or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge vacates 40% of jury's $1.05B verdict in Apple v. Samsung [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge vacates 40% of jury's $1.05B verdict in Apple v. Samsung [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Why even have jury trials anymore?

 

Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.

 

Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice.  Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.

 

Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.

post #42 of 80

Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.

 

Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #43 of 80

The fact that some of the patents Apple used in the trial have been peliminarly ruled invalid on all claims is not going to help Apple in a new trial unless they can get the patents re-instated....

 

By the way, I am sure Apple appealed these rulings... Any news on where that stands????

 

In the end, Apple will have spent about as much as they get.  And Samsung will have been handed the best advertising bang for the dollar that they could have ever hoped for....

post #44 of 80

After the retrial of the 40%, the 40% will become a billion dollars by itself, leading to 1.6 billion judgement for Apple.

 

LOL. :)

post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I thought the amount would get reduced, so not surprised by this. Still surprised at the wilful infringement decision. That one still has me scratching my head.

 

 

Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.

post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.

 

Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice.  Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.

 

Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.

 

 

 

The problem is either party has a right to have a jury decide the case. Apple has a chance still on appeal in the Vimet case. 

post #47 of 80
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
Apple has a chance still on appeal in the Vimet case. 

 

That was a "with prejudice" thing; they don't have an appeal.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.

She didn't overturn the juries willful infringement finding. She just didn't further determine there was objective willfullness, one of two parts needed (the other is subjective) for enhanced damages to be appropriate.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122908093/Denial-of-Enhancements

 

While a jury always determines the first prong, whether infringement was willful, the judge always determines the second:

Whether the infringer relied on a competent legal opinion they were not treading on another's IP. Judge Koh found that Samsung had a reasonable and supportable belief they were not guilty of infringement, even tho they were aware of the infringement claims by Apple.

 

In no way should that mean I support Samsung in this. I do not. It's just the factual opinion of the court.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/1/13 at 5:16pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.

 

Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?

 

Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish really hard... something magical WILL happen. 1biggrin.gif

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.

 

Willful infringement requires both the jury and the judge to agree.   As she noted it in her judgement about that:
 
Quote:
The Federal Circuit has laid out the relevant standard for the willfulness inquiry for patent infringement:
 
  • “A patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this  objective inquiry. 
  • If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk.was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”
 
Thus, the willfulness inquiry is a two-prong analysis,requiring an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry. The objective inquiry is a question for the Court, and the subjective inquiry is a question for the jury.
 
- Judge Koh (and all other courts due to precedents)

 

PATENTS

In this case, she felt that anyone with knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents could be invalid, and thus there can be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.

 

Note that it does not matter for this part, whether Samsung thought they were invalid or not.  It only matters what the judge thinks an objective observer would think.   

 

So that knocked out extra damages for the patents.

 

TRADE DRESS

 

As for trade dress award enhancement, that is not done as punishment, but only to compensate for any extra loss that the jury award misses.  

 

Here, the simple jury award form that Apple pushed so hard, later came back to haunt them.  By lumping all awards together for each device, Apple could not later claim that the jury had not considered everything together in its award amounts.    

 

Thus, no extra damages for trade dress, either.

 

So the original jury awards were left as they were, which was still much more than Apple themselves had valued their IP at... something most people don't realize.


Edited by KDarling - 3/1/13 at 5:26pm
post #51 of 80

I'm confused, wasn't this the same forum that was praising Koh a few months ago for her due diligence and love of American style justice? 

 

Now she is the scum of the earth and apparently on the payroll of Samsung.  The evidence you are presenting is overwhelming.  /s

 

Sarcasm aside, for those who think Samsung is going to fork Android, they will not.  They are branching out with a new OS called Tizen 2.0 - if they forked Android, they would doom themselves because they would cut themselves off from the Play store.     Also, LG, HTC are not dead and are making good comebacks with some of their phones.  The HTC One is due out soon and has a lot of good buzz going for it.   LG has been on the receiving end of some good sales lately which is something they dearly needed.

