I don't understand this.
How was Apple able to successfully sue Samsung for copying icons and other similar (but not the same) things
when Lego was unsuccesful at suing MegaBloks. :fulloffuck:

Sorry, but this is a win for innovation. I'd love to hear any argument that explains how this is going to somehow stifle innovation.

The details of the jury members are available. Only one iPhone user on the jury and no Samsung smartphone owners. Two Android users, three LG users and two Samsung feature phone users. One guy had no mobile phone but previously had an LG as well.

As to the schooling/employment of the jury, six had graduated from college, three had graduate degrees and two were engineers. Four worked for tech companies including AT&T and Intel, one of those was for a hard drive company. So it looks like a good mix of people and not a bunch of "stupid rednecks". So there goes the argument that the jurors were too stupid or not educated enough to be able to decide this type of case.


But this is the best part. Copied directly from Samsung's official statement:

Did the person who wrote that forget that of all the patents Apple asserted, the one where Apple lost was the "rounded rectangle" patent?

And Samsung has the nerve to release an official statement to try and convince people that the trial was about "rounded rectangles" when Samsung actually won that portion of the case?

Lego's patent had expired. So they tried a different tactic to go after Mega Blocks for trademark infringement instead of patent infringement. The judge said that Lego can't try to indefinitely extend its expired patent through other means.

The only people getting rich here are the idiot lawyers.

had a hard time reading that number lol

1,051,855,000,00

I haven't been following this case from the beginning...
So what exactly are all the things Apple is suing Samsung for (and vice versa)?

Is there a list somewhere, with which company won which portion of the case?

edit: nvm just read dangonay's reply.

I don't see why this is bad for innovation. With this as precedent, companies need to actually make NEW things rather than "improving" on them.

Sure, Apple can't patent rounded rectangles but by making icons that look pretty much exactly like Apple's, how is that good for innovation? Apple doesn't have a patent on blue shirts, glass walls and wood tables with an open product format but that doesn't stop the "Samsung Store" from looking pretty much exactly like Apples.

The way I see it is that by "improving" on stuff that Apple made, Samsung was never going to gain any ground in the mobile phone market because Apple just make a better iPhone than they do. Why not make something that's entirely different...or at least LOOKS entirely different?

You know why Apple won?

Apple proved that Samsung's designer COPIED Apple's design.
In court Samsung proved that the technology exists BUT Apple proved that Samsung copied THEIR that technology.

http://i.imgur.com/qN6n9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FJkZE.png



Samsung copying Apple's UI regards of touch wiz : 132-page document shows full extent of iPhone's influence on Samsung interface design | The Verge

http://r.phonedog.com/shared/images/...plications.jpg

More info :


Here's Samsung's Step-By-Step Guide For How To Copy An iPhone - Business Insider

^ Samsung copied early to get into the game. But their new phones (S3 etc) are totally different than Iphones.

Having said that, I seriously think that certain designs cant be patented, as some of it isn't innovation, but more a style.
Style and design isn't technology. If I decide to wear a certain type of shirt style, I shouldnt be able to put a patent on it

Anyone know when the Motorola vs. Apple case is?
Waiting to see that.
Word is that Moto is going after location services , push email , Siri

That'll be a Google v Apple case, since Google owns Motorola Mobility (or Mobile?).

My apple fan-boy meter blew up, but I have to side with you on this. Samsung is a bloody joke with the way they handled the entire litigation.

*Disclaimer, I'm a BB+lenovo user*

In the end of this, it's 1 billion dollars to them its really nothing and all just a number and what will pan out in the future.

The lawyers are who made a killing :p

Waiting for the appeal.

so i wonder if apple won back all that they had to give to nokia
(the actual numbers on that case is unknown aside from the lump sum and patent use shared to nokia the ongoing royalty is ???)



!!!!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mJ4lc_Q9Q6...horn5antic.jpg
I say I say I SAY how dare you sir!

:D

in 15 years apple will get fucked

100billion and growing cash reserve, huge patent portfolio, world class supply chain model and marketing abilities that can control minds.

its is going to be longer than 15years.....

Long, but good read. Shows why the current patent system is flawed in regards to Apple / Google / MS.

Did Google buying MMI actually make the patent mess worse? - AfterDawn

Cellular Innovation is already fucked in North America, this lawsuit just makes it even more difficult. This is why we can't have nice things. The providers rule, and companies like Samsung will cave in to carrier demands JUST to have product in store.

Apple was rejected by Verizon in the very beginning, and ATT basically gave Apple a chance to succeed.

