or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple v Samsung jury validates American patent system, raises new questions for the future of tech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple v Samsung jury validates American patent system, raises new questions for the future of tech

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
The complex verdict reached by the jury in the Apple vs. Samsung case sends a strong message about a willingness of a jury to enforce U.S. patents against flagrant infringement while at the same time rejecting patent claims that lack strong support, particularly when it comes to prior art.

Utility patents were a minor win

There are various elements of the complex verdict. First, Apple scored a series of wins across its utility patents (which describe specific, novel user interface features). This is particularly notable because Apple perviously failed in its efforts to protect the original Macintosh user interface via copyright claims, in the era before software patents.

Apple's "look and feel" lawsuits of the late 1980s were initially successful in stopping competitors, up until Apple's primary case against Microsoft collapsed when a judge liberally interpreted an agreement between Apple and Microsoft (licensing a variety of Apple's Mac UI elements to Windows 1.0) to include all future versions of Windows, essentially opening up the floodgates for Microsoft to copy the Macintosh user interface verbatim after Apple's appeals ran out in 1994.

After a tech industry eternity of 18 years, Apple has now proven itself capable of winning significant protections on patented elements of its iOS in court, adding to a series of much smaller, recent patent victories.

However, despite proving that utility patents can effectively be used to block competitors from infringing on significant, specific features, Apple's big win didn't come from utility patents. In fact, had Apple only won its infringement claims related to utility patents, it wouldn't have made much progress at all.

That's because it is relatively easy for Samsung (or other vendors) to simply drop or sufficiently modify accused features that infringe upon utility patents, risking only relatively minor damage claims from the patent owner.

This makes it incredibly expensive for Apple to attempt to protect its products via utility patents, because it must wage lawsuits for months only to arrive at rather dismal results, even if it wins.

It's particularly notable that the jury only found infringement by Samsung on specific models; clearly, all Samsung has to do to avoid infringement of Apple's specific utility patents is to deliver a software update.

However, the message the jury sent is clear: Samsung wasn't just found guilty of infringement, it was charged with willful infringement on all of those utility patents. WIth that now a matter of record, Apple has the option to pull out other patents against Samsung that are more complex and difficult to argue, but also far more difficult for Samsung to evade through software patches.

Design patents were Apple's big win

Much more significant (in terms of damages it can claim) are Apple's wins related to three of its four design patents asserted in the case. The vast majority of the $1.05 billion in damages Samsung must pay come from infringing those design patents.

That's because under U.S. law, infringement of design patents triggers not just damage claims from lost profits or dilution of a brand (both quite difficult to prove), but potentially also the right for the patent holder to demand the profits the infringer has collected in the process of infringing those design patents.

Notably, the jury found Samsung infringing upon three design patents describing the iPhone, but not infringing Apple's D'889 patent related to iPad, very likely for some of the same reasons earlier cases have arrived at the same decision: that Apple's iPad design patent was undermined by two instances of prior art, and that Samsung made some discernible design changes to avoid infringement.

It's also noteworthy that while Samsung was found to be willfully infringing Apple's utility patents, it was not found to be willfully infringing its design patents, a decision the jury likely arrived at because in several cases, Samsung took steps to avoid overt infringement.

More wins for Apple trade dress

While Apple hasn't previously had spectacular success in defending patented software features of the Mac or iOS, it has previously won significant rights to protect its trade dress.

In 2000, Apple won global rights to stop knockoff versions of its then-new iMac, including eMachines' eOne and the Daewoo E-Power. Those cases were fought using trade dress claims rather than design patents.

As a result of this jury's latest decision, Apple is likely to devote more efforts to spelling out and officially registering its trade dress claims, as it won "protectable" claims only over specific instances of its trade dress.

Apple had also unsuccessfully tried to argue for protection of unregistered trade dress elements, just because of the widely recognized nature of its famous iOS devices. This didn't result in convincing the jury that those additional, unregistered trade dress claims were worthy of protection however.