 

All I have to say is that Cook needs to follow through on his "Good stuff coming soon" comment the other day and get a 46" Apple TV out there or even the Apple SmartWatch (before the Pebble and the others get a strong foothold) because the iPhone is slowly falling behind.  The iPhone brand will always have it's loyal consumer base but the 1080p phones, the true multitasking and all the other neat innovations are happening right now (HTC's Zoe software looks really interesting) and Apple does not have anything in the pipe for the iPhone for another 6-7 months.  I strongly believe they need to move to a 6 month cycle and start cutting their profit margins in order to stay in the game long term.

post #52 of 80

Apple been aggressive against Samsung to sent a message.  It not about the money but the integrity of upholding the respect of a business partner.  Apple hopefully can distance it self from Samsung in the future.

post #53 of 80
Shocker. What gets me is why the US even bothers asking its citizens to waste their valuable time when some Korean friendly, Apple hating judge is just going to overrule their decision. Most of these jurors have better things to do while people like Koh do not. I think she is trying to make a career out of this one case. Another public employee pissing away taxpayer dollars. Thanks Lucy for dragging this out.
post #54 of 80
It is sad to see a company that is a shine of this country had been taken down by greedy Wall Street analysts and the judges of the country who apparently seems to have some agenda. Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people
post #55 of 80
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post
Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people

 

Except both devices would be commercial failures, leading to actual reason for Wall Street to be against Apple.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #56 of 80
I doubt it! I am beginning to believe that the low cost iPhone is needed to penetrate the Asian and other market where they are not subsidized!
post #57 of 80
Poor Tim, it's no wonder he hates litigation and one can only imagine the legal fees they've racked up to do all this litigating with next to nothing to show for it. It's time for Tim to send Bruce Sewell packing.
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

It is sad to see a company that is a shine of this country had been taken down by greedy Wall Street analysts and the judges of the country who apparently seems to have some agenda. Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people

 

You're naive if you think that will shut them up. It will please them for a week, after which they will continue their bitching. Apple doesn't need to get anything "out". One bad product will damage their brand and do long term damage more than any kind of stock manipulation will. Then, the media, wallstreet , and consumers will REALLY eviscerate them. 

post #59 of 80
I read through the entire judgement and agree that the headline is totally wrong and skewed. 
This also should affect the stock price at all.  What this states is that 60% of the jury's judgement is correct and stands after all of Samsungs motions to try and get things overturned. The 40% was deemed to either be based on incorrect notification dates of patent offenses and Apples expert using the same initial date for all damage calculations.  Thus, no clear way to allow the judge to adjust and calculate them herself. In addition, in the case of the Samsung "Fascinate" infringement, the jury took into account calculations to figure the award that should not have been used for that device. Again, there wasn't a clear way for the accurate amount to be defined by the judge. So what does this mean.  
 
Samsung is still guilty of infringing on the patents. That is still fact and unless turned over on their pior appeal (Nothing to do with this decision). The retrial is strictly in regard to determining damages for those items mentioned above (approx 40% of the initial award) as stated, which were figured by the jury incorrectly. Now, this could mean a lower award or a new Jury could use a different method to calculate an even higher award. Apple will still walk away with something. Thus, its not good or bad. Samsung will still have to pay and it could end up being worse for them as well. Unless Samsung wins on their appeal. 
 
In addition, Apple was also granted compounded interest (although on the treasury rate not the higher prime rate) on the final total amount, which will be derived from the retrial. This will all be retroactive back to the initial Jury's award date. 
 
Not sure what is so bad. 
 
Btw, Apple also could appeal Ko's decision as well. But either way they still won't loose the entire 40% and could gain even more. 
post #60 of 80
(Look at list of infringing products) Jesus how many iPhone clones does Samsung make?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #61 of 80
Hmmm...I wonder if there were any large deposits made to the judge's off-shore accounts recently.
post #62 of 80
The message that the original "willful infringement" ruling sent out to the handset manufacturers of the world is clear today. Two years ago it was just Samsung whose lineup looked exactly like the iPhone - black and white models, no keyboard, rounded corners, edge to edge screen, chrome edges, single physical button. Today, now that they know it's "OK", every manufacturer's lineup looks like the iPhone.
post #63 of 80
Haha, This whole thing is like the story line of the Matrix: Apple is Zion, Google is the Matrix, and Samsung is agent Smith, replicating and taking control of the whole system. I can see Apple at some point approaching Google and saying something along the lines of: "the program Smith has grown beyond your control. Soon he will spread through this city, as he spread through the matrix. You cannot stop him. But I can".
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.