Innovation in what sense? The from the looks of how the cellular industry is going, the END USER EXPERIENCE is starting to play a HUGE factor into the future. Past Apple keynotes have focused on how the iOS system helps the user, same goes with when Samsung announced the S3. The hardware/screen war will always be the same stale spec vs spec war, it comes down to features. THIS is where innovation falls into the hands of software devs in which this entire lawsuit can be ignored. Innovation comes from within the device and what it is capable of. It is the very reason that people talk about this and that feature when comparing devices.

The cellular providers in NORTH AMERICA is the biggest culprit on not allowing innovation. Every big giant, even outside of North America require their devices to be preloaded with bloatware. Not a big deal for some, but limits on functions such as tethering is an example.

When a company wants to release a device into the market in the US and Canada, it must go through the providers. A lot of the marketing comes from the inside in which the carrier decides what to push and ultimately, if you dont play by the rules of said carrier, your going to have a hard time getting your phone in to the hands of the consumer.

Palm is an example, Verizon backed out of the Palm Pre, so they settled with Sprint with limited distribution. It had a tough time competing with the iPhone available on ATT as Sprint just isn't a large carrier compared to Verizon, in which it does have the resources to compete with ATT. When Verizon decided to pick up the Pre Plus, phones were ordered and produced, but evidently, they shifted focus on promoting the Motorola Droid. Shipments of the Pre Plus were denied and there was no focus on Verizon's end to sell the Pre Plus. This costed Palm and was eventually bought out by HP

Rogers wanted exclusive rights to the HTC One X. A great device that could stand up on par with iPhone and the S3. The device failed to compete as Rogers did in fact shift focus away from the One X, even though it was exclusive to them.

Cell providers fight for consumers just as hardware manufactures fight for consumers, but if your method of distribution of said device must go through the provider, who have their own strategies to compete for the same consumers and they decide roughly into a quarter or right before launch that they are changing the direction of sales to a rival device, well, the device manufacturer is left with many unsold phones and loss of revenue.

Cell providers in North America have ripped consumers apart. Subsidy in pricing of the hardware in exchange for a lengthy commitment to a carrier. This has always been the way of business. This thought has been driven into the minds of the consumer and they are also unwilling to spend 500+ on the top of the line phone in one shot. Apple would have released the original iPhone on it's own if they could, but without carrier support, there is no way that it would have succeed as quick as it did. It wasn't until last year where the iPhone 4 could be purchased outright and unlocked through Apple directly placing the choice on the consumer to buy. Google's Nexus line is the same idea, cut the provider and sell directly to the consumer so they have a choice.

Fact is this, the cellular providers make it difficult for hardware manufacturers to truly innovate. If you don't play nice with carriers, than you can say goodbye to your fancy features just because said provider believes that certain features could threaten profits because it does certain things that the provider wants to provide(such as tethering)

This lawsuit/patent war is Apple's way of protecting it's brand. It doesn't exactly "win" on innovation. The big companies know features are the future on moving the industry forward.

Of course, this is the North American market and how business is conducted in which the carrier has much more to say in the outcome of the device makers flagship. The leash is much longer outside of our continent.

on the other hand, one of the reasons why the S3 is dual core here is because Qualcomm initially didn't want to see their LTE module paired with a Samsung CPU and here are the reasons

1. Carriers spent too much developing LTE
2. LTE is the newest thing going forward here
3. Qualcomm didn't want to see their LTE module with a Samsung Chip

Basically, the carriers told Samsung to do it this way, or else no S3 would have landed on our shores. Of course, this has changed with Samsung ready to roll out a Quad core LTE ready device on the Exynos chip with LTE in Germany.

Not really a ton of money.. 1billion is nothing in the bigger picture. Samsung will just shrug it off and life moves on.

My argument is kinda weak but here it goes:
Nowadays, it would appear innovation is based on patents. Whoever patents the idea first, wins. Apple have been patenting every idea they come up with even the ideas that doesnt leave the sketchbooks phase. Samsung havent been patenting ideas - including the ideas that do proceed into the beta testing phase. So this means from here on out, every idea designers and programmers come up with will need a bigger team of lawyers going through filed patents to make sure every single small idea did not get patented in the past. The bottleneck in innovation would appear to not be determined by inventors but by lawyers in the future.

so if a car manufacture starts getting patents for car design (i.e. having doors), they can also sue?

this makes no sense... how else are they going to make icons? a big rectangular icon? square shape headset? triangle phone shape????

Nice little rant, but what does Apple having a patent on a couple of features have to do with carriers and their asinine policies? Or to put it another way, if Samsung had won are you going to claim that the carriers would suddenly change their business practices?

I think this case is irrelevant to how the carriers operate - they will continue doing what they always have regardless of whether Samsung or Apple won.