The jury is supposed to consider just the facts put before them, and just in the context they are instructed to. They aren't supposed to be experts, and are not supposed to use outside information. The judge instructs them on what the law is and how to apply it, and decides on what facts are entered in to evidence. The jury then is supposed to make its decision on that alone.
The reason is if they don't, well shit like this can happen. Some juror thinks they know what is the law better than the court, and they go and cause problems.
Wait, what? You are saying that jurors (and you quite obviously mean the jury foreman in the case) aren't supposed to be experts, because they could go and do non-expert things like have no clue about their field of expertise?
The forman, Velvin Hogan is, IMHO, a patent troll. His "invention" is a TiVo, with options for a few minor and obvious additions (removable storage!, how inventive). He filed for the patent 3 years after TiVo first shipped.
And that makes him a patent troll how? Did he sue TiVo, or anybody else? Do you even know that even "patent troll" has a meaning, and that you can't just throw it around when you feel like saying something negative about patents?
You are an idiot. Are you saying it belongs on the server, and practically speaking, the smartphone (app stores are essentially package managers, just generally less powerful)
"Just less powerful" because often less is better. You can download an app. No bloody dependencies to worry about. No bloody incompatibilities to worry about. Less useless power to worry about. You install the app - it works. You delete the app - its gone.
so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.
No, we need those 20 years so the other companies have an incentive to innovate instead of just taking what the innovators created and stagnate at an equal level.
It's interesting how the "definition" for innovation has changed here in the last couple of years - once it was "Apple doesn't innovate because they never invent, just copy", now it's "Apple stifles innovation because they have a document saying they invented something, and use it so others can't copy it". And of course both definitions are often used in the same discussion.
And in return they got two to three years where they had the 'no-keyboard' smartphone market pretty much to themselves. Even after three years (back in 2010) the iPhone 4 was generally regarded as the best smartphone. It is only now five years in that the competitors have, by and large, caught up (even with the supposed "willful infringement").
I'd say Apple's investment paid off, and handsomely. They do not need any "protection".
No, but the smartphone makers not copying Apple seem to need it. Samsung has been growing on the back of those, not Apple.
Yeah you would, the home screen on all Samsung's phones have widgets. The pictures of the Samsung phones that look a little like iOS are showing the app tray, not the home screen.
You mean the picture s of the Samsung phones that Samsung uses in advertising.
Or apple simply has the most perceived value, the value is not real but it is still attributed to it by all involved. Apple shutsdown tomorrow fanboys and stock holders scream, any major oil company closes down on the other hand...
Then nobody would give a flying fuck, because others would simply step up production slightly. If Apple shut down, several industries couldn't copy them anymore, and thousands of hateboys would turn to terrorize others but Apple users.
And Nokia, and Motorola, and IBM, and Microsoft, and a couple more. Including Samsung of course, who also sued companies because their products supposedly looked too much like theirs.
Suuuure. So who but BMW uses a Valvetronic system? Who but Ford owned corps use the Blind Spot Information System. I could go on and on and on, but why waste my time further disproving your claim.
If they've "ripped off" Apple, why does their home menu use widgets instead of displaying ancient grid of icons?
Why does most of Samsung's promotional material not show the home display with the widgets, but the completely unimportant screen that is a rip-off of Apple?
This is reminiscent of George Selden and his patent on the automobile. If he'd been allowed to enforce his patents against Henry Ford, there'd be no cheap cars that ordinary people could afford. But that would have been OK, Ford was just a "copyist" right?
As was Selden., because Karl Benz had patented the automobile a decade before him. But that aside, we have the very reasonable license fee of $15 per car - just 1.75% of the price of a Model T at introduction - and the fact that the patent would have run out 5 years after the introduction of the T anyway, so long before it became the mass seller.
I wonder how you will talk if you weren't handed talking points.
You do realize Apple did not sue Samsung before 2010 when Samsung's phones did not look like the iPhone, right?
Was that before or after Steve Jobs vowed to go "thermonuclear" on android devices?
Apple has also sued Motorolla, HTC, and of course Samsung.
Of course Motorola sued Apple first. And how exactly do those three sum up to " every other smart phone maker"? They don't even make the majority of Android smartphones.
And we haven't even mentioned the fact that the suit against Samsung didn't even go against all Android smartphones Samsung sells in the US.
Nokia got killed because they didn't give consumers what consumers wanted, that was entirely Nokia's decision and Google didn't play any part in it.