In spite of the "objective" vs "subjective" crap from the normal Google and Samsung apologists, you're right. This one's going to be appealed - just like everything else in the trial. Koh has had some decisions overturned on appeal and some upheld. There's really no point getting excited about anything in this case until it's all settled - which will be somewhere around 2023.

That the real problem with this. Even if Samsung were to pay the $1 B fine today, they emerge as the winners. They went from a relatively minor player to the top or #2 smartphone vendor (depending on whose numbers you believe) and are making a fortune - enough to spend billions of dollars a year on marketing alone and bury their competitors with their massive advertising expenditure. This rise occurred during the time that their phones and tablets looked like exact copies of Apple's (to the level that even their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference) - and during the court trial, there was evidence that some people bought Samsung phones and tablets thinking that they were buying Apple products.

Today, Samsung is moving away from the slavish copies of Apple products, since they'e established their position in the industry and no longer need to. The damage has been done - and $1 B (or eve $3 B) won't rectify that. Stealing has paid off for them - no matter how the current court cases are resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

It is sad to see a company that is a shine of this country had been taken down by greedy Wall Street analysts and the judges of the country who apparently seems to have some agenda. Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people

Nope. As soon as they do that, the whining will start that the $300 phones aren't cheap enough and Apple needs to have a $100 phone. And the TV will be panned because it doesn't magically pick up TV shows from alpha centauri. No matter what Apple does, people will complain.
"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 #65 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

In this case, she felt that anyone with knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents could be invalid, and thus there can be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.

 

Note that it does not matter for this part, whether Samsung thought they were invalid or not.  It only matters what the judge thinks an objective observer would think.   

 

So that knocked out extra damages for the patents.

 

TRADE DRESS

 

As for trade dress award enhancement, that is not done as punishment, but only to compensate for any extra loss that the jury award misses.  

 

Here, the simple jury award form that Apple pushed so hard, later came back to haunt them.  By lumping all awards together for each device, Apple could not later claim that the jury had not considered everything together in its award amounts.    

 

Thus, no extra damages for trade dress, either.

 

So the original jury awards were left as they were, which was still much more than Apple themselves had valued their IP at... something most people don't realize.

 

Are you referring to this current judgement?

 

If so, I re-read it again and se nothing about what you stated above. Actually Apple will be awarded supplemental damages. Ko just did not dise with the way Apple wanted to calculate supplemental damages (As a proportion of all infringing devices v. the exact amount of sales for each infringing device that was sold sold after the original trial).  However, since there are still appeals and the fact that sales numbers on these devices are not know or avail to the court to make this determination, she will wait until the appeal process completes before hearing evidence on this. 

 

 

Also, I see nothing about the award form causing an issue or affecting how any of her determinations were made. The issue's for a re-trial on damages being necessary were two fold:

 

1) The Galaxy Previal (I incorrectly mentioned the Samsung Fascinate above) was only found to infringe on utility patents. However, her determination was that the award was made on lost profits or included lost profits in the calculation. Lost profits are not legally permitted for solely a utility patent infringement. Since it was much higher then the compensation Apple requested, the fact Apple did not provide an amount for a reasonable Royalty, and since there is no way to determine what would be considered the excess (i.e. amount just attributed to lost profits), a new trial was ordered to determine damages for this item. 

 

2) As far as the other damages that were set aside, it was due to the fact that Apple's expert stated starting damage amounts for ALL infringing devices/patents based on the 1st notice date on Aug 4, 2010. However, her determination was that Apple did disclose one specific patent on that date and she could not find any proof that Samsung was told specifically that they were infringing on the other patents at that time. Only that Apple mentioned that they were infringing on other patents (not specifically what those patents were) until April 15, 2011. Since the Experts numbers were based on the Aug 4, 2010 start date and the fact that the jury's award was an exact percentage to the dollar, based on those figures, the Jury's award took into account infringement for certain patents during the period where judge Ko determined there wasn't any infringement due to insufficient notice (Between 2010-2011). Since Apple's expert did not break down sales figures and damages by Samsungs devices within this period (were only broken down by fiscal quarter), there was no way for Ko to make the correction. Thus, a new trial for damages on those devices. 

