Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations, wanted to send message with verdict - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondafence 

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.

It's maybe a minor thing for me to pick at, but Tylenol *used* to have a patent for paracetamol ( acetaminophen)  that ran out almost 30 years ago.  Back then they could have charged  whatever they wanted, and did. it was a great success.   They didn't have a monopoly on pain medication though.. there were several other drugs  that have had just as long and great of a success... Ibuprofen and aspirin both trade on brand ( Advil and Bayer ) so much that people don't even know what the actual chemicals are... they just know it's a pain pill.  But anyway... Tylenol is a brand today because of the great patent protection and marketing they had.

Like I said.... I'm not trying to argue this too storngly becuase I know the issues at hand are much different with chemical patents and there's absolute proof if someone rips off your formulation

Comcast and TIme Warner. I'm not sure I follow here...They are required to carry competitor's programming because of the defacto monopoly you get when you can only run one wire to someone's house. They are a quasi-utility. You don't see Dish Network having to do the same with Comcast.

And finally.. competition. I respectfully say you're confusing what the public wants right now with innovation.  There' not only one way to make a sophisticated internet mobile phone. The reason people THINK  the way Apple does it is required for one to be a success is because that's the first product that did it very well!

You don't HAVE to have a multi touch capacitive interface. You could have a verbal+eye tracking interface for instance. You can develop your own patents on this. You can to cross licensing deals. You don't HAVE to have a UI that looks like Apple's you can do alot of great things. 

Yes maybe they are indeed the next targets, or maybe they'll get good licensing deals. Apple absolutely deserves this. Their patents are finite. They will end, it won't last forever. They are the rightful inventors. Why SHOULDN'T they get to profit off of it?  Think back to pre-iPhone again.

in 2006, pre iPhone ...We were dazzled by the Balackberry getting rid of the side scroll wheel and changing it to  plastic trackball! ooooooo!  Or we got a new flip phone with 1 extra hour of battery life. wow. We had a new version of a Tero with an OS that seems to just get fatter and not do anything new.

ANn most importantly We had phone carriers that had no interest whatsoever in making their network have any speed on it.

The entire phone industry was lazy as hell with their incremental tweaking and gouging the consumer for the last 10 years.  Apple stepped in and kicked their a**es and they all deserve to die for it.

Everyone but Apple was making what the carriers wanted. 

Apple took a big gamble and innovated far beyond what any company in the entire world was willing to do. They deserve protection from leeches and "me too" devices.

I do hope that the lawsuits end all around and competition in ernest gets going again.  It's a little bit ironic I think that this whole thing actually benefits Microsoft too. They never had a chance in the market until now. Android will get knocked down a notch from all the future licensing deals. Some phone companies may say ... hmm.. maybe we're better off doing a windows 8 phone. This "free" android, is costing us a lot of licensing.

It may be a 3 horse race in the next couple of years. I think that's a MUCH better alternative for the consumer.

Originally Posted by xRCx 

…I dare you to name one design, marketing decision that apple has changed due to Samsungs ill gotten success.

If the rumors are true, we'll hear plenty of proof of that come October… 

Though with the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy 

the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well

I don't know about very nice, its samsung's best phone, ill give you that, I personally think is another bloated piece of crap, but thats just me, it is selling well but mostly because samsung has established its brand by making themselves as much like apple as possible, and they are preying on the ignorance of the consumer. If Samsung had not got where they are by copying, theyd be greasing the bottom of the barrel along with all the others.

I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.

Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

If the rumors are true, we'll hear plenty of proof of that come October… 

Though with the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.

you mean the ipad Mini? I don't think that will be a great idea personally, and I think it would be far more inspired by the success of the Kindle than anything Samsung has done.

Yeah they did!

Simply because they are alive they knew it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondafence 


Moore's Theorem would point to a dramatically different timeline...similar to chip development.

And that would be a stupid argument to make in patent reform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harbinger 

I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.

 

Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
 

Twelve Angry Men is a great film, but nothing about it remotely corresponds to reality and our perceived ideal of ``Innocent until proven Guilty,'' when Society traditionally views such heinous crimes as ``Guilty until proven Innocent.''

Quote:

Originally Posted by diplication 


I loved every cell phone I had because each incarnation was wildly better than the last.
1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
4. Sony Ericsson candy bar
5. Another Sony Ericsson candy bar
6. Motorola Razor
7. iPhone 3G
8. iPhone 4
Each was good in their own time.

I too had the Motorola RAZR, before getting the iPhone 3G.  It was a great phone, but I could never figure out why anyone would want a "smart" phone.  At the time, none of them seemed to be all that "smart".

Once the iPhone was released, the definition of a smart phone began to change.  By the time the iPhone 3G was released the definition of a smart phone had changed considerably--based upon the iPhone--and it became obvious to me why I might want something more than just a great phone like the RAZR.  Apple had completely redefined the category of smart phones, and it is delightful to see that the jury has rewarded them for their innovations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy 

the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well

You are aware that phone was put together after the lawsuits over patents and trade dress started right?  Pretty much every part of that phone has been pointed at and commented as how they are safe from Apple b/c X Y and Z are all so different from what the iPhone has been doing.  Samsung actually designed something original and did well.  Now let's make sure they can repeat the process, b/c the jury has made sure they will have to

Quote:

Originally Posted by addicted44 


I think Apple really benefited with this case being tried in Silicon Valley, because as a result the jury consisted of largely tech savvy people, who would not fall for the whole "iPhone is the only way to design a phone" claptrap Samsung was presenting.

