or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Jury's verdict in Apple vs Samsung case threatens far reaching consequences
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jury's verdict in Apple vs Samsung case threatens far reaching consequences

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
The jurors deciding the outcome of the second Apple vs Samsung trial haven't yet returned a verdict, but their options are limited to a few possible outcomes, ranging from a fiery thermonuclear blast to a wintery new Dark Ages.

iPhone patents


Option 1: Posnerize it; Samsung wins



The first verdict the jury could potentially render is to return a decision along the lines of Judge Richard Posner's in the parallel iPhone-related patent trial between Apple and Motorola.

In that case, Judge Posner decided that, at least in the case of Apple's iPhone, patents should have no value because if they did, Motorola would be left trying to sell Google's indisputably "inferior non-Apple technology" and it would be "catastrophic" if customers had only one source to obtain Apple technology.

Judge Posner decided that Apple should essentially be forced by the government to license its technology to Motorola, which could then bargain for a "fair price" for its use. While Judge Posner's decision was overturned on appeal, the jury in the Samsung case could essentially replicate it by awarding both parties nothing, resulting in another several months of delay before the next trial.

Option 2: VirnetX-style trollin'; Samsung wins



A second outcome, only slightly worse for Apple, would occur if the jury decided to award Apple nothing while taking seriously Samsung's counterclaims for the two patents it acquired for its cynical countersuit-defense after being sued by Apple in 2011.

This would be moderately similar to the VirnetX patent troll case that Apple initially lost (pending appeal) against a Non Practicing Entity that claims it has a monopoly on the concept of using a VPN tunnel to transmit FaceTime video chats.

If jurors in the Samsung trial similarly failed to understand the nature of the patents Samsung acquired in order to present a countersuit of its own, they might return a decision that handed Samsung a relatively small amount of money while giving Apple nothing.

The amount of money Samsung asked for is small because the entire point of Samsung's countersuit was to portray all patents as worth very little, in a hopeful bid to reduce its own liability for infringement of Apple's patents.

Samsung asks for less than it paid its experts


Option 3: Money for everyone; Samsung loses



The jury might also select a more charitable possible outcome by "fairly" awarding both sides everything they asked for. In this case, Samsung would get virtually nothing and Apple would be awarded as much as $2.2 billion.

Not only would Samsung end up owing a judgement over twice as large as the first trial, but it would also be branded a serial copyist. Such an outcome would also seemingly have to blunt Samsung's enthusiasm for refusing to negotiate with Apple, because it would now be on the wrong side of over $3 billion in total damages.

Things would be slightly worse for Samsung if the jury didn't award it anything at all in its countersuit, although this would again (just like the first trial) erase Samsung's ability to claim that Apple "also lost" and "also copied" it by infringing "its" technology, too.

Option 4: Holy War; Samsung really loses



A fourth possible verdict could result in awarding Apple even more than $2.2 billion in damages. Apple is asking the jury to determine that Samsung's infringement not only occurred, but was "willful."

As a general article on the subject of willful patent infringement by Timothy M. O'Shea for Lexology noted, "A finding of willful infringement in patent litigation is the nightmare scenario that all defendants fear because it allows the patent owner to request that the judge enhance the damages, up to three times compensatory damages. 35 U.S.C. ? 284."

Trebling the $2.2 billion in damages that Apple is asking for would result in Apple taking another $6.6 billion away from Samsung Mobile, or nearly one quarter's earnings. That's a lot of money, but really only a fraction of what Samsung earned in the years following its decision to clone the iPhone 3GS in early 2010.

Samsung's "Crisis of Design" decision put an obstruction in the way of Apple's potential total iPhone sales, but it turned Samsung Mobile around from a failing phone vendor into a powerhouse of profit that has helped carry the rest of Samsung Electronics, while enabling it to prop up a wholly unprofitable series of products designed to copy Apple's other offerings, from a Galaxy-branded iPod touch clone (below) to its various copies of the iPad.