 

3) Apple asked for extra damages wich were denied. The basis was that Apple stated that the award should be increased since the Jury awarded less then the amount by Samsungs own expert. It was only denied because there is a longstanding rule that the  7th amendment prohibits judicial increases to awards made by a jury. In addition, the Jury is not bound by the amounts given by any expert. 

 

In regard to #2, there could be good reason for the lack of any proof of earlier notification. Did Judge Ko and other forget about all the document shredding Samsung was doing prior to the trial? On this alone she would of had reason to side with Apple and deny Samsung their motion. IMO, the onus should have been on Samsung to prove in some way that they were never notified since the court could have claimed that there was a high probability that they destroyed evidence to the contrary. 

 

Also, Lucy Ko's actions of making both parties pair down their cases played a part in this as well. I would have figured that first there would have been determinations made as to the each patent and their corresponding "infringement dates". As well as hearings on sales figures etc within those dates for both sides. Then there would have been a trial to determine if in fact either party infringed on each other patents and the award dates and sales figures would have been pre-determined from the prior hearings.

post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by imt1 View Post

Are you referring to this current judgement?

 

Nope.  As noted, I was responding to the question about willfulness that she ruled on at the end of January.  

 

Several people had wondered how a judge could "change" what the jury said.  (The short answer is that she didn't change their finding.  However the jury is only part of the overall legal requirement for willfulness.)


Edited by KDarling - 3/2/13 at 7:56am
post #67 of 80
Apple still prevails...
Samsung still has no creativity...

We need to protect our USA IP!
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Today, Samsung is moving away from the slavish copies of Apple products, since they'e established their position in the industry and no longer need to. The damage has been done - and $1 B (or eve $3 B) won't rectify that. Stealing has paid off for them - no matter how the current court cases are resolved.

Sad, but true. At the end of the day, in business as in war, it's not about the fairness of it.

 

Which is why I've come to the conclusion -- despite the fact that it rankles some folks here no end, and I myself find it a bit distasteful -- that Apple has to truly ratchet up its game.

 

'Mr. Nice Guy' doesn't cut it much anymore. That was one lesson that SJ seemed to have taken to heart (after his ignominious losses to MSFT) and never compromised on during his second stint. The current management somehow does not signal the same resolve, at least not to me.

post #69 of 80
My post #61 was removed. Why?
There are posts alluding to that she is taking bribes and these stay.
Apple II has written that Palestianians should be killed.
You mods are crazy.
post #70 of 80
Originally Posted by hfts View Post
My post #61 was removed. Why?

 

Because of its incorrect, nationalist, long-disproven nature.


There are posts alluding to that she is taking bribes and these stay.

 

Because that's something that could actually be the case, unlike your claims.


Apple II has written that Palestianians should be killed.

 

Where? If you see that sort of thing, report it

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post

Shocker. What gets me is why the US even bothers asking its citizens to waste their valuable time when some Korean friendly, Apple hating judge is just going to overrule their decision. 

 

Yet just a few months ago, some people thought she was a California business friendly, Samsung hating judge who overruled their pleas to include important evidence.  

 

People can be so fickle.

 

Quote:

Most of these jurors have better things to do while people like Koh do not.

 

Works both ways.  If the jurors had spent more time (as was expected), their results might not have been so screwy, and the court's time might not have been wasted with another trial. 

 

What I wonder is, cannot the jurors be summoned back and asked for clarification?  Or are they too tainted now by finding out the things they missed?


Edited by KDarling - 3/2/13 at 7:25pm
post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because of its incorrect, nationalist, long-disproven nature.

Because that's something that could actually be the case, unlike your claims.

Where? If you see that sort of thing, report it
The thread about Apple establishing some research/manufacturing centers in Israel, about 2-3 weeks ago.
Go and check its all there in wonderful technocolour. Will you take the time and effort and look?