The reason the damages were so high is because the jury did't just decide that the two devices looked a bit alike but rather that the similarity was willful.
Look, regarding Apple "innavation", most of the "look and feel" and even the features were copied from StarTrek by Apple.
The PADD devices seen on The Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager all did things that are major selling points for the iPad and iPhones.
* Touchscreen device
* Played video and sound
* dynamic user interface could be customized to serve the application
* Video conferencing
* Loaded and saved information to the remote storage (In this case the a ship or Starfleet computers would be "the cloud")
* Data could be synced between devices
* Device could be re-configured to remotely control a workstation (remote desktop)
* They even have rounded corners
* Devices could be encrypted
All of those functions are demonstrated or spoken of in episodes or described in Mike Okuda's ST:TNG Technical Manual
(Okuda was the lead designer on most of the newer television Star Treks)
All of this predated any patent filings by Apple.
And none of it has anything to do with any of Apple's patents - including your "rounded corners" bit.
It's not going to America, the money will be sent to Apple. It's damages, not penalties.
And the damages will be paid mostly by two of the three companies sued: Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Telecommunications America.- guess where those companies are located?
This trial was down the street from Apple and the jurors were probably god fearing patriotic 'muricans who weren't about to let those foreigners into our country.
And the trial in Korea was totally in Samsung's hand - but it was still ruled that Samsung violated one of Apple's patents. Hey, maybe there is something to Apple's claims after all...
Slashdot Mirror
The jury is supposed to consider just the facts put before them, and just in the context they are instructed to. They aren't supposed to be experts, and are not supposed to use outside information. The judge instructs them on what the law is and how to apply it, and decides on what facts are entered in to evidence. The jury then is supposed to make its decision on that alone.
The reason is if they don't, well shit like this can happen. Some juror thinks they know what is the law better than the court, and they go and cause problems.
Wait, what? You are saying that jurors (and you quite obviously mean the jury foreman in the case) aren't supposed to be experts, because they could go and do non-expert things like have no clue about their field of expertise?
The forman, Velvin Hogan is, IMHO, a patent troll. His "invention" is a TiVo, with options for a few minor and obvious additions (removable storage!, how inventive). He filed for the patent 3 years after TiVo first shipped.
And that makes him a patent troll how? Did he sue TiVo, or anybody else? Do you even know that even "patent troll" has a meaning, and that you can't just throw it around when you feel like saying something negative about patents?
After reading the summary of that patent I realised I have had a device for years that matches that description. I like to call it my laptop.
Here's a hint: if your laptop isn't older than the date of filing, it's not prior art.
So unlike what the the Fandroid told us, the SIII doesn't sell well because its so great - but because Apple sued them.
Nothing prevents a fully fledged package manager from doing the same.
Yeah, but a fully fledged package manager can't move goalposts.
You are an idiot. Are you saying it belongs on the server, and practically speaking, the smartphone (app stores are essentially package managers, just generally less powerful)
"Just less powerful" because often less is better. You can download an app. No bloody dependencies to worry about. No bloody incompatibilities to worry about. Less useless power to worry about. You install the app - it works. You delete the app - its gone.
No, I want the right to buy something because it's far better than what it ostensibly "copied" from.
So much better that you can ignore "the shiny"?
so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.
No, we need those 20 years so the other companies have an incentive to innovate instead of just taking what the innovators created and stagnate at an equal level.
It's interesting how the "definition" for innovation has changed here in the last couple of years - once it was "Apple doesn't innovate because they never invent, just copy", now it's "Apple stifles innovation because they have a document saying they invented something, and use it so others can't copy it". And of course both definitions are often used in the same discussion.
And in return they got two to three years where they had the 'no-keyboard' smartphone market pretty much to themselves. Even after three years (back in 2010) the iPhone 4 was generally regarded as the best smartphone. It is only now five years in that the competitors have, by and large, caught up (even with the supposed "willful infringement").
I'd say Apple's investment paid off, and handsomely. They do not need any "protection".
No, but the smartphone makers not copying Apple seem to need it. Samsung has been growing on the back of those, not Apple.
Apple don't just sell smartphones.
TEN BIGGEST SMARTPHONE MANUFACTURERS BY UNIT SALES IN Q2 2012
Rank, Maker, Units, Market Share, Was in Q1 of 2012 1 Samsung 50.4 M 32.9 % ( 30.6 %) 2 Apple 26.0 M 17.0 % ( 24.2 %)
So the top two Smartphone makers share the same designer.