Galaxy Player


Unfortunately for Samsung, none of its other copies of Apple products have really been profitable at all. Outside of smartphones, Samsung's entire tablet and PC operations are barely breaking even. While pundits are grousing about Apple's flat iPad sales this quarter, the reality is that Apple is earning healthy profits from tablets that no other tablet shipper is capable of even approaching. That includes Samsung.

A substantial blow to Samsung's current strategy of copying its competitors might likely result in an abandonment of the company's increasingly less profitable IT and mobile business altogether in order to focus on its other businesses, including chip components, networking gear, TVs and appliances.

That would particularly be the case once Apple files its third lawsuit against Samsung, arguing another batch of patents and targeting its Galaxy S4 flagship for the first time.

Option 5: Thermonuclear; Samsung really, really loses



On top of a finding of willful infringement, Samsung's worse case scenario would also involve sales bans of all of its infringing products and every substantially similar product variant that also infringed Apple's patents.

A sales ban would interrupt Samsung's entire "copy & cash out" strategy, forcing it to scramble to change how its products work before it could begin selling them again.

While FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller has argued that Samsung could easily 'design around' Apple's patents, doing so would still involve some slight effort; otherwise, Samsung would already be doing this across the board rather than spending millions of dollars to pay experts to have the opinion that it doesn't need to do anything and that it owes Apple nothing. Winning a sales injunction against HTC in 2012 caused that company to eventually reach a settlement with Apple, rather than spend the time required to develop workarounds that might (or might not) work to lift the injunction.

Winning a sales injunction against HTC in 2012 caused that company to eventually reach a settlement with Apple, rather than spend the time required to develop workarounds that might (or might not) work to lift the injunction. The carrot of negotiation proved far more tasty than the injunction stick for HTC, and the same decision would very likely be reached by Samsung, were Judge Koh to not preclude the use of such a stick.

However, in the original Samsung case, despite Apple being exonerated from Samsung's accusations and winning its infringement claims against Samsung, Judge Koh still refused to grant Apple a sales injunction against Samsung's infringing products, ruling that Samsung could keep selling its infringing products because she wasn't convinced that they "caused irreparable harm" to Apple in a way that couldn't be addressed in the form of monetary damages, even though years will pass before Samsung will ever have to worry about actually paying those damages.

In the meantime, Samsung can continue to profit from those infringing device sales and work on various fronts to further shave down its potential damages and perhaps even successfully invalidate one or more of Apple's patents using a series of creative strategies that might mean it never has to pay anything at all.

Justice streamlined for speedy delay



As long as Judge Koh insists on a series of scaled down trials that each pare down the evidence Apple can present and streamline the patent claims it can raise in order to speed the cases through the courts as cheaply as possible, without ever allowing Samsung to feel any impact of its actions beyond some transient embarrassment, it's in Samsung's vested interests to keep clogging the court's docket with a series of objections, delay tactics and appeals to ensure that nothing even slows down its use of Apple as a cost-free, outsourced research and development arm.

The way Judge Koh is orchestrating a streamlined and efficient agenda of non-stop legal wrangling that hasn't really accomplished anything over the last three years but permit Samsung to continue the infringment it started in 2010 without obstruction, the first two options seem to be a possible outcome of the second trial.

In one of those scenarios, the jury might find infringement or not in some way, but they would ultimately come to the conclusion that Apple is only owned some inconsequential few millions in damages or perhaps nothing at all. Samsung would then be set free to drop any charade of pretense that it creates anything original in its own products going forward.

This all happened before



This would be similar to the 1992 decision that, based on a technicality, dismissed Apple's "Look and Feel" case against Microsoft and cleared the way for Microsoft to take everything Apple had created for its own use, for free.

Microsoft subsequently felt so liberated from intellectual property claims that it turned around and also appropriated every element it cared to from Steve Jobs' NeXT Software as well, then signed its own name on the resulting artwork: Windows 95.