Posters are alluding she is taking bribes. Why ? Because of her background, she is of Korean descent.
So therefore that is racism also. Because if she was, say, British, then people would not be accusing her of being in the clutches of Samsung, as much as they are inferring now.
I bet you also feel she is being bribed because she is Korean.
I am honest unlike you.
So if she is indeed being bribed, then she is not a proper American as its goes against cultural norms and she is damaging the US. Apple loses money, money they could spend on hiring Americans, research, you name it.
So I am right, she is not a proper American, I stand by my accusation.
But hey at least I'm not saying we should murder all Koreans, like someone else would be posting.
Edited by hfts - 3/3/13 at 1:05am
post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

There are posts alluding to that she is taking bribes and these stay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because that's something that could actually be the case, unlike your claims.

You are on dangerous ground there TS.
post #74 of 80

1- The same guys that praised Koh when her decisions were anti-Samsung now despise her. You guys are totally sane of mind, it's obvious.

2- Those same guys obviously have only read the title (kind of misleading), and definitely not the contents...

 

You know, either you consider that you have to trust Justice and stop whining when Koh's decision don't flatter your sense of what should be, either you just disregard Justice and consider that big business is just a matter of who has most power, and you stop whining.

Either way, stop whining :D

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Posters are alluding she is taking bribes. Why ? Because of her background, she is of Korean descent.
So therefore that is racism also. Because if she was, say, British, then people would not be accusing her of being in the clutches of Samsung, as much as they are inferring now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post



You are on dangerous ground there TS.


They're both right, TS. What you're doing and writing here could actually get you prosecuted... It's a really nasty thing to consider people based on their origins, or to smear people because their decisions do not fit your view of the world...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #76 of 80
Originally Posted by hfts View Post
Because of her background, she is of Korean descent.
I bet you also feel she is being bribed because she is Korean.
So I am right, she is not a proper American

 

Fine. Enjoy being a laughingstock for all eternity.


Originally Posted by stike vomit View Post
You are on dangerous ground there TS.

 

For… removing potentially racist posts? I don't think so.


Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
They're both right, TS. What you're doing and writing here could actually get you prosecuted... It's a really nasty thing to consider people based on their origins, or to smear people because their decisions do not fit your view of the world...

 

The frick am I doing and writing here?!

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #77 of 80

Man this thing is dragging out. Why do people on this forum care so much about this, I really would like to know. It's just two heartless multi-billion dollar entities going after each other and has zero baring on our lives personally. Yet the lot of you defend Apple as if they were part of your immediate family. No company is above reproach and I'm absolutely positive that if you cracked opened Apples basement all kinds of unsettling things would come oozing out. However once a person buys an Apple product they feel like they just joined a magical club or something instantly turning them into a self righteous douche-bag.

 

Apple doesn't care about you, if you like their products great keep the conversations about that. Once we start passing judgment on other companies and the people involved that supposedly wronged Apple in some way makes it turns us into grade A a**holes. We never have all the facts to these things, we don't know what questionable things Apple themselves has done so can we please stop it. This lawsuit has nothing to do on how we use or how we can better use or computers which is the whole reason why a lot of us come here. Leave the gossip to the tabloids please.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #78 of 80
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
…zero baring on our lives personally.

 

Legalized intellectual property theft doesn't have bearing on consumers? Really?


We never have all the facts to these things, we don't know what questionable things Apple themselves has done so can we please stop it.

 

This is completely and utterly meaningless. No.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Legalized intellectual property theft doesn't have bearing on consumers? Really?

This is completely and utterly meaningless. No.

Legalized, a little melodramatic aren't we and Samsung was found liable so they didn't get away with it. The statement wasn't useless as members of this forum are very biased when it comes to other company's Apple is legally engaged in. Apple isn't all puppy dogs and rainbows, they sell inanimate objects and are not curing cancer so my question of who cares is still opened.  What will be said if Motorola, Samsung or any of the others win their suits against Apple, I guarantee it will be something on the lines of unfair or the jury were idiots.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #80 of 80
Samsung was found liable for patent infringement, not objective willfull trade dress violations, which any joe can clearly see beyond the shadow of a doubt. The jury did what they could do, awarded damages on the patents and also on trade dress, but the judges ruling nullified the trade dress award, which was the most obvious part. In this case, justice was clearly blind.

So yes, legalized property theft. Now everyone else is doing it too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge vacates 40% of jury's $1.05B verdict in Apple v. Samsung [u]