The size of the verdict is perhaps the least important part of this.
The likely costs resulting from their thievery include the blot on their reputation, a negative stock price reaction, the increased expense incurred on innovation, research, and product development (especially software development), the increased expense resulting from having to pay for IP, the loss of business from Apple (and others to whom they supply), the emboldening of their competition (e.g., Microsoft, LG), negative impact on employee morale, a backlash that could develop over time in their home country from being internationally shamed, the negative spillover that this could have on other parts of their business (with both their customers and their business relationships), the effect on similar cases in courts other countries -- to name just a handful of the more important ones. These will dwarf whatever dollar penalty that this jury and judge could come up with.
That is what I mean by all variables. but I think many of those are not sizable losses to consider. If they were then they would not have the sales and profits they have had. People weren't buying Samsung's devices because the jury hadn't yet deliberated. They bought them for a multitude of reasons that are irrelevant to any bad press that Samsung has had for copying Apple's designs for years, and other vendors before that. This court case will not affect that in a meaningful way.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Samsung's sales and profit this holiday will lose to a loss in profits but I'm guessing it's more likely they will do very well and much better than all other vendors using Android.
I loved every cell phone I had because each incarnation was wildly better than the last.
1. Motorola brick
2. Smaller NEC brick
3. Samsung flip phone
4. Sony Ericsson candy bar
5. Another Sony Ericsson candy bar
6. Motorola Razor
7. iPhone 3G
8. iPhone 4
Each was good in their own time.
The pager and cell phone I used to own that I have had good memories with and yes because of my deafness:
1) Motorola t-900 via skytel
2) RIM 850 via Deafwireless and Wyndtel
3) Danger Hiptop Color via T-Mobile aka Sidekick Color 11/2 gen.
4) Danger Hiptop 2 via T-Mobile aka Sidekick 2
5) Danger Hiptop 3 via T-Mobile aka Sidekick 3
6) Blackberry 8820 via T-Mobile
7) Blackberry 8320 via T-Mobile and this is my last phone with T-Mobile to join AT&T for iPhone 3G and that Blackberry 8320 was one of my favorite Blackberry and love em.
8) Apple iPhone 3G
9) Apple iPhone 4 (I skip 3GS because I hate plastic back and love the way how 4 feel)
10) Apple iPhone 4S which is what I'm using right now!
11) Looking forward the 6th generation IPhone!!!
[" url="/t/152135/jurors-knew-samsung-was-guilty-after-first-day-of-deliberations-wanted-to-send-message-with-verdict/40#post_2176159"]And I'm more convinced than ever that quite a few Android users are anti-capitalist commies and thieving cheapskates...
I shouldn't be surprised when you write this sort of crap but I am shocked every single time you do.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thanks for looking into it. Basically, the Fandroids' position is that patents are evil and that companies should be able to copy with impunity so there is more "choice". But that's not how patent laws work: patent laws protect inventors and innovation, and I'm glad the jury stood up for that.
The Linux/GNU/GPL people want to see the patent system destroyed. But it's not a simple matter of "All Patents are Evil" but rather "two people can come up with exactly the same thing independently because hardware moves at the same pace for everyone." So it's mostly software patents that shouldn't be patent-able, because the useful life of software is far less than 20 years, and in a sense the patents kept a market leader ahead in perpetuity.
20 years ago the NES and SNES were sold, and would no longer be covered by patents (the + shaped controller D-pad for example.) The SOFTWARE however still would. People are still playing NES and SNES games, how about that. There is a tiny market for this, but there are copies of the NES and SNES out there, most come with pirated software baked in.
The areas that really should not be patented are software algorithms, because people routinely come up with identical solutions for algorithms independently, even if the code superficially is different. Software doesn't need to be protected by both Patents and Copyright.
After reading Foremans story its encouraging to see that Innovation is still alive and well. After all we must support those that create and innovate. There will always be the followers and stealers around but they must pay. If they don't than everyone else will because companies will stop innovating.