No luck for scattershot patent claims

While Apple won a strong affirmation for some of its strongest patent claims (this case was limited to a total of just eight Apple patents), the same was not true for the six patents Samsung tried to apply in its "offense as the best defense" strategy.

The jury found no infringement by Apple in any of Samsung's asserted patents. That's a strong blow against the concept of trying to defend against infringement by simply throwing up hailstorm response of counterclaims, particularly ones as weak as those Samsung asserted.

Of course, both Apple and Samsung have plenty of other patents they could bring to subsequent trials, even if these were among the two company's strongest. At the same time however, Samsung has lost big in its gamble of letting the courts decide the terms of its contractual obligations with Apple (even if its damage claims might be lowered on appeal).

It has also been found to have willfully infringed upon Apple's patents, setting the stage for more complex trials arguing followup claims, if Samsung decides to keep litigating rather than start negotiating.

More negotiations, fewer lawsuits

The jury's verdict will likely have the effect of encouraging Apple and Samsung to work together as amicably as possible in the future, as Apple attempted to do in 2010 when it first approached the company in the effort of working out a patent licensing agreement.

As the "most sued company on earth," Apple knows enough about the court system to seek to avoid trials if at all possible. Having won a major case against Samsung, Apple will likely be emboldened to negotiate future issues armed with a track record that spells out the potential dire consequences of losing to the iPhone maker in court.

After losing its "look and feel" copyright case with Microsoft in the early 1990s, Apple subsequently resolved its remaining issues with the company in a win-win agreement brokered by Steve Jobs, who famously introduced the d?tente by saying:

"We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job."



Apple has since worked to broker a series of agreements involving intellectual property claims with Microsoft, Creative, Nokia and many others. Samsung has been the first major competitor/business partner to attempt to play hardball with Apple in the patent business, and its very significant loss in doing so will likely cause other vendors to rethink their legal strategy as well.

Principal among these is Google's Motorola subsidiary, which has attempted to assert the same type of "offense as the best defense" strategy as Samsung did in its own high stakes gamble to force Apple into expensive licensing of the company's standards essential patents that were previously committed to Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms.

The goal of these types of claims (previously attempted by Nokia before it backed down and came to a mutually acceptable agreement with Apple) is to force Apple to give up its proprietary patent rights in exchange for the ability to build standards-compatible devices.

This strategy has not only failed miserably in the Samsung case, but is also under new scrutiny by the standards bodies themselves and by antitrust regulators who are actively investigating the conduct of Samsung and Motorola with regard to their alleged FRAND patent abuse, both in U.S. and in the E.U.

What remains to be seen

While the jury has answered its questions, there are many questions that remain to be answered. First: how much impact will Samsung experience in going back to its pre-infringing designs?

While Apple's case argued the story that Samsung was struggling to build Android devices up until it hit its "crisis of design" moment in 2010 and embarked upon a three month intense copying effort, Samsung has since established itself as a major brand and Apple's primary competitor in high end smartphones.

It's certainly not clear that customers will abandon the firm just because it stops making devices that look like the iPhone. At the same time, for a company that earned half as much as Apple in the last quarter despite selling twice as many phones, the loss of over $1 billion is a significant sting.

Will Samsung blaze a more original path as Motorola, HTC, LG and Nokia have, or will it simply tweak its designs based on what it has learned in defending itself against Apple's patents, and continue to be the Android licensee known for making devices that most closely resemble Apple's?

Additionally, what will the result of Samsung's decisions have on its bottom line? And will other companies emulate its "how close can we be without getting sued" strategy, given that it paid off fairly well, particularly relative to the moribund sales seen by the more original Motorola, HTC, LG and Nokia?

Further, will Apple continue its efforts to take its business away from Samsung to further punish the company for double-crossing it in the way court documents have shown it did, starting in 2007 and continuing with intensity from 2010 to today? What effect will that have on Samsung?

Additionally, what about Samsung's claims that a win for Apple would result in fewer options and higher prices for consumers? So far, Apple has been effective in pushing down prices in smartphones and tablets, to the point that smartphones are more affordable than ever.

