awfulness. Its a really strange phenomenon.
So, who's next? Gestures seems pretty common on most mobile devices, and I'm guessing this opens the door for Apple to be able to sue them all, right?
Appeals are next.
They don't need to. This sent a big warning to all the Android OEMs not to copy the iPhone.
And that is what Apple wanted. Not money.
And that is what Apple wanted. Not money.
I think we can all agree that Apple's intention was to stifle competition, not to get money. The problem is that Android already have to go out of their way to "innovate around" obvious design decisions. This makes things even harder. There is a good chance things will go the other way too, and it will make it harder for Apple to keep up with Android as they introduce new features.
I can't see this being good for anyone except Apple shareholders, and in the long run I'm not sure it will even be good for them.
I can't see this being good for anyone except Apple shareholders, and in the long run I'm not sure it will even be good for them.
No. Apple's intention was to put as much of a gap between what the iPhone looks and feels like and what Android looks and feels like.
Whether that stifles competition is a separate issue.
Whether that stifles competition is a separate issue.
You know Apple's intentions pretty well! Are you a C-level executive there? Or are you just speculating the exact same as he is?
Considering that Apple is a beloved American company and Samsung a relatively obscure Korean company, isn't anyone else skeptical that a jury strictly composed of US citizens can be truly impartial in this case?
If Apple is smart they'll donate their winnings (or pledge to donate them) to a universally laudable cause, like MSF. They don't need the money, this was never about the money, and this will underline the point.
I'm not sure I agree. Apple was pushed into acting as an outsourced R&D and marketing consultancy for their business partner, Samsung. They're entitled to a fee for their services, especially given the success Samsung has enjoyed as a result.
thank goodness patent exhaustion was upheld.
Absolutely. This is wonderful news for those that care about standards.
Looks like Apple have crushed Samsung.
Should be a nice boost for Apple's stock price Monday.
Really?
I don't think any one seriously expects Samsung to not be able to sell phones because of this so there won't be a bump due to analysts expect apple to steal Samsung customers.
And AAPL US Equity has about 1 Billion shares outstanding so the reward, if it gets paid and it probably won't, will come out to a one time boost of $1 per share.
So if a $1 rise int he stock price is considered a nice boost then I guess AAPL's stock should have a nice boost on Monday.
I don't think any one seriously expects Samsung to not be able to sell phones because of this so there won't be a bump due to analysts expect apple to steal Samsung customers.
And AAPL US Equity has about 1 Billion shares outstanding so the reward, if it gets paid and it probably won't, will come out to a one time boost of $1 per share.
So if a $1 rise int he stock price is considered a nice boost then I guess AAPL's stock should have a nice boost on Monday.
AAPL is up $12 this morning.
I think this is one of the most disappointing verdicts since the OJ trial.
I get the feeling whoever comes up with the best graphic / table of the verdict will get a lot of play. The live streams are really hard to follow on what is what.
1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars... Wow
Meh. So they have one lean quarter.
RIM had to pay $650,000,000 to a patent troll with no products, for violating a patent that no one had seen before. By comparison, considering the massive size of the companies involved and the brazen copying and infringement, the Samsung verdict would seem light.
RIM had to pay $650,000,000 to a patent troll with no products, for violating a patent that no one had seen before. By comparison, considering the massive size of the companies involved and the brazen copying and infringement, the Samsung verdict would seem light.
I'm actually surprised of such a lopsided victory. I've been following this pretty close and felt like Apple has really overstepped their bounds.
Of course it won't matter. Samsung will keep this going for a while on appeal until they win and then Apple will appeal. I don't see a clear victory for either company for a long, long, time.
Of course it won't matter. Samsung will keep this going for a while on appeal until they win and then Apple will appeal. I don't see a clear victory for either company for a long, long, time.
As usual the only ones that will really win from this insanity in the long term are the lawyers.
And even the lawyers will not win as much as they think, because they will have set back technological progress decades behind.
And even the lawyers will not win as much as they think, because they will have set back technological progress decades behind.
[deleted]
Looks like Apple won this one
The appeal is guaranteed to be requested from Samsung, and will likely be granted due to the behavior of the judge.
This one is going to go well into extra innings. The question is whether there will be a timely injunction of Apple's likely attempt to cut off Samsing's sales of infringing products in the US.
This one is going to go well into extra innings. The question is whether there will be a timely injunction of Apple's likely attempt to cut off Samsing's sales of infringing products in the US.
Judge Koh could learn from Posner. Tell them both to "figure it out" and cross license. If that doesn't work, "Get out of my courtroom" would. If I was Samsung CEO. I would cease shipping components to Apple tomorrow, then file a anti-competitive practices lawsuit against Apple.
Wow, crazy result. I feel [to be updated with an edit later]!
All this story is telling me is just how much the system needs to be reformed.