Win95 Win98


The result wasn't just that Apple and NeXT were cheated and that Microsoft was given both credit and cash for having "developed" Windows. That one ruling also set into motion a decade long domination of technology by a company that now had zero respect for other's work, an age of anarchy where Microsoft grabbed everything it wanted and then paid after the fact by offering the attorneys of ruined competitors a few hundred million to settle their claims, after having inhaled all the profits.

Microsoft did this to IBM's OS/2; Lotus SmartSuite; Novell NetWare; WordPerfect; BeOS; Sun Java; AOL's Netscape; and even came back to Apple for a second helping by blatantly stealing QuickTime code in the San Francisco Canyon case. All were efforts by one company to stop competition, kill consumer choice and thwart innovation from challenging its position as the PC profit syphon.

An open world without IP



Microsoft didn't halt innovation via intellectual property claims; it did so by ignoring intellectual property. Samsung today is working to do the very same thing, but the result will be different. Rather than having the world's profits monopolized by a software company, Samsung wants to own everything from chip production to the software platform to finished devices.

Apple, of course, wants to do the same thing. The difference is that Apple is doing the work to deserve it. Samsung has only ever taken the product ideas of others, which is why it was selling a BlackBerry knockoff unashamedly called the "BlackJack" when Apple unveiled the iPhone and changed the mobile game.

Samsung BlackJack knockoff


If the court, and in this case, the jury tasked with making a landmark decision, determines that competition is best preserved by rendering patents worthless so that one company can take over through copying rather than building a great original product, the world will be left a place where foreign conglomerates that allow a small number of people to own vast swaths of different industries will compete on a level that American companies (which are prevented from doing the same thing via antitrust laws) can't.

We will live through another Microsoft-like decade of scant innovation apart from predictable speed blips and worthless feature bloat, one where the open source community will achieve its fantasy only to realize that under the rule of a conglomerate, openness will be as valuable as Linux was under the PC industry controlled by Windows.

There will be no capital available to innovators, because there will be no potential payoff for the work they do. It was venture capitalism that kept NeXT a contender long enough for Apple to acquire its technology and build an assault to counter the power of Microsoft in the late 1990s.Even Google has to be hoping that Samsung will lose this case, because if it doesn't, there will be no real market left for the advanced robotics and self driving car intellectual property that it is currently investing its shrinking web ad profits to develop

In a world where patents and technology are worthless, the only hope for defanging a new Microsoft would be the community efforts that banded together to create a series of inconsequential stabs at copying Windows while infighting amongst themselves like Gnome & KDE GNU/Linux did.

Even Google has to be hoping that Samsung will lose this case, because if it doesn't, there will be no real market left for the advanced robotics and self driving car intellectual property that it is currently investing its shrinking web ad profits to develop.

Which choice will the jury make?



Judging from the clarification questions the jury has asked the court so far, it's hard to say what they are thinking. Their questions about Steve Jobs, the involvement of Google, when the patents involved in the cases were selected and the response by Samsung to Apple's claims might suggest that the jury was completely bamboozled by Samsung's scattershot defense of contradictory circles of flawgic.

It's also possible that the irrelevant questions were asked for entertainment value or personal edification, and that the jury actually understands that it is serving in a patent infringement trial, rather than acting as a focus group providing feedback on a possible new Silicon Valley TV drama.

One possible consolation is that this second Apple vs Samsung trial may prove to be nothing more than the short, exposition-heavy sequel that strings together "A New Hope" and a future "Return of the Jedi," and that we'll have to wait another two years for this story to get wrapped up.
post #2 of 81

Such a thoughtful of every possible outcomes, I wish the best for Apple.

post #3 of 81
Dilger really has no business writing opinion pieces that require subtlety, rather than multiple hammer blows to the subject.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Dilger really has no business writing opinion pieces that require subtlety, rather than multiple hammer blows to the subject.

But subtlety is boring; hammer blows make for a much more interesting read. 1wink.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Dilger really has no business writing opinion pieces that require subtlety, rather than multiple hammer blows to the subject.

Nothing but one man's opinion. If you don't like Daniel's writing, don't read it.

post #6 of 81
I don't know if I can watch ... I think I will have to hide under the covers till it's all over ... too scary.