At the same time, Apple has also effectively demonstrated that the majority of the market (and certainly the premium end of the market) actually wants to buy the same thing, not a huge variety of wildly different models.

None of these questions can be answered by a jury, but the jury's verdict has set in motion a new set of rules that will dictate how the tech industry operates in America, even if the courts in Samsung's native Korea beat it to the punch with a much weaker affirmation of patent rights mixed with an approval of Samsung's anti-FRAND standards essential patent strategy.
post #2 of 34

The telephone lines have been busy.

 

"Hello, is that Microsoft, I'm after an unencumbered operating system for my phones."

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #3 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The telephone lines have been busy.

"Hello, is that Microsoft, I'm after an unencumbered operating system for my phones."

Yes, I expect Microsoft to benefit from this.

The most surprising thing to me is that Samsung was found not guilty of violating the tablet design patent. It looked to me like that patent was even easier to prove than the phone design patents.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #4 of 34

I am not sure if it's right to say that,

 

"I am not guilty if I rob/steal for charity. The needies shall lose if I am caught guilty."

post #5 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The most surprising thing to me is that Samsung was found not guilty of violating the tablet design patent. It looked to me like that patent was even easier to prove than the phone design patents.

Yeah, I agree.

I thought it was a good example of an obvious copy.

 

Still, it won't hurt Apple too much. . .they couldn't sell them anyway ;)

Grocery Stores FEAR Him
Reply
Grocery Stores FEAR Him
Reply
post #6 of 34
I'll save my comments till later when people start posting stupid stuff..


But I got to admit.. Regardless of Bias

DED has has mastered the English language narrative in comparison to most of what is posted online.

The writers for WSJ, CNN, BBC, NYT, etc.... Need to hire more people that can write as clearly as DED
post #7 of 34
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post
DED has has mastered the English language narrative in comparison to most of what is posted online.
The writers for WSJ, CNN, BBC, NYT, etc.... Need to hire more people that can write as clearly as DED

 

While I agree, some can write more concisely.

 

Really, I'm just glad that there weren't any broken quotation marks this time. I know I'd miss at least most of them, going through to edit. lol.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #8 of 34
I agree, this was a very well written piece by Daniel Eran Dilger. Thanks!
post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, I expect Microsoft to benefit from this.
The most surprising thing to me is that Samsung was found not guilty of violating the tablet design patent. It looked to me like that patent was even easier to prove than the phone design patents.

 

There may be several reasons for the jury to agree with Samsung on the tablets. Here are a couple:

1. There was a lot of prior art that showed a similar tablet... as long as you didn't look too closely

2. Apple did not register a dress patent on the iPad like they did on the iPhone.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #10 of 34

I wonder how much all of this has affected Samsung's relationships.

 

Not only Apple, but other companies that may have considered doing business with them, as well as consumers...

 

Damaged their social network, much?

 

If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #11 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

While I agree, some can write more concisely.

Really, I'm just glad that there weren't any broken quotation marks this time. I know I'd miss at least most of them, going through to edit. lol.gif

I'm both surprised and happy that they even let you edit their "story". I also commend you for helping everyone involved. You're assisting both the writers as would an editor, and us readers as well.

You are using your position as Moderator to benefit others in that regard.

I hope I speak for all readers, posters and writers when I say "Thank you very much!".
post #12 of 34

All explained here (parody). Awesome and funny:

 

Conan O’Brien Breaks Down The Apple/Samsung Trial [VIDEO]

 

post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

 

You are OS sucks? Trying to figure out what OS stands for in this context...

post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

I'll save my comments till later when people start posting stupid stuff..
But I got to admit.. Regardless of Bias
DED has has mastered the English language narrative in comparison to most of what is posted online.
The writers for WSJ, CNN, BBC, NYT, etc.... Need to hire more people that can write as clearly as DED

Someone please save this message for posterity. You don't often hear praise for DED's writing.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #15 of 34

I wish there were more companies emulating Apple. Alas, Xerox fumbled when it had the chance. Apple would never steal anything. Period.

post #16 of 34

Apple never stole xerox.