Yeah you would, the home screen on all Samsung's phones have widgets. The pictures of the Samsung phones that look a little like iOS are showing the app tray, not the home screen.
You mean the picture s of the Samsung phones that Samsung uses in advertising.
It acts to reduce my choice as a user.
So you don't want to buy something from Apple because "it's shiny", but you want the right to buy something that is a lame copy.
Or apple simply has the most perceived value, the value is not real but it is still attributed to it by all involved. Apple shutsdown tomorrow fanboys and stock holders scream, any major oil company closes down on the other hand...
Then nobody would give a flying fuck, because others would simply step up production slightly. If Apple shut down, several industries couldn't copy them anymore, and thousands of hateboys would turn to terrorize others but Apple users.
How do you know if someone has a mac?
They won't ask you to fix their damn PC.
Apple is doing shit like that from a very long time. Why do you think we hate them so much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.
Probably they are second only to Sony.
And Nokia, and Motorola, and IBM, and Microsoft, and a couple more. Including Samsung of course, who also sued companies because their products supposedly looked too much like theirs.
The car industry cross-licenses their inventions.
Suuuure. So who but BMW uses a Valvetronic system? Who but Ford owned corps use the Blind Spot Information System. I could go on and on and on, but why waste my time further disproving your claim.
If they've "ripped off" Apple, why does their home menu use widgets instead of displaying ancient grid of icons?
Why does most of Samsung's promotional material not show the home display with the widgets, but the completely unimportant screen that is a rip-off of Apple?
This is reminiscent of George Selden and his patent on the automobile. If he'd been allowed to enforce his patents against Henry Ford, there'd be no cheap cars that ordinary people could afford. But that would have been OK, Ford was just a "copyist" right?
As was Selden., because Karl Benz had patented the automobile a decade before him. But that aside, we have the very reasonable license fee of $15 per car - just 1.75% of the price of a Model T at introduction - and the fact that the patent would have run out 5 years after the introduction of the T anyway, so long before it became the mass seller.
No Apple has patented a particular rectangle of a particular size.
Size isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the patents. Nice try, but not cigar.
The only way to avoid Apple's patent claims is to make a device that is shit.
IOW all smartphones before the iPhone were shit, and only Apple could change that.
I wonder how you will talk if you weren't handed talking points.
You do realize Apple did not sue Samsung before 2010 when Samsung's phones did not look like the iPhone, right?
Was that before or after Steve Jobs vowed to go "thermonuclear" on android devices?
Apple has also sued Motorolla, HTC, and of course Samsung.
Of course Motorola sued Apple first. And how exactly do those three sum up to " every other smart phone maker"? They don't even make the majority of Android smartphones.
And we haven't even mentioned the fact that the suit against Samsung didn't even go against all Android smartphones Samsung sells in the US.
Nokia should be suing google.
Nokia got killed because they didn't give consumers what consumers wanted, that was entirely Nokia's decision and Google didn't play any part in it.
The reason the damages were so high is because the jury did't just decide that the two devices looked a bit alike but rather that the similarity was willful.
Look, regarding Apple "innavation", most of the "look and feel" and even the features were copied from StarTrek by Apple.
The PADD devices seen on The Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager all did things that are major selling points for the iPad and iPhones.
* Touchscreen device * Played video and sound * dynamic user interface could be customized to serve the application * Video conferencing * Loaded and saved information to the remote storage (In this case the a ship or Starfleet computers would be "the cloud") * Data could be synced between devices * Device could be re-configured to remotely control a workstation (remote desktop) * They even have rounded corners * Devices could be encrypted All of those functions are demonstrated or spoken of in episodes or described in Mike Okuda's ST:TNG Technical Manual (Okuda was the lead designer on most of the newer television Star Treks) All of this predated any patent filings by Apple.
And none of it has anything to do with any of Apple's patents - including your "rounded corners" bit.
It's not going to America, the money will be sent to Apple. It's damages, not penalties.
And the damages will be paid mostly by two of the three companies sued: Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Telecommunications America.- guess where those companies are located?
This trial was down the street from Apple and the jurors were probably god fearing patriotic 'muricans who weren't about to let those foreigners into our country.
And the trial in Korea was totally in Samsung's hand - but it was still ruled that Samsung violated one of Apple's patents. Hey, maybe there is something to Apple's claims after all...
I think the effect this case will have on the broadness of design patents is more important than the actual money.
No, that was already done in the Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa case. There is nothing new about this case (pun not intended).