Great article by the way.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #7 of 81

i hope something happens.  it was totally proven that the phone industry was changed by apple's device- and if you can copy and only get a slap on the wrist- then what the hell is the point of trying to innovate?  

post #8 of 81

My guess is Option 4 is most likely the outcome. Rational sense would make that happen. I'd say common sense, but their seems to be a lack of that today. I don't see a product ban happening - forcing that seems more trouble than its worth.

post #9 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite View Post

Nothing but one man's opinion. If you don't like Daniel's writing, don't read it.

I hate when people respond like you just did. You're not making a point. Besides, you only find how what he wrote after reading it.
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 #10 of 81

In some ways, I wonder why Apple Legal doesn't hire Daniel for these trials. He always comes up with more historical and pertinent information than we hear from court proceedings. Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.

post #11 of 81

This is a great article. Excellent refresher too on the historical aspects as well.

post #12 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

In some ways, I wonder why Apple Legal doesn't hire Daniel for these trials. He always comes up with more historical and pertinent information than we hear from court proceedings. Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.

Excellent point.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #13 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by toysandme View Post

This is a great article. Excellent refresher too on the historical aspects as well.

I love the historical refreshers too. I lived a lot of it in my own business life as an Apple dealer from the late 1970s to 1990's but there are obviously many missing links. I confess I had not realized till reading this, Gates stole from NeXT as well as Apple. It's a wonder Steve could even look at Gates without wanting to rearrange his face.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #14 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


I hate when people respond like you just did. You're not making a point. Besides, you only find how what he wrote after reading it.

 

Point taken. I like Daniel's "you're-wrong-here's-why" approach to writing about Apple. It is powerful and serves as an antidote to the senseless drivel that flies around the so-called 'news media' like monkey shit at a zoo. 

post #15 of 81
Thermonuclear is the only way Apple will get true justice. Samsung is a lying, cheating, copycat, no morales kind of company. They even lie in court any chance they get. Let the bomb drop that should have dropped years ago already.
post #16 of 81
undefined
post #17 of 81
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
Trebling the $2.2 billion in damages that Apple is asking for would result in Apple taking another $6.6 billion away from Samsung Mobile, or nearly one quarter's earnings.

 

Okay, I keep seeing this and I figured it was just a misspelling. But apparently it’s an actual word in this case? Since when? … SINCE THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY?! What about ‘tripling’? How’s that not better? Stop making me think of music every time I see that word; it’s all I’ll ever think.

 

Option 5: Thermonuclear; Samsung really, really loses

 

Option 6: Samsung double super loses; The United States allies with North Korea and declares war on the South.

 
 One possible consolation is that this second Apple vs Samsung trial may prove to be nothing more than the short, exposition-heavy sequel that strings together "A New Hope" and a future "Return of the Jedi," and that we'll have to wait another two years for this story to get wrapped up.

 

But The Empire Strikes Back was the best of all nine of them!

 

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
Dilger really has no business writing opinion pieces that require subtlety, rather than multiple hammer blows to the subject.

 

Reminds me of a joke.

 

Two guys are on a golf course about to play a round. One of them happens to have a huge silverback gorilla with him. So he says to the other guy, “How about a wager? $100 to the winner and you play against my gorilla here.” The second guy agrees, thinking this should be a cakewalk. The first man sets up the tee and the gorilla swings back and HOOM, off it goes like a bullet and PLOP right on the green.

 

Well, the second man, jaw agape, just pulls out his wallet and pays the first man immediately. “That was incredible!” he says. “It must have been a 500 yard shot! After something like that, I couldn’t possibly match up with his putting!”

 

The first man replies, “I don’t imagine so. His putting is the same: 500 yards.”

 

Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post
It's a wonder Steve could even look at Gates without wanting to rearrange his face.

 

That’s buddhism for you. When it comes time to rearrange faces and eat vegan, make sure you’re not out of vegan.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #18 of 81

Another vote for "great article". (This _is_ an Apple-centric website; if you want perfectly even-handed analysis, you may have come to the wrong place).

