Slashdot Mirror
Will Apple Vs Samsung Verdict Be Overturned?
An anonymous reader writes "While there's much talk of Apple asking for more money from Samsung, there's less talk of the likelihood that the verdict will be overturned completely. Based on voir dire, and the foreman's subsequent statements to the press, it seems he failed to follow the law."
If its Android that appears to be breaching patents surely they should be suing the Android/Google collective.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
At this point Apple is actually copying Samsung, Samsung is a full generation ahead of where the iPhone in both hardware and software is, so anything that Apple does to the iPhone is just following Samsung, I think Samsung should come back and drive Apple into the ground.
No, I love hearing about it. Especially because I used to love Apple. Now I see them as monstrous bullies.
Is anyone else sick of hearing about Apple vs. Samsung?
Unless you want the only mobile device you can ever buy to be Apple, I'd suggest that you take a bit more interest in it. Because if things keep going the way they are, there will be NO other choice in cell phone or tablet. You will either pay Apple's premium price for 2nd rate hardware and 5th rate support or you will do without.
Apple and Samsung remind me of the seagulls in "Finding Nemo"....... "MINE!MINE!MINE!MINE!MINE!MINE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4BNbHBcnDI
I loved his position that a piece of prior art could be dismissed because the implementation discussed ran on a different processor architecture. Judicial functionaries have a proud history of pulling distinctions out of their asses and calling them 'tests'(later given first names, if they catch on more broadly); but that one was classic.
What an utterly ridiculous statement.
Even Google said that Samsung was probably making their products look a little too much like the iPhone.
And then you've got the Nokia Lumia series, which not only doesn't infringe (and is a design that Apple themselves used to show that you can build a non-infringing phone), it's far and away the most beautiful phone design on the market today, in my mind. I WISH Apple would make something that looks like that. (I like my iPhone 4, but that Lumia really does look amazing.)
Oh, and the Windows phone OS design is ALSO an indication that you can build something that isn't anything close to the iOS design.
In my mind, Apple's crazy patents are the BEST way to ensure that there's choice in the market, not just choice between two of effectively the same thing. It's the big departures from the well established norms that bring interesting things to us. Apple's original entry into the Smartphone space was hugely disruptive, and they were very successful. Samsung has piggybacked on that success, whether you agree that they infringed or not. It's going to take another company doing the same sort of wild thing to really bring us something new and innovative.
Like I said, I own an iPhone 4, but I don't expect Apple to do anything innovative with their phone for years, if ever. They've made the product they wanted (something high quality and easy to use), and they'll stick with that--and that's not a terrible thing. There are worse ways to run a business. But for me to get EXCITED about phones again, well, that'll take someone doing something really revolutionary that I can't miss. Right now, beyond expectations, that looks like Microsoft. If they can really strike out on their own and differentiate their phone from everyone else, they'll claw their way into contention.
But Apple vs. Samsung is really just a sort of nitpicky argument. The iPhone 5 is better in some ways, and the Galaxy is better in others, but they do the same basic things. It's like comparing fridges. Both of them keep your food cold, but one has an ice dispenser and the other has a digital temperature readout. You pick and choose based on your needs at the time, but the Smartphone market is basically a choice between dull appliances now.
It's just not something you need to worry about.
You're living in the exact blind loyalty dream world that every monopoly hopes people will live in.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The USPTO is a patent minefield, granting obvious stuff simply because certain Americans think its hard to do.
Corroborative commentary which by no means reflects the view of the author of this comment and merely serves as an indicative backdrop to the post as a whole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdIWKytq_q4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
Even understanding simple issues like what was actually at issue seem too hard for most.
It wasn't Android that was in dispute but Samsungs own extensions that made it more Apple like which is why Google didn't pile in.
Note: Google/Motorola has now piled in and is asking for a United States wide ban on all Apples products.
http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2012/er0917kk3.htm
One might see this as a retaliatory strike, who can tell, you reap what you sow.
But you have a to call to question the sanity of a process for instance that in the SCO v IBM case is still rumbling on after 9 years in the USA where as in the rest of the world, Germany for instance ... a simple and commensense approach was merely to say go away SCO and pay £30,000 euros every day you keep spouting bollocks.
How long will the Apple v Samsung go for I wonder?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725
Everything that Apple sued over is prior art. Seriously.... 100% of it. I don't understand why Samsung's legal team didn't just go camp at the USPTO with their prior art and get those patents revoked. No patent = no law suit. What a bunch of screw ups. And Apple is infringing everyone from HTC to Mitsubishi to Nokia to IBM with their "patents". Feel free to pile on and offer up your own examples of prior art.... http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/457/prior-art-should-invalidate-apples-patents
I think Apple has a case here for the specific devices that the look/feel were copied.
There is no such thing as look and feel in law. There is only a creative attempt by Apple to make some new law by suing Microsoft over trashcans etc some years ago, and there is "trade dress" in copyright law... a long shot.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Fonts are protected, even though the alphabet is clearly in public domain.
Interestingly enough, fonts in America are not covered by copyright, although the computer instructions that describe a font are. It is legal to clone fonts in America of you do it optically, and don't copy any code. This is how, for example, Microsoft could create Book Antiqua, which looks virtually identical to Hermann Zapf's Palatino.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?