The irony is that the Google/Samsung fans on countless tech forums (like this one) posted those arguments for months ahead of the trial, and I was surprised to see Samsung and its lawyers dredging the same troll arguments from the bowels of the Internet to present in court for a handsome legal fee. It was surreal. I thought (somewhere in the back of my mind), that Samsung would show some internal exhibit, some proof or testimony that would convince a jury that it was all just a huge coincidence that Samsung's phones and tablets miraculously look like Apple's after 2007 and 2010. After all, they had these high-priced attorneys. But that never happened! No smoking gun. No dramatic reversal of fortune. Just a bizarre mix of arguing that Samsung didn't copy Apple while at the same time, trying to undermine Apple's patents so it would be OK to infringe on them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.

Yes, until it faces the injunction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.

The size of the verdict is perhaps the least important part of this.

The likely costs resulting from their thievery include the blot on their reputation, a negative stock price reaction, the increased expense incurred on innovation, research, and product development (especially software development), the increased expense resulting from having to pay for IP, the loss of business from Apple (and others to whom they supply), the emboldening of their competition (e.g., Microsoft, LG), negative impact on employee morale, a backlash that could develop over time in their home country from being internationally shamed, the negative spillover that this could have on other parts of their business (with both their customers and their business relationships), the effect on similar cases in courts other countries -- to name just a handful of the more important ones. These will dwarf whatever dollar penalty that this jury and judge could come up with.

Some not too bright people must have thought that Steve Jobs was joking when he said "and boy have we patented it.", when presenting the first ever iPhone in 2007.

The jury in this case obviously didn't need to spend any more time, because anybody who is not completely and utterly dishonest could easily see that Samsung was guilty like hell.

And I'm more convinced than ever that quite a few Android users are anti-capitalist commies and thieving cheapskates who have no understanding about patents at all. I've read the comments that many of them have made about this verdict and about patents on other sites. Luckily for Apple, this jury was made up of educated people and even patent holders, as opposed to the dumb people who side with Samsung and claim that Apple shouldn't have been granted certain patents, because they're so obvious. If they were so bloody obvious, then somebody else should have patented them first. A society that praises, values and protects innovation is a better one than an Android/Samsung society with their demented state of mind, where stealing, blatant copying and stagnation is the order of the day.

Fandroids and other serial liars cannot deny that the iPhone changed the whole industry.

Hopefully, Android users will never ever get to see a feature like "bounce back" on their phones in their lifetimes, as they don't deserve it.

After reading Foremans story its encouraging to see that Innovation is still alive and well. After all we must support those that create and innovate. There will always be the followers and stealers around but they must pay. If they don't than everyone else will because companies will stop innovating.

I'm feeling mixed emotions about this... While most of us NOW take different design features for granted --- multitouch swiping, pinch-to-zoom, the scroll-past-the-end "bounce", etc ---- the fact is that they were quite amazing and innovative when the iPhone came out. NO other Samsung (or other) smartphone on the market was anything like the iPhone. And a few years later, Android through out their original blackberry like design and implemented something very close to the iPhone. Samsung was certainly the most egregious in modifying Android to come even closer to iOS and the iPhone 3G/3GS when it came out. So while they may be "generic design features" now, how would you feel if you invented them and everyone else copied. Would you feel that they are "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable? The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface. Not too mention I'm sure FingerWorks (the mutli-touch company that Apple bought) had a lot of existing patents on this stuff that Apple inherited when they acquired them...

Well CNN has this story and the reply's to the CNN version is that Apple should have lost.

Jury failed to see common practice of competitor benchmark and mislabled that as out right "copying".  There is a difference between these two. Also, Samsung's supposed "smoking gun" email specifically labels that the designs and themes should not be too similar to that of Apple's.

The jury's deliberations were way too short and filled with holes. Relevant evidence was rejected solely based on technicalities. This is an appeal waiting to happen and one that would override the current "victory" by the Apple camp. Apple is going to ultimately lose this one.

You all can go about and trash talking your ways against me and my kind (I know I'm in the minority and inside the chimpmunks cave) but here me out. Roughing a few feathers does the body good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondafence 

It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.

No, you are confused by what the lawsuit is about. Don't twist it into something it's not.

The problem with your argument is this "de facto standard" idea which is bullshit. Here, you are using "defacto standard" [sic] as an excuse to deprive Apple of its patent rights. What noble ends justify those means? "Competition"? Or is it copying?

Let's explore why "de facto standards" is bullshit cooked up by Google and faithfully regurgitated by their anti-Apple forum trolls. You claim "a defacto [sic] standard has been defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace". Is Microsoft Windows a de facto standard? By your definition, it is. Microsoft's competitors should be able to copy it without paying royalties to Microsoft. And if Microsoft sues them, then TOO BAD because its "rediculous" [sic] to outlaw any "competitive process." And copying is a "competitive process" in your worldview.