Apple weren't patenting inventions. They were patenting generic design features. The whole patent system needs overhauling.
I'm feeling mixed emotions about this... While most of us NOW take different design features for granted --- multitouch swiping, pinch-to-zoom, the scroll-past-the-end "bounce", etc ---- the fact is that they were quite amazing and innovative when the iPhone came out. NO other Samsung (or other) smartphone on the market was anything like the iPhone. And a few years later, Android through out their original blackberry like design and implemented something very close to the iPhone. Samsung was certainly the most egregious in modifying Android to come even closer to iOS and the iPhone 3G/3GS when it came out. So while they may be "generic design features" now, how would you feel if you invented them and everyone else copied. Would you feel that they are "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable? The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface. Not too mention I'm sure FingerWorks (the mutli-touch company that Apple bought) had a lot of existing patents on this stuff that Apple inherited when they acquired them...
I'm feeling mixed emotions about this... While most of us NOW take different design features for granted --- multitouch swiping, pinch-to-zoom, the scroll-past-the-end "bounce", etc ---- the fact is that they were quite amazing and innovative when the iPhone came out. NO other Samsung (or other) smartphone on the market was anything like the iPhone. And a few years later, Android through out their original blackberry like design and implemented something very close to the iPhone. Samsung was certainly the most egregious in modifying Android to come even closer to iOS and the iPhone 3G/3GS when it came out. So while they may be "generic design features" now, how would you feel if you invented them and everyone else copied. Would you feel that they are "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable? The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface. Not too mention I'm sure FingerWorks (the mutli-touch company that Apple bought) had a lot of existing patents on this stuff that Apple inherited when they acquired them...
That was the only contention I had with a 2012 jury. At was so revolutionary with their design that there is so much now that people do take for granted. I wondered if they would realize that just a few years ago this was all original and unique.
Dan Frakes says in a tweet what I've been saying for years:
Jury failed to see common practice of competitor benchmark and mislabled that as out right "copying". There is a difference between these two. Also, Samsung's supposed "smoking gun" email specifically labels that the designs and themes should not be too similar to that of Apple's.
The jury's deliberations were way too short and filled with holes. Relevant evidence was rejected solely based on technicalities. This is an appeal waiting to happen and one that would override the current "victory" by the Apple camp. Apple is going to ultimately lose this one.
You all can go about and trash talking your ways against me and my kind (I know I'm in the minority and inside the chimpmunks cave) but here me out. Roughing a few feathers does the body good.
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
No, you are confused by what the lawsuit is about. Don't twist it into something it's not.
The problem with your argument is this "de facto standard" idea which is bullshit. Here, you are using "defacto standard" [sic] as an excuse to deprive Apple of its patent rights. What noble ends justify those means? "Competition"? Or is it copying?
Let's explore why "de facto standards" is bullshit cooked up by Google and faithfully regurgitated by their anti-Apple forum trolls. You claim "a defacto [sic] standard has been defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace". Is Microsoft Windows a de facto standard? By your definition, it is. Microsoft's competitors should be able to copy it without paying royalties to Microsoft. And if Microsoft sues them, then TOO BAD because its "rediculous" [sic] to outlaw any "competitive process." And copying is a "competitive process" in your worldview.
Let's take another example. Is Google search a de facto standard? Yes, most people who say they enjoy a dominant position in web search. So why can't Microsoft just copy Google search results and serve them up in Bing? Or steal Google Page Rank's code and put it in Bing? I mean, you're saying it's ridiculous to outlaw any competitive process, and we can all agree Google needs competition, right? So the ends justifies the means, right? Google doesn't deserve any protection for their IP, right? No? Don't you believe that once something becomes dominant, it automatically loses patent and trade dress protection? Of course you don't believe that! You are not a purveyor of the double standard like so many devout and eager Google lickers.