 

I tend to think Option #3 is most likely, although I think due to human nature, the jury will probably pare down the $2.2B. Koh won't find (or allow) willful infringement damages (although I don't know how anyone _couldn't_ classify this as anything other than"willful" on the part of Samsung). Samsung and part of the press will call this a mixed, see?-everyone-does-it verdict, but (I hope!) the message will be sent with this second multi-million-to-billion dollar judgement that Samsung (and the smaller players) can't just copy-Apple-as-usual with impunity any more.

 

On the other hand, if the gangster boss of Samsung (Lee Kun-Hee) plays to form and still refuses to change his behavior, I would imagine we'll see a round three...

post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Microsoft didn't halt innovation via intellectual property claims; it did so by ignoring intellectual property. Samsung today is working to do the very same thing, but the result will be different. Rather than having the world's profits monopolized by a software company, Samsung wants to own everything from chip production to the software platform to finished devices.

[...]
We will live through another Microsoft-like decade of scant innovation apart from predictable speed blips and worthless feature bloat, one where the open source community will achieve its fantasy only to realize that under the rule of a conglomerate, openness will be as valuable as Linux was under the PC industry controlled by Windows.
 

When did MS ever halt innovation? Let's look at just a few of the developments in software during the era of Windows.

 

-MIT created the first network-transparent windowing system in the form of the Unix X Server. It is only appropriate that the first operating system to treat local and remote resources as equals have the first display server that does the same thing.

 

-The birth of Apache, the first widely-available commercial-grade webserver. Apache servers powered by Linux would go on to power the internet.  Linux/Unix-based platforms have dominated every sector besides the desktop computing market: web servers, mainframes, embedded devices, and high-performance computing (Linux powers over 90 percent of the Top500 supercomputers). Their success has been directly correlated with how technically informed their users are. For a long time, Linux/Unix-based systems were the obvious choice if you wanted a secure, high-performance, multiuser operating system.

 

-The development of GCC, the first widely-available C compiler. It has since been ported to dozens of architectures and is still the de facto compiler for many of them.

 

-Java. While not necessarily the best option for consumer-facing desktop applications, it has become an industry standard for web server applications. Any web app that you interact with has a good chance of being powered by Java. 

 

-Windows finally catches up to Unix in terms of security with Vista in 2006. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 5/2/14 at 7:33am
post #20 of 81

Crossing my fingers for Steve Jobs (a victory would help him rest better in peace) and Apple....

 

Good article.

post #21 of 81
Thanks DED for yet another Exocet blasting away at the Samsung bullshit in preparation for its recycling in deforested areas.

I love your delineation of options 4 and 5. With the Holy War, there is retained an element of mercy, whereas Thermonuclear is no holds barred.

Such an entertaining article! I love your imagination. Truly, AI is lucky to have you. You make the pain of Samsung and Google's evils so much more bearable.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #22 of 81

In advance of reading this op-ed, I heard a much more unsettling, nationally-broadcast piece on NPR yesterday.  It pushes the notion that regardless of the outcome of this trial, a completely different issue currently in SCOTUS threatens to render the whole thing moot.

 

I'm not sure that the reporter got their Apple facts straight, though...?

Quality isn't expensive... it's priceless.

Reply

Quality isn't expensive... it's priceless.

Reply
post #23 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Excellent point.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

In some ways, I wonder why Apple Legal doesn't hire Daniel for these trials. He always comes up with more historical and pertinent information than we hear from court proceedings. Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.

I'll second that.

post #24 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

When did MS ever halt innovation? Let's look at just a few of the developments in software during the era of Windows.

 

-MIT created the first network-transparent windowing system in the form of the Unix X Server. It is only appropriate that the first operating system to treat local and remote resources as equals have the first display server that does the same thing.