Let's take another example. Is Google search a de facto standard? Yes, most people who say they enjoy a dominant position in web search. So why can't Microsoft just copy Google search results and serve them up in Bing? Or steal Google Page Rank's code and put it in Bing? I mean, you're saying it's ridiculous to outlaw any competitive process, and we can all agree Google needs competition, right? So the ends justifies the means, right? Google doesn't deserve any protection for their IP, right? No? Don't you believe that once something becomes dominant, it automatically loses patent and trade dress protection? Of course you don't believe that! You are not a purveyor of the double standard like so many devout and eager Google lickers.

You are smart enough to realize that patent laws are not anti-competitive. They protect inventor's rights and gives them recourse if someone else tries to unfairly profit from the invention. So tell me again, what noble ends justifies the means by which we can seize Apple's patents and take away their rights? And tell me again how we can deprive Apple of their IP rights, but not Google or Microsoft or anyone else with intellectual property? Isn't that your real objective? To justify taking from Apple and giving to Samsung?

And why is it a "self deceiving lie" to say "others are successfully building new phones"? Please elaborate on that.

These jurors are much more sensible than most android fans

" "There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance?. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there.""

Quote:

Originally Posted by Misa 


The Linux/GNU/GPL people want to see the patent system destroyed. But it's not a simple matter of "All Patents are Evil" but rather "two people can come up with exactly the same thing independently because hardware moves at the same pace for everyone." So it's mostly software patents that shouldn't be patent-able, because the useful life of software is far less than 20 years, and in a sense the patents kept a market leader ahead in perpetuity.

I'm aware of these issues in software patents, and the worldview held by FSF and their chief ideologue, Richard Stallman. It's still problematic to simply declare all patents "evil" and to do away with them entirely, just to prevent cases of simultaneous invention. Regardless, that's not what Samsung's attorneys argued took place. Samsung attorneys argued the "Apple doesn't own the rectangle" or "Apple doesn't own the color green" or "Apple is paying Susan Kare $80K to testify" angle. They didn't make the patent system the issue, but rather, they attacked Apple.

I don't buy the "market leader ahead in perpetuity" argument. That's theoretical hand-waving from the FSF crowd. Point to a case where this has happened in reality: where a software patent kept a company a market leader for at least the useful life of the software or 20 years, whichever came first.

I have read the news from the first day and I knew Samsung will be guilty. Competition is good but they should make it sure that they should come up will originality. People who like the best yet company should never be so fail to create some uniqueness in their product.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondafence 


The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market with similar features...offered at comparable rates. It wasn't because Steve thought I needed a price break.

So we got affordable iPhones because a thief was carpet-bombing the market with a stollen product? I fully agree with you on this.

But then you have to look honestly at the consequences of this point: The actual loss for Apple actually includes (1) the whole part of Samsung's smartphone revenues from touch-based devices --which are stolen products--, plus (2) the difference between what Apple charged and what they could have charged on their own products -- the "price break" you mention.

Overall, this is probably in the order of magnitude of 100 B$, not of 1 B$. So Samsung clearly got away with it with a 1 B$ damage bill...

Besides, when was the last time you got a Ferrari at the price of a Kia Forte because you deserved a price break?

Sorry for nitpicking, but far beyond what any company in the world? In the space of usability of handheld computing and telephony: yes. Otherwise I'd venture a guess that there are plenty of companies out there innovating like mad and taking huge gambles in their respective fields.

Even if we restrict ourselves to just look at the wireless tech that we are using today: Connectivity has gone up from a measly tens of kilobits/second to over a hundred megabits per second with latencies and connection qualities going up and power consumption going down. Connection prices have come down significantly as well (not only attributable to user number increases). These haven't come for free either. Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, etc. have done quite a lot of innovation on chipsets, radio interfaces, codecs, algorithms etc. to make this possible.  Apple could not have made their smartphone the success it is without these. After all how much of the usability and usefulness of the device comes from for example fluid network access? Or from a small form factor (low power miniturized radio chipsets)? Would Apple be as successful if it only produced the iPod touch (no cellular radio components)?

Let's not disrespect the hard work other companies and individuals are doing (including Samsung) to make the remaining parts of all these magical devices possible. The iPhone for example does use some innovative components from Samsung.

I agree with you fully that competition is good and forcing companies to innovate brings us these wonderful devices we have and should accelerate the advances that make this industry so interesting to follow.  In this respect, this verdict is good for the industry. However I have a feeling that there be dangers in this verdict too. Time will tell. Makes life even more interesting....

Two years ago, it was usual to read in the news that all the smartPhone become a copy of the iPhone. Now that Apple has a deep, very deep pocket you heard the word monopoly ( by the same people WHO paint in the sky that the android is winning ) which IS a lie.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy in the news media, WHY this cowardice in repeating WHAT all of them were saying back then?

 - Samsung and all others did copy Apple and should pay!

 - Those companies have a HUGE pocket also, paying will not bankrupt them.