 

Xerox did not wanting to sell products, Apple was one of the company who came to Xerox to see their research.

 

Apple was impressed, bought rights. Apple developed technology to make UI possible and better on common hardware (motorola at the time). The mouse was also developed to be a real product, not a prototype costing hundred of $.

 

 

-

you can also see how Apple, Xerox and Adobe worked to develop the first laser printer.

post #17 of 34
Originally Posted by GTR View Post
I wonder how much all of this has affected Samsung's relationships.

 

Not only Apple, but other companies that may have considered doing business with them, as well as consumers...

 

Damaged their social network, much?

 

Without jumping on that meme's bandwagon, that image reminds me of that British WWII poster. Let's just say, "Keep Calm and Innovate" and leave it at that.


Originally Posted by Vadania View Post
I'm both surprised and happy that they even let you edit their "story".

 

Oh, it's just like any other forum post. And by that I mean that the changes I apply here don't show up on the article itself, which is a shame. But I still edit it here because I personally never go to the site proper, and I feel that if there're other forum users that do the same, they'll appreciate the corrections. You're welcome!

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #18 of 34

I'm curious to find out whether Samsung will decided to nit pick and have Apple continue to legally chip away or whether they'll just drop Android all together.  Considering they were apparently trying to copy/modify/fork the open source Android and pull away from Google before all of this happened it wouldn't surprise me if they decided just switch to WIndows phone software to unify their international phone line.  Attempting to maintain a bunch of phone hardware with a bunch of radically different Os' is costly and not the "Samsung Way."

 

My God, can you imagine if software patents and not just copyright for software was available back when Apple sued MS for stealing the Mac GUI?  Apple would have completely smoked MS and Windows would been nothing but a stolen dream...it must be double vindication for all of the Apple engineers that worked on the original Macintosh to know that the patent system isn't a joke. 
 

post #19 of 34
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post
My God, can you imagine if software patents and not just copyright for software was available back when Apple sued MS for stealing the Mac GUI?  Apple would have completely smoked MS and Windows would been nothing but a stolen dream...

 

I can't. After having lived through dystopia, it's hard to imagine utopia, you know? lol.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #20 of 34
I bookmarked an old article by Daniel when it came out. It was dated April 14, 2010 and was titled, "Chronicles of Conflict: The History of Adobe and Apple." (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/04/14/chronicles-of-conflict-the-history-of-adobe-vs-apple/). It is an unusual post for Daniel because it was written as a parable. It came out at around the time that Steve emphasized his decision that Apple would never support Flash on any of its mobile devices.

I figure it is well worth rereading on the anniversary of Steve's resignation as CEO and the day the verdict was handed down in Judge Koh's court.

My favorite passage was the section titled, "A Revelaton of Adobe" and began with the following paragraph:

"And Adobe saw four horsemen of the apocalypse ascending from the sea, the rider of the white horse was Steve Jobs and he was bent on conquest. And a second horse, red, was given to iPhone to take away market share from smartphones, and to cause phone makers to wage war and to fall upon their own swords. And a third horse, black, was carrying the scales of the iPod touch, and it measured out music playback from iTunes and sold many apps and starved other mobile platforms of mobile application demand. And fourth horse, pale, had a rider named iPad, which pundits called Death. And it caused famine for tablets and plague for slates and killed with a sword. And none of the horsemen used Flash."


Tragically, Steve no longer walks the earth, but he still rides the white horse.
post #21 of 34

What questions?

 

The challenge has been thrown down: can someone out-Apple Apple?

 

That's what it's going to take. Set the bar even higher than Apple. Imagine if all these also-rans started taking the User Experience seriously. Imagine how much further along we'd be. 

 

All it takes is to *stop* the race to the bottom and start focusing on creating a Premium User Experience. Unfortunately, that's tough to do with someone else's whored-out OS. Too bad. The challenge is out there now. 

post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Someone please save this message for posterity. You don't often hear praise for DED's writing.

