or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung dispute tentative juror verdict form in California patent trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Samsung dispute tentative juror verdict form in California patent trial

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Apple and Samsung continue to be at loggerheads over seemingly every action in their second California patent trial, the latest issue being a tentative juror verdict form issued by presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday.


Source: U.S. Courts


After Judge Koh published the verdict form, parts of which were taken from forms both parties presented weeks ago, Apple and Samsung on Thursday filed statements arguing against the proposed document.

As noted by Macworld, Apple claims the verdict form is too complex as it stands, while Samsung asserts the opposite. Judge Koh's version consists of 15 questions pertaining to alleged infringed devices and patents from each side. Overall, jurors will need to address nearly 250 decisions and calculations.

The tentative verdict form is around the same length as Apple's proposed form, but is drastically shorter than Samsung's behemoth 50-question filing. The two companies submitted their respective verdict form versions in late February.

For the most part, Apple counsel is in agreement with Judge Koh's verdict form, but mentions two points of contention that may require modification. The first is Samsung's proposed question (labeled question 10(a) in the tentative verdict form) that asks jurors to fill out a chart with 60 boxes pertaining to "three separate questions using three different parameters (three time periods, five patents and ten products)."

According to Apple, Judge Koh rejected a similarly complex verdict form in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial as it benefits neither party while increasing the likelihood of an inconsistent verdict.

In addition, Apple wishes to clarify certain subparts to questions regarding its '959 patent for universal search and '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock." The company notes that not all accused infringing devices are applicable to its claims as Samsung temporarily removed accused functionality from certain software versions. Without offering proper detail as to the timing of these operating system modifications, the jury may wrongfully find for or against infringement for a certain device.

Samsung also notes the discrepancy in its statement, saying, "Apple is not accusing all operating software versions and subversions" of infringement on its patents-in-suit.

Further, the Korean company requests more detail concerning damages theories that it says will allow for a "more transparent understanding of the jury's damages award, if any."

Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages on lost sales and royalties for alleged patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of 2013. For its part, Samsung argues Apple's patents are only worth $38.4 million when applied to 37 million accused infringing devices.

Both parties are expected to wrap up the testimony phase of their respective cases on Friday and present closing arguments on Monday. Jury deliberations could begin as soon as Monday afternoon or Tuesday.

post #2 of 39
I don't have a good feeling for Apple this time. The press wasn't so favourable to Apple around this trial. Hope the court looks at things differently and surprises me.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #3 of 39
The verdict form has to be complicated. Just look at the hundreds of models Samsung has cloned from the iPhone!

"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 #4 of 39
Quite simply, it was very rewarding for Samsung to copy the iPhone in every way possible.

Perhaps the form should focus on what Samsung didn't copy.
post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I don't have a good feeling for Apple this time. The press wasn't so favourable to Apple around this trial. Hope the court looks at things differently and surprises me.

The press is so very wrong about why Apple is suing!

Apple is requesting Samsung to do one thing and is being polite with the request... Please stop copying.

For some inexplicable reason Samsung refuses to agree.

And, for another inexplicable reason Judge Lucy Koh refuses to allow a sales band on Samsung's infringing products.

Any future Apple breakthrough technology is in jeopardy of being slavishly, unapologetically copied by Samsung if Samsung is not forced to stop.
post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The verdict form has to be complicated. Just look at the hundreds of models Samsung has cloned from the iPhone!

 

Samsung has something like 10,000 versions of Android, customised for various models, carriers and networks.

 

Next up the 2013-2014 infringements.

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 #7 of 39

no point making a blank form..hehe

post #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Quite simply, it was very rewarding for Samsung to copy the iPhone in every way possible.

Perhaps the form should focus on what Samsung didn't copy.

no point making a blank form..hehe

post #9 of 39

Is it safe to use a jury in complex IP case like this? Surely they're less likely to return the correct verdict than a judge. 

post #10 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I don't have a good feeling for Apple this time. The press wasn't so favourable to Apple around this trial. Hope the court looks at things differently and surprises me.


The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.

Have some faith in Justice.

post #11 of 39
Apple v Me2 ??
Apple could just franchise its designs to Samsung et al and stop making the stuff themselves - except that the quality would rapidly deteriorate and the tender loving care would be conspicuously absent.
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post
 

The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.

Have some faith in Justice.

 

You're joking right? Your own government doesn't even follow the rule of law.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #13 of 39
If Samsung loses then they will have to pay a cost per infringing unit. Fortunately for Samsung they didn't ship as many units as they had claimed...
"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 #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.
Have some faith in Justice.