 

-The birth of Apache, the first widely-available commercial-grade webserver. Apache servers powered by Linux would go on to power the internet.  Linux/Unix-based platforms have dominated every sector besides the desktop computing market: web servers, mainframes, embedded devices, and high-performance computing (Linux powers over 90 percent of the Top500 supercomputers). Their success has been directly correlated with how technically informed their users are. For a long time, Linux/Unix-based systems were the obvious choice if you wanted a secure, high-performance, multiuser operating system.

 

-The development of GCC, the first widely-available C compiler. It has since been ported to dozens of architectures and is still the de facto compiler for many of them.

 

-Java. While not necessarily the best option for consumer-facing desktop applications, it has become an industry standard for web server applications. Any web app that you interact with has a good chance of being powered by Java. 

 

-Windows finally catches up to Unix in terms of security with Vista in 2006. 

A couple of these can be considered major innovations. Java started out on a good path but it's been hampered by too many security problems. Saying Windows caught up with unix in terms of security is still a joke and including Vista in the same sentence is a real joke. The vast majority or malware still targets Windows systems although Android is the target for mobile devices. Since we're talking about the Apple/Samsung trial, I'm surprised you didn't mention either company in your innovation statement. Everything you talked about, except the Windows blurb, is about unix/Linux so we know where your preference lies. 

post #25 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

When did MS ever halt innovation? 

 

Well, they effectively murdered Netscape, who produced arguably the biggest software innovation of our lifetimes, the browser. Of course, they replaced Netscape's product with Internet Explorer, the fastest, most efficient, standards-compliant and secure browser on the planet.

 

Oh, wait...

post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 
"...Samsung's scattershot defense of contradictory circles of flawgic."

 

Hehe. Good one. Extra points for "flawgic."

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #27 of 81
Daniel's analysis is, perhaps a bit dramatic, and simplified, is I think quite correct. The repercussions of the jury's understanding and worth on innovation in software - it's value - will be interesting when we live in a world when software is expected to be free.
post #28 of 81

This is a very thoughtful, well-written, and creative article. I am going to change the author's name to my own and put it into a book I'm publishing.

post #29 of 81
The samsung are terrorist and crooks.
post #30 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

A couple of these can be considered major innovations. Java started out on a good path but it's been hampered by too many security problems. Saying Windows caught up with unix in terms of security is still a joke and including Vista in the same sentence is a real joke. The vast majority or malware still targets Windows systems although Android is the target for mobile devices. Since we're talking about the Apple/Samsung trial, I'm surprised you didn't mention either company in your innovation statement. Everything you talked about, except the Windows blurb, is about unix/Linux so we know where your preference lies. 

 

Java never really belonged on the desktop. It was a solution in search of a problem. Given that users were overwhelmingly likely to be running Windows on an x86 machine, there was no demand for a virtual machine-based platform. But it continues to dominate on servers. For instance, Gmail uses Java for its backend.

 

I think its unix core is one of the greatest strengths of OS X. The main reason for the popularity of the Mac among scientists is that, being a unix system with a polished GUI, OS X can interface seamlessly with their back end compute equipment which are likely to be running some form of Linux or Unix. 

post #31 of 81

Isn't it strange that member/s of the jury cab bring up the question of google role in this trial where as judge cote turn a blind eye to Amazon role in the ebook trial.

 

So is this jury smarter than judge cote?

post #32 of 81
Option 6: Antimatter bomb: Samsung really really loses, in addition to all the above (fines, sales ban) they are ordered by the court to apologize in their website and its executives must writes "I will not copy Apple" 1 million times on a blackboard.

Option 7: Asteroid collision: Samsung really really really loses, the court orders their executives to confess the whole plot to DED in a worldwide exclusive interview. All infringing Samsung devices are sent irreversible self-destruct codes that cause them to detonate.

Option 8: Black hole: Samsung really really really really loses, a literal black hole is created at LHC, and the court orders Samsung executives and all infringing devices be bought back and thrown into the singularity, where it is irretrievably gone from this universe. DED gets to write a tell all book, and he becomes the youngest writer with a spelling disability to ever win the Pulitzer, and Fandroids everywhere are ordered by the court to write "I was trolling the whole time and I knew it" 1 million times on a blackboard, while DED watches.