 

I am not ashamed to say that I might not frequent Apple Insider if DED were to leave.
 
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

lolololz

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

I'll save my comments till later when people start posting stupid stuff..
But I got to admit.. Regardless of Bias
DED has has mastered the English language narrative in comparison to most of what is posted online.
The writers for WSJ, CNN, BBC, NYT, etc.... Need to hire more people that can write as clearly as DED

 

The language maybe, and definitely "a style" - I'll be reading along and say, hey, this is a DED article - and it almost always is...

 

Apparently, though, either he or someone in "Editorial" often either turns off or ignores the spell-checker....  ...a frequent AI failing, btw.  (Does AI even have a breathing copy editor?)

 

  1. "This is particularly notable because Apple perviously failed in its efforts to protect the original Macintosh user interface via copyright claims..."
  2. "WIth that now a matter of record....."
  3. "...setting the stage for more complex trials arguing followup claims..."

 

Giddyup.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

While I agree, some can write more concisely.

 

Really, I'm just glad that there weren't any broken quotation marks this time. I know I'd miss at least most of them, going through to edit. lol.gif

 

Which is not to diminish your madd edit skillz, TS....

 

(PS:  I GET to misspell things, because I'm the pedant here....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post


I'm both surprised and happy that they even let you edit their "story". I also commend you for helping everyone involved. You're assisting both the writers as would an editor, and us readers as well.
You are using your position as Moderator to benefit others in that regard.
I hope I speak for all readers, posters and writers when I say "Thank you very much!".

Indeed....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Someone please save this message for posterity. You don't often hear praise for DED's writing.

Double indeed....

 

PS: To recirculate an moldie oldie from the early days of PC Word Processors, did you ever hear the one about the wizard who accidentally turned himself into a toad because he forgot to use his Spell Checker??  

 

lol.gif

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #25 of 34

been reading a lot of the media reports. nearly all miss the key outcomes:

 

- Samsung will have to settle with Apple. this isn't the only Apple lawsuit, another is pending that includes all the newer Samsung models this case didn't, and that judgement could be a lot bigger. but in addition, Apple is still Samsung's biggest customer! if Samsung keeps this war going with years of appeals, Apple will dump them permanently.

 

- and after all, thanks to slavishly copying Apple, Samsung has become the world's #1 smartphone OEM in terms of production (not profit). it wants to hang on to that to position versus all the other OEM's and not get bogged down for years by the uncertainty of lawsuits it may well lose.

 

- and we learned from the trial that Apple will, in fact, license its patents. that will be the basis for the settlement. Samsung would probably accept Apple's offer if it can carve out enough exceptions/tiers for the full scope of its global range of products.

 

- i think Apple will cut a deal with Samsung on such terms, provided that Samsung really agrees to end its "copytition" tactics. Apple wants to move on and go after all the other OEM's now.

 

- to limit those licensing costs and avoid future litigation, Samsung will greatly revise its TouchWiz Android skin ASAP. it may even "fork" Android to re-write some of its OS code. (i don't know if Samsung's Bada is really a feasible alternative for US/Europe products).

 

- all the other Android OEM's will do this too ASAP, for the same reasons. which means we will actually see more new ideas for smartphone UI's than we have so far. the anti-consumer whine about this verdict is bullshit, actually more creative options will come to market as a result.

 

- except maybe Google/Motorola. Google might stubbornly decide to fight Apple to the bitter end, still hoping for a court victory. but that would be stupid, because it would greatly increase the incentive for all the OEM's to "fork" Android soon to avoid legal hassles and license fees with Apple. Google would be much smarter to re-work Android substantially enough with a new version next year to avoid Apple conflicts in the future.

 

- yes, as many note, this does make RIM an attractive take-over target for its QNX OS. and if HP had any sense, it might even resurrect WebOS - they were stupid to kill it.