Kind of like the super awesome ebooks trial!

Justice departed long ago in the US.
post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Is it safe to use a jury in complex IP case like this? Surely they're less likely to return the correct verdict than a judge. 

Ask Apple if it could do things differently would it chose a jury in its eBook case.
post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post
 


The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.

Have some faith in Justice.

Unfortunately, press is ALL over the world and jurors are real people who read their craps and take notes ...

 

And, if there was justice, there would no company named samsung!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #17 of 39
Keep in mind here, that Samsung have been making components for Apple over many years... this is one of the reasons why Apple was so careful to patent so much of the iPhone designs, because as soon as third party people get their hands on it, it copy time. Apple made this mistake with Mac OS and Microsoft (although some components of Mac OS was licensed out to MS) they made darn sure it won't make this mistake with the iPhone.
If Samsung had taken care NOT to rip off iPhone/iPad so much, I think they could have benefited from making the components for Apple.
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Quite simply, it was very rewarding for Samsung to copy the iPhone in every way possible.

Perhaps the form should focus on what Samsung didn't copy.

My Scamsung refrigerator has little or no resemblance to an iPad, I can vouch for that. That just about covers it I think 1wink.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

Unfortunately, press is ALL over the world and jurors are real people who read their craps and take notes ...

And, if there was justice, there would no company named samsung!

I agree but the trial by press doesn't occur all over the world, not sure but I think it is predominantly a US thing.

Sadly, I suspect it is more to do with the money that can be made by the media, and hence their vigorous and no doubt heavily lobbied support for 'trail by the press' err, sorry I mean, openness and fairness (cough) ... If America enacted sub justice law as practiced in the UK and its past colonies (the US obviously a big exception) it might go a long way to correcting this although I understand the legitimate non press related counter arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You're joking right? Your own government doesn't even follow the rule of law.


How *do* you manage to survive in such an unjust First World society? A story like this has never been told....
post #21 of 39
Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post
How *do* you manage to survive in such an unjust First World society? A story like this has never been told....

 

Wait, are you saying he’s lying?

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 #22 of 39

Check out Samsung S5 new alternative to iPhone rumored Sapphire crystal

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTLBCACEX2k

 

What a shameful company.. Again another reason that Samsung copies Apple

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


The press is so very wrong about why Apple is suing!

Apple is requesting Samsung to do one thing and is being polite with the request... Please stop copying.

For some inexplicable reason Samsung refuses to agree.

And, for another inexplicable reason Judge Lucy Koh refuses to allow a sales band on Samsung's infringing products.

Any future Apple breakthrough technology is in jeopardy of being slavishly, unapologetically copied by Samsung if Samsung is not forced to stop.

I agree, the media does not understand so they painting a negative picture,

 

However, keep in mind Samsung is pointing the finger at Google this time around, since all the patents relate to software, which Samsung claims has little control over. They trying to show that it was the Google software that infringed not Samsung. Even with Apple asking them not to use those feature they are trying to show they have no choice or control and Apple should have gone after Google. I am not sure if it came out nut Samsung in fact did remove some of the feature from future releases of the software. Which creates a problem for them, on one hand they are claiming it is Google's fault and they have no control, but they also show they had the ability to remove the infringing features on future releases. 

 

Also, their refuse is a legal strategy, if they remove them it show guilt and Apple could have shown up in court and said if Samsung did not feel they were infringing then they would have never removed it. This is what lawyer advise, which it never admit you did anything wrong and make the other side prove their case. Plus since google is going to pay their bill in this case they had no incentive to comply with the request, actually the deal with Samsung and Google probably did not allow Samsung to dump it all on Google lap. I suspect if Apple wins this case, they will be going after google for fee to all the other android licensees. A win against Samsung make a case against Google and any other android user a lot easier and it also set the fee structure for Apple to collect from everyone else.


Edited by Maestro64 - 4/25/14 at 12:49pm
post #24 of 39
I feel like to dump all samsung smartphones because I don't agree with samsung attitude their stupid samsung smartphones.
post #25 of 39
Since AI has not yet covered this huge breaking story, here's a link to the reversal of summary judgment favoring Motorola in the Apple vs. Motorola case:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1548.Opinion.4-23-2014.1.PDF

A major rebuke of well-known anti-patent judge Posner that will greatly favor Apple in pursuing damages against Motorola. Another huge Apple win!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You're joking right? Your own government doesn't even follow the rule of law.

