Slashdot Mirror
Victory For Apple In "Patent Trial of the Century," To the Tune of $1 Billion
pdabbadabba writes "The jury is in in the epic patent dispute between Apple and Samsung and Apple appears to be coming out on top. The court is still going through the 700+ items on the verdict form, but things seem to be going Apple's way so far. In the case of Apple's various UI patents, the jury is consistently ruling that Samsung not only violated Apple's patent, but did so willfully." Reader bob zee also points to the AP's story, as carried by Breitbart.com, and Charliemopps adds Reuters' take. Reader Samalie contributes a link to a live blog of the (at this writing) ongoing recitation of the verdict. Whether you like it or not, even this verdict won't be the last word.
In the end the only true winners, are the lawyers.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
According to the Verge http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ Apple was awarded $1,051,855,000 in damages. Samsung got nada. Zip. Zero.
Big win for Apple and a legal lesson to the folks who claimed this case was about "a rectangle with rounded corners."
Thanks Timothy... not.
In the case of Apple, it's clear that Samsung was directly copying Apple on many fronts - hell, look at their Samsung Stores or their power adapters. This case however, will immediately be appealed and this is nowhere near the last we'll hear of it.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
What? For a fucking shape?
Go look at the evidence. The designs were around long, long, long before Apple did anything with them.
And *real* tech patents? Nothing.
This trial shows nothing but what Americans value, and that's shiny fashion accessories.
This marks the nail in the coffin for American economic dominance. Other countries will pull out because the US will become a backwater of markets dominated by fiefdoms propped up by bullshit patents. Patents are killing off real competition and innovation. We're going to be stuck with shiny toys while the rest of the world enjoys advances in standards of living.
Welcome to your new glorified banana republic.
Well, the case was not really that complex once it got to the jury. Simplifying the jury's task is the point of a lot of the legal maneuvering that goes in before and during the trial. It's true that the jury verdict form was really long, but mostly that is because each question had to be asked once for each Samsung product at issue. Here's the form: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1307288/1890_finalverdictform.pdf
But, yeah. You disagree with the verdict (based, I'd wager, on very little information), so the jury must have been stacked.
caritj.org
They could do like all the other companies that are not getting sued over this, and actually do some work on their own.
It's a little complicated but, basically, if the suit is for damages the 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial if the plaintiff wants one. For (a LOT) more, have a look at this: http://iplj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Article-THE-RIGHT-TO-A-JURY-TRIAL-IN-ACTIONS-FOR-PATENT-INFRINGEMENT-AND-SUITS-FOR-DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT.pdf
caritj.org
There are times when I feel that a .44 Magnum can fix anything!
--Udo.
I don't think you can appeal the decision of the jury. All you can appeal are technical failings, the instructions given to the jury, etc.
The jury decision itself, however, is typically considered unappealable, since they are considered to have greater authority than the judge.
One iPhone, no Samsung smartphones (but two Samsung feature phones), and three LG phones, apparently. Overall, two had Android smartphones, and one didn't have a phone at all.
I doubt the judge or the lawyers in this case would have permitted highly biased Apple or Android fanboys to get onto the jury. Potential jurors ARE vetted first, you know?
Retina displays, multitouch displays, and an app ecosystem, off the top of my head.
Samsung have produced a superior product, therefore Apple needs to attack them first.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Please. Apple gave multiple examples of smartphones designed that didn't infringe. In Samsung's case is Bada, Tizen and F700 lines were among them.
The Internet was a great step forward. But as far as computers themselves were concerned it was. We when from a wide variety of computer platforms in the 80s to more or less a Wintel monoculture in the 90s, where the only points of distinction between different computers was numbers of MHz, and MBs. The 90s in computing was horrible. If you don't recognise that, you're probably to young to remember what it was like before.
Samsung's success has come largely from making good phones. As in, large high quality screens and powerful hardware. On both counts they handily beat iPhones from the same generation, which is why I personally ditched iPhone 4 back in the day for S2, and never looked back.
Oh, and as a user of both products? Any person that thinks that S2 looks or works like iPhone 4, after using one for a few minutes, is retarded.
Gotta cite for that?
"Question 5: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace."
And see voiceofworldcontrol's answer below.
How was it that they were found not to be infringing? Under what argument? Just because they were not Android or something?
Because it's not about friggin' rectangles but about copying a very specific design presumably.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.