 

- to the extent that Android fragments even more than it has next year because of all this (depends on Google), it will help MS/Nokia Windows 8 somewhat as many assume. but the success or failure of W8 overall will still be decided by consumers' reaction to it. 

post #26 of 34

lol.gif

 

im laughing right now

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #27 of 34

post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by oomu View Post

Apple never stole xerox.

 

Xerox did not wanting to sell products, Apple was one of the company who came to Xerox to see their research.

 

Apple was impressed, bought rights. Apple developed technology to make UI possible and better on common hardware (motorola at the time). The mouse was also developed to be a real product, not a prototype costing hundred of $.

-

you can also see how Apple, Xerox and Adobe worked to develop the first laser printer.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric475 View Post

I wish there were more companies emulating Apple. Alas, Xerox fumbled when it had the chance. Apple would never steal anything. Period.

 

Xerox at the time were concentrating on a server/workstation system they were prepping for the market at about $16K a pop for each workstation and about double that or more for the server, and were happy to license their GUI software to Apple for $1 million in AAPL shares, They also had Ethernet (which they licensed to Intel and DEC) and PostScript (which later spun off to become Adobe) among several other in-house technological marvels their R&D people were churning out.
 
They were innovators that had no idea at the time of the value of what their techs were playing around with, swimming as they were in oceans of profit from global photocopier royalties. Jobs and Wozniak's amazement at the GUI and Intel/DEC's shock at seeing Ethernet were just amusing to them. If only they could have seen 10, 20 years ahead, if only...
post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

been reading a lot of the media reports. nearly all miss the key outcomes:

 

- Samsung will have to settle with Apple. this isn't the only Apple lawsuit, another is pending that includes all the newer Samsung models this case didn't, and that judgement could be a lot bigger. but in addition, Apple is still Samsung's biggest customer! if Samsung keeps this war going with years of appeals, Apple will dump them permanently.

 

- and after all, thanks to slavishly copying Apple, Samsung has become the world's #1 smartphone OEM in terms of production (not profit). it wants to hang on to that to position versus all the other OEM's and not get bogged down for years by the uncertainty of lawsuits it may well lose.

 

- and we learned from the trial that Apple will, in fact, license its patents. that will be the basis for the settlement. Samsung would probably accept Apple's offer if it can carve out enough exceptions/tiers for the full scope of its global range of products.

 

- i think Apple will cut a deal with Samsung on such terms, provided that Samsung really agrees to end its "copytition" tactics. Apple wants to move on and go after all the other OEM's now.

 

- to limit those licensing costs and avoid future litigation, Samsung will greatly revise its TouchWiz Android skin ASAP. it may even "fork" Android to re-write some of its OS code. (i don't know if Samsung's Bada is really a feasible alternative for US/Europe products).

 

- all the other Android OEM's will do this too ASAP, for the same reasons. which means we will actually see more new ideas for smartphone UI's than we have so far. the anti-consumer whine about this verdict is bullshit, actually more creative options will come to market as a result.

 

- except maybe Google/Motorola. Google might stubbornly decide to fight Apple to the bitter end, still hoping for a court victory. but that would be stupid, because it would greatly increase the incentive for all the OEM's to "fork" Android soon to avoid legal hassles and license fees with Apple. Google would be much smarter to re-work Android substantially enough with a new version next year to avoid Apple conflicts in the future.

 

- yes, as many note, this does make RIM an attractive take-over target for its QNX OS. and if HP had any sense, it might even resurrect WebOS - they were stupid to kill it.

 

- to the extent that Android fragments even more than it has next year because of all this (depends on Google), it will help MS/Nokia Windows 8 somewhat as many assume. but the success or failure of W8 overall will still be decided by consumers' reaction to it. 