1- yours does? When did they change that?
2- exactly how is highly debated, as often is the case with Law or Governments, or anything involving both

Not to mention that courts in their US version is a very alien thing to Europeans...

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 #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I agree, the media does not understand so they painting a negative picture,

However, keep in mind Samsung is pointing the finger at Google this time around, since all the patents relate to software, which Samsung claims has little control over. They trying to show that it was the Google software that infringed not Samsung. Even with Apple asking them not to use those feature they are trying to show they have no choose or control and Apple should have gone after Google. I am not sure if it came out they Samsung in fact did remove some of the feature from future releases of the software. Which creates a problem for them, on one hand they are claiming it is Google's fault and they have no control, but they also show they had the ability to remove the infringing features on future releases. 

Also, their refuse is a legal strategy, if they remove them it show guilt and Apple could have shown up in court and said if Samsung did not feel they were infringing then they would have never removed it. This is what lawyer advise, which it never admit you did anything wrong and make the other side prove their case. Plus since google is going to pay their bill in this case they had no incentive to comply with the request, actually the deal with Samsung and Google probably did not allow Samsung to dump it all on Google lap. I suspect if Apple wins this case, they will be going after google for fee to all the other android licensees. A win against Samsung make a case against Google and any other android user a lot easier and it also set the fee structure for Apple to collect from everyone else.

I disagree the media does not understand. The media fully understands what is going on and has purposely chosen to disregard the truth to paint Apple as being too litigious instead of innovative.

You can search every Web site from Cnet to The Verge to Forbes to Bloomberg to Gartner to wherever to read about how they wrote Apple had to fight to protect its patents else loose claim to the patents. These articles were written in 2011 before the first trial. When you read articles about this second trial, you understand exactly how much the a Web sites have changed points of view. Apple must innovate instead of litigate so its new innovations can propel the market forward.

Look at the smartwatch field. Apple is not there. What has Samsung presented that will propel the industry forward? It's own CEOs admit the smart watches do not have a wow factor. If Apple released an innovative smartwatch, the industry would follow Apple.

Look at mobile payments. What has Samsung done to propel the industry forward? PayPal is testing a payments system in house based on iBeacons technology instead of NFC!

Look at health. Samsung customers are griping the heart rate sensor does not work.

Look at environment sensors. Samsung has several of these sensors. How are customers using the sensors? When I learned Apple might be integrating these sensors in an iPhone, I immediately thought about how I could update my personal fitness app to use the sensors to help me analyze my Spring/Summer/Fall workouts versus my Winter workouts. I despise Winter workouts! 😝

This why Apple must fight for the truth. Samsung wants to spin the truth to focus on Google. Google did not create Wiz, Samsung did. Samsung's own documents show how Samsung copied Apple. Google is not innocent in this since it offered to pay Samsung's bill. Since Samsung was not going to lose, there was no incentive for it to change course. And since the US government chooses to not block the sales of the infringing phones, the US government is allowing Samsung to steal without retribution.
post #28 of 39
This is relatively big news affecting the current Apple/Samsung trial. On the '647 patent which Judge Koh took on herself to rule that Samsung is infringing based on a fairly wide interpretation of the claim the US Appeals Court has just ruled that Judge Posner had it right. By necessity it would mean Judge Koh has it wrong on the claim construction for that "data-tapping" patent. Apple already said they'd accept just .60 per infringing device based on Posner's construction in the Motorola case where Apple used this same patent and claim.

For those interested there were some bright spots from the Appeals Court ruling as it's relates to Moto. No doubt AI will report on that one later today including denial of Motorola's demand for injunctive relief. .
http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1548.Opinion.4-23-2014.1.PDF
Note: Everything after page 71 references dissenting opinions and not legally binding.



EDIT: Mueller has a story up on this, crunching numbers to say Apple will have to reduce their damage demands by at least 1/3 based on the Appeals Court ruling handed down today.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/appeals-court-deals-apples-current-case.html

EDIT2: Apple's demand for an injunction on some Motorola devices is also denied.

EDIT3: My overall impression is that the ruling is a bit more in favor of Apple than MOTO.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/25/14 at 10:00am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 39
Apple can license their patents at any rate they want. It matters not in the least what they previously asked or demanded. Mueller is wrong.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/25/14 at 10:09am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Apple can license their patents at any rate they want. It matters not in the least what they previously asked or demanded. Mueller is wrong.

The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/25/14 at 11:06am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The verdict form has to be complicated. Just look at the hundreds of models Samsung has cloned from the iPhone!