Option 9: The Big Bang...

1wink.gif

"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 #33 of 81
I hope Sammy loses big time but I doubt there will ever be a injunction.
post #34 of 81
So maybe a verdict today? Wasn't the last verdict on a Friday? Nothing like spoiling he weekend for a whole bunch of haters/trolls/losers.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #35 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Has anyone found a writer on Samsung's side who has anywhere near as much understanding and information as Daniel? Probably doesn't exist.

It doesn't take much skill to throw up a smokescreen of confusion and misdirection. In both trials, Samsung's attorneys arguments incredibly mirrored the kind of nonsense you hear from forum trolls. It made me wonder if spin doctoring was their entire legal strategy.

"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 #36 of 81
Originally Posted by linuxfanatic View Post

This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets. 

 

For everyone who doesn’t want to read all this nonsense, here’s the summary. Remember, the little red flag at the bottom left of each post is there for a reason!

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #37 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So maybe a verdict today? Wasn't the last verdict on a Friday? Nothing like spoiling he weekend for a whole bunch of haters/trolls/losers.

I think they'll have a verdict today -- don't want the Cinco De Mayo weekend go to waste 1biggrin.gif

Also, SOT, but today we have a birthday:

Happy Birthday BASIC.

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxfanatic View Post

Rooting for Apple to become the next Microsoft because "Apple deserves it" is not particularly convincing. Especially since the real reason why Microsoft became so dominant was not their copying Windows - that line ignores the fact that PCs running Microsoft DOS were dominating sales long before Microsoft introduced Windows - was because PCs and clones were much cheaper than Macs. Of course, the response is that the IBM PCs and especially the clones were junk, but it was junk that people could afford. A Chevy is not as good as a BMW, but it beats walking. The clones made personal computing grow and become a lot more accessible than it would have been had the market consisted of only Apple machines, or even only Apple and IBM PCs, which were also quite expensive. And like it or not, the growth of the computing market from business computing and people employed in the computer industry and academics/enthusiasts to a booming sector of casual/entertainment users drove the technology industry in a way that massively benefited Apple. No hundreds of millions of computer users means no commercialization of the Internet, no PC gaming or other broad based software industry, no large computer hardware market, etc. Basically everything that is driving Apple today is due to the fact that cheap computers running Microsoft software made computing so widely accessible that everyone owned them. A computer became just as basic a household item as a refrigerator, television, microwave, VCR etc. If that doesn't happen, where is the market for the I-Pad and the I-Phone? Even the I-Pod ... no market for it if millions of people had already not been listing to music on their computers for years. 


Another thing: not only were the devices more accessible for consumers because they were cheaper, but they were more accessible to hardware and software developers too. While making your own hardware and software for Apple computers used to be a real pain in the 1990s, everyone knew enough about computers running DOS and Windows in the 1990s to make peripherals and software. I am not talking about companies or computer science students mind you, but regular guys in their basements and living rooms. Do you think that freeware/shareware (the predecessor to the open source movement) would have developed if Apple was all that there was? In the 1980s and 1990s, people were writing their own mods to improve DOS and Windows and sharing them over what there was of the Internet months or years before Microsoft came out with their own versions! Lots of companies were building their own custom hardware that would plug right into any PC port. That is what drove Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s, not their stealing Windows from Apple. 

That is why this talk of "openness and innovation" is hilarious. If the tech world was ruled by Apple, "openness and innovation" would be whatever Apple decided to provide and allow. That IS NOT what happened during the Wintel "monoculture" where there was plenty of openness and innovation, just not from Microsoft. It came from a large number of companies, academics and regular people who could far more easily afford and modify Wintel hardware and software than you ever could with Apple. 