 

I think this may also make Nokia an attractive target as well but mostly for patents.  If Nokia doesn't do something soon they risk becoming easy prey.  With more than 40,000 total patents (15,897 U.S. patents issued (with an average remaining term of 13.8 years) and 4,453 U.S. patent applications as well as approximately 20,000 foreign patents).  In a review of 4G LTE technologies, Nokia held 18.9% of the total 3,144 essential 4G LTE patents in circulation. Notably, Nokia is also a leader in mapping and navigation technologies including NAVTEQ (purchased for more than $8 bn) and Aquity Mobile embedded advertising platform for location targeted advertising.  The value of Nokia patents may be greater than the value of the company as a business entity.  Apple may be able convince Nokia to sell a number of corporate assets including patents for a cash injection and patent infringement immunity.
 
1.  brnichols.  Published 21 August 2012.  Nokia Patent Portfolio An Untapped Goldmine.  Seeking Alpha.  Retrieved 25 August 2012.
 
 
 
 
post #30 of 34

bleh

post #31 of 34
BTW, Reuters interviewed the foreman:
http://news.yahoo.com/jury-didnt-want-let-samsung-off-easy-apple-180235635--sector.html

Apparently, there were several technical people on the jury, so it wasn't a case of totally inept people making the decision.

Unfortunately, they didn't have a business person on the jury. They based their damages on Samsung's use of NET income vs Apple's use of gross margin. Gross margin makes far more sense in this context since the remaining costs are fixed. Essentially, Samsung got to keep about 60% of the money they stole.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

 

I think this may also make Nokia an attractive target as well but mostly for patents.  If Nokia doesn't do something soon they risk becoming easy prey.  With more than 40,000 total patents (15,897 U.S. patents issued (with an average remaining term of 13.8 years) and 4,453 U.S. patent applications as well as approximately 20,000 foreign patents).  In a review of 4G LTE technologies, Nokia held 18.9% of the total 3,144 essential 4G LTE patents in circulation. Notably, Nokia is also a leader in mapping and navigation technologies including NAVTEQ (purchased for more than $8 bn) and Aquity Mobile embedded advertising platform for location targeted advertising.  The value of Nokia patents may be greater than the value of the company as a business entity.  Apple may be able convince Nokia to sell a number of corporate assets including patents for a cash injection and patent infringement immunity.
 
1.  brnichols.  Published 21 August 2012.  Nokia Patent Portfolio An Untapped Goldmine.  Seeking Alpha.  Retrieved 25 August 2012.
 
 
 
 

yup, you're right. but like many i assume Nokia is in the process of a thinly disguised take over by MS, and has been from the day Elop got there (what total suckers/fools, its board of directors). no doubt when they settled after he arrived, Apple and Nokia agreed not to assert claims against each other (just like Apple and MS did).

post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

 

 


None of the companies had any idea how large the market for "PCs" would become. Not IBM, not Xerox, not even Apple.

 

One thing that "changed everything" is the internet. Without it many people believe the "PC" market would be dramatically smaller.

post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

BTW, Reuters interviewed the foreman:
http://news.yahoo.com/jury-didnt-want-let-samsung-off-easy-apple-180235635--sector.html
Apparently, there were several technical people on the jury, so it wasn't a case of totally inept people making the decision.
Unfortunately, they didn't have a business person on the jury. They based their damages on Samsung's use of NET income vs Apple's use of gross margin. Gross margin makes far more sense in this context since the remaining costs are fixed. Essentially, Samsung got to keep about 60% of the money they stole.


The foreman may be guilty of juror misconduct because he says he used his personal expertise in the area of patents to guide him (and presumably the other jurors as well) in reaching their verdict.

 

Quite apart from that, potential errors by the trial court and fundamental issues about patents will, no doubt, be reviewed on appeal.

 

I am surprised that a number of Apple's patents were not invalidated by the court, before ever submitting the case to the jury, as they are, quite frankly, obvious and there were examples of prior art.

 

I will say that Samsung's attorneys appear to have let one or more juror slip through who they should have been able to exclude...specifically, the foreman.

 

The fat lady has not yet sung in this matter.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple v Samsung jury validates American patent system, raises new questions for the future of tech
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple v Samsung jury validates American patent system, raises new questions for the future of tech