If you recall the previous trial, it seems like it would be in Apple's best interest to have a highly specific form. That way it can at least be clear what is being awarded on what basis. I can't see where a lack of transparency would help conclude the ongoing legal battle.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

Check out Samsung S5 new alternative to iPhone rumored Sapphire crystal

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTLBCACEX2k

 

What a shameful company.. Again another reason that Samsung copies Apple

 

I'm not sure that claim lines up. The device itself is just ridiculously tacky, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.

post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.

 

No matter who "wins", appeals are virtually guaranteed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.

 

Posner argued that smartphones needed to work like this or they would't sell and would cause harm to consumers, the appeals court upheld that part.

 

Apple can charge whatever they want AND that part covers causal nexus.

 

Mueller is very close to parroting Samsung's legal team's arguments in his latest opinion pieces.

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 #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Mueller is very close to parroting Samsung's legal team's arguments in his latest opinion pieces.

Yes, that is interesting, isn't it? In the interest of serving his readers he should consider divulging the source of his current income.
Quote:
Posner argued that smartphones needed to work like this or they would't sell and would cause harm to consumers, the appeals court upheld that part.
And that is the big one right there. Samsung cannot possibly argue Apple's patents are worth less (or "worthless"...LOL)!
Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/25/14 at 4:57pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 Samsung paid me to say the device was a tacky piece of crap? Apparently you sir, are an imbecile.

Remember a couple of posters we've had here in the past who intentionally went overboard in their Apple praise and talking points in an effort to make real fans of Apple look silly? 1wink.gif

Jus'sayin'
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Posner argued that smartphones needed to work like this or they would't sell and would cause harm to consumers, the appeals court upheld that part.

Apple can charge whatever they want AND that part covers causal nexus.

Mueller is very close to parroting Samsung's legal team's arguments in his latest opinion pieces.

So you don't trust most everything he says anymore? Seems you've now come around to my way of thinking tho it's been a long road. You're welcome.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/26/14 at 10:22am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 


If you recall the previous trial, it seems like it would be in Apple's best interest to have a highly specific form. That way it can at least be clear what is being awarded on what basis. I can't see where a lack of transparency would help conclude the ongoing legal battle.

 

 

I'm not sure that claim lines up. The device itself is just ridiculously tacky, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.

iMember "What a shameful company"  and your response to that was.."You're searching for a bogeyman here". Opps did i strike

a nerve there? because in my book that was an insult


Edited by iMember - 4/26/14 at 9:28am

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #38 of 39

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post
 

iMember "What a shameful company"  and your response to that was.."You're searching for a bogeyman here". Opps did i strike

a nerve there? because in my book that was an insult

 

 

Huh? That comment wasn't meant as an insult. Where I see them aping Apple usually comes down to feature set. If they decided to advertise a similar coating, that would  be an example. A few people commented on the inclusion of a fingerprint reader on one of their phones. There isn't much Apple can do about them trying to copy features. As you've seen they need specific claims where Samsung actually infringes on the use of a patented feature. If their engineers took a disassembler and tried to rebuild Apple's source code, that would fall under the realm of copyright violation. Anyway in this case all I saw was a tacky phone. It looks more like a costume piece than something made for actual use, and it does nothing to maintain parity in features with whatever Apple chooses to incorporate in their next phone. Hopefully that provides a better explanation.

 

 

post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

 

Huh? That comment wasn't meant as an insult. Where I see them aping Apple usually comes down to feature set. If they decided to advertise a similar coating, that would  be an example. A few people commented on the inclusion of a fingerprint reader on one of their phones. There isn't much Apple can do about them trying to copy features. As you've seen they need specific claims where Samsung actually infringes on the use of a patented feature. If their engineers took a disassembler and tried to rebuild Apple's source code, that would fall under the realm of copyright violation. Anyway in this case all I saw was a tacky phone. It looks more like a costume piece than something made for actual use, and it does nothing to maintain parity in features with whatever Apple chooses to incorporate in their next phone. Hopefully that provides a better explanation.

 

 

It does provide better explanation and sorry maybe overreacted a little, i agree Apple can do anything unless Samsung actually infringe one of their patents, and yes S5 crystal cover was indeed tacky and to me was funny.. if they copied the idea from iPhone? maybe but i'm not 100% sure either, i've no problem with Samsung copying Apple (without infrige on Apple patents) i actually enjoy that and Samsung users they should be happy about that too.    

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Samsung dispute tentative juror verdict form in California patent trial