Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Victory For Apple In "Patent Trial of the Century," To the Tune of $1 Billion

Posted by timothy on from the still-unfolding-though dept.

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.

13 of 1,184 comments (clear)

  1. No matter what the outcome actually is.... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If a precedent is set here, someone will use it against Apple in the near future... plus this has cost them what remained of their positive image amongst the rest of the tech community.

      It's quite obvious that Samsung's claims about prior art have merit. Apple's collective belief that they are wholly responsible for the conceptual development of every product they release is both arrogant and farcical, but i guess that's what you get taking your corporate direction from a CEO who'd rather yell at his family for a year than seek treatment for the illness that was killing him.

    2. Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... by fortfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most lawyers litigating in a big trial like this are from a firm. In-house lawyers guide the company's transactions, typically.

    3. Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats funny. My office of 5000+ is about to buy iPhones for 20% of them to replace aging Blackberry phones. With that they have already purchased mass provisioning and corporate app distribution capabilities.

      Guess personal anecdotes only tell a narrow picture of the landscape.

    4. Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've posted the same thing three times. It remains completely wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

      lawyers for the plaintiff will usually be paid on a contingent-fee basis

      That's for litigants who can't afford legal fees. Well-funded companies don't do that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Steve Jobs had four children. His first, Lisa, he had with his girlfriend, and he denied being her father for a long time. He named the Lisa computer after her. They didn't have a good relationship early on, but eventually made up and she lived with him for several years. He had three other children (Reed, Erin, and Eve) with his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs.

  2. Re:Only 22 hours of deliberations by pdabbadabba · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Re:Only 22 hours of deliberations by Mithent · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Don't use "stacked" by Scowler · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  5. Re:If Apple were stifling innovation, they'd sue m by Dan541 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?"
  6. Re:Lazy Crap. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:If Apple were stifling innovation, they'd sue m by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.