This isn't about "protecting copyrights so that people can innovate." Like Posner said, Apple is the most profitable company in the world. This is about wanting Apple to be the only company marketing smartphones and tablets. Even if you believe that Apple "earned" this right, it is nuts to think that a single platform that most of the world's population can't even afford is good for anyone but Apple's employees, stockholders and ardent consumers. Again, I-Pods, I-Pads and I-Phones are only so successful because Microsoft got the world into computing in the first place. I-Pads sell because they are better for checking your email and posting to Facebook than a bulky desktop, but without the hundreds of millions of consumers that Microsoft created by selling machines that people could actually afford, there would be no commercial web-based email and no Facebook.

So despite the pretensions otherwise, this isn't about Samsung but about Android, and Android accomplishing the same thing that Microsoft did, which was give people not only a choice, but in many cases a device that they can actually afford. One thing that Apple did learn from losing the last war is that it is as easy to develop applications for IOS as it is anything else (possibly easier). They also benefit from wireless and bluetooth standards making it as easy to make accessories for Apple hardware as it was for DOS back in the day. (Although it should be mentioned that Apple DID NOT INVENT THOSE THINGS, but instead those were part of the innovation that this writer claims did not happen during the Wintel hegemony.) Because of these, IOS and MacBooks are no longer the "locked boxes" that they used to be. Big deal. 

But the bottom line is that Apple is still fighting the last war, and the battleground exists because of Apple's pricing strategy. It results in huge profits for Apple, but it still leaves a gigantic market open for companies willing to accept a lower margin, because for them the choice is between making devices at a lower margin or not being in business at all. Yes, Apple is still around while a lot of the PC clone makers aren't. Big deal: those clone makers were in business for 20-30 years, made a lot of money and had good runs. The same is true of Samsung right now. They are making 1/4 of the profits on phones and tablets that Apple is right now, but 1/4 of what Apple is making is still a lot of money. Remove Samsung from the picture and Acer, Asus, Lenovo, HP, Toshiba etc. would be glad to step in and fill the gap, making products that lots of consumers want (and in today's economy in a lot of cases need) at prices that they can actually afford. 

That is why the thermonuclear option that Apple and its advocates want (and again, despite claims otherwise, the true target is not Samsung but Android) is not going to happen. It is not in the interests of the economy or the consumer for Apple to be the only viable manufacturer of smartphones and tablets, no more than it would be if Mercedes was the only car maker. What Apple wants is not good for everybody else, and what Apple does not want still leaves Apple in an outstanding position. That was what Posner decided, and it is going to be what every other court or jury decides also. They may award some financial damages to a blatant infringer - though nowhere near enough to bankrupt them -  but they are not going to eliminate competition for Apple so that Apple is the only viable competitor in a lucrative, valuable sector. If that is going to happen, it is going to be by virtue of the marketplace, as what happened with the I-Pod, not the courts. 

It doesn't mean that "IP is meaningless" as this propaganda piece asserts. It only means that IP can't be used for what Apple wants it to, which is a legal snow shovel to clear the marketplace of meaningful competition. And to pretend as if this competition is not having an impact is ridiculous. If it wasn't, Apple would not be on the verge of offering phablets (to compete with Samsung) or finally updating Apple TV (to compete with Android-forked Fire TV). 

It's because of the lies spewed by the likes of you that man had to endure years of mediocrity in the world of computing. Thankfully, because Apple's ideology is diametrically opposed to yours, your dystopian nightmare has a good chance of never coming to pass.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #39 of 81
Great work, Daniel. Clear and comprehensive, frosted with irony.

"... Judge Posner decided that ... Motorola would be left trying to sell Google's indisputably "inferior non-Apple technology" and it would be "catastrophic" if customers had only one source to obtain Apple technology."

Sweet.
post #40 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef View Post

Great work, Daniel. Clear and comprehensive, frosted with irony.

"... Judge Posner decided that ... Motorola would be left trying to sell Google's indisputably "inferior non-Apple technology" and it would be "catastrophic" if customers had only one source to obtain Apple technology."

Sweet.

Not often Posner gets stuff horribly wrong. But that "catastrophy" seems to be what Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution seems to require.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Jury's verdict in Apple vs Samsung case threatens far reaching consequences
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Jury's verdict in Apple vs Samsung case threatens far reaching consequences