You are smart enough to realize that patent laws are not anti-competitive. They protect inventor's rights and gives them recourse if someone else tries to unfairly profit from the invention. So tell me again, what noble ends justifies the means by which we can seize Apple's patents and take away their rights? And tell me again how we can deprive Apple of their IP rights, but not Google or Microsoft or anyone else with intellectual property? Isn't that your real objective? To justify taking from Apple and giving to Samsung?
And why is it a "self deceiving lie" to say "others are successfully building new phones"? Please elaborate on that.
These jurors are much more sensible than most android fans
" "There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance?. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there.""
The Linux/GNU/GPL people want to see the patent system destroyed. But it's not a simple matter of "All Patents are Evil" but rather "two people can come up with exactly the same thing independently because hardware moves at the same pace for everyone." So it's mostly software patents that shouldn't be patent-able, because the useful life of software is far less than 20 years, and in a sense the patents kept a market leader ahead in perpetuity.
I'm aware of these issues in software patents, and the worldview held by FSF and their chief ideologue, Richard Stallman. It's still problematic to simply declare all patents "evil" and to do away with them entirely, just to prevent cases of simultaneous invention. Regardless, that's not what Samsung's attorneys argued took place. Samsung attorneys argued the "Apple doesn't own the rectangle" or "Apple doesn't own the color green" or "Apple is paying Susan Kare $80K to testify" angle. They didn't make the patent system the issue, but rather, they attacked Apple.
I don't buy the "market leader ahead in perpetuity" argument. That's theoretical hand-waving from the FSF crowd. Point to a case where this has happened in reality: where a software patent kept a company a market leader for at least the useful life of the software or 20 years, whichever came first.
I have read the news from the first day and I knew Samsung will be guilty. Competition is good but they should make it sure that they should come up will originality. People who like the best yet company should never be so fail to create some uniqueness in their product.
The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market with similar features...offered at comparable rates. It wasn't because Steve thought I needed a price break.
So we got affordable iPhones because a thief was carpet-bombing the market with a stollen product? I fully agree with you on this.
But then you have to look honestly at the consequences of this point: The actual loss for Apple actually includes (1) the whole part of Samsung's smartphone revenues from touch-based devices --which are stolen products--, plus (2) the difference between what Apple charged and what they could have charged on their own products -- the "price break" you mention.
Overall, this is probably in the order of magnitude of 100 B$, not of 1 B$. So Samsung clearly got away with it with a 1 B$ damage bill...
Besides, when was the last time you got a Ferrari at the price of a Kia Forte because you deserved a price break?
Given the certitude in the jury, it's interesting that Judge Koh, on the other hand, was framing this as an equally risky proposition for both sides, in urging Apple to settle.
Either she was clueless in reading the jury, or...... (hypothesis?).
I, too, found Judge Koh's insistence on a settlement frustrating because sometimes you just need to disregard the politics of your position (in Judge Koh's case) and allow justice to prevail. I applaude the jury for getting it right--though I feel they let Samsung off too lightly--this verdict is still, as Mr. Cook has stated, a victory for values; that you cannot steal someone else's property and not be held accountable for your actions. I find Samsung's total disregard for the law, the legal process, and others' IP absurd, arrogant, and willful... and I am very happy that the jury has found likewise.
As my small token of disapproval of this company, I will never buy another Samsung product, but I am glad that they will now be forced to, perhaps, be a little innovative.
These jurors are much more sensible than most android fans
"<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;"> "There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance?. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there.""</span>
There mere fact that there are other ways to do something doesn't mean you give a company a monopoly on rounded rectangles...especially when it is shown that rounded rectangles were worked on by other companies prior.
However, I believe Samsung copied Apple...the phone could've looked vastly different and still been a rounded rectangle...
I am glad (a bit) the tablet design patent wasn't upheld...and I'm glad the trade dress claims were.
Samsung has cheapened Android as a whole making it a me too product solely. If I were Google I'd distance myself from them or demand they either use stock or make REAL changes to their custom UIs.
Apple took a big gamble and innovated far beyond what any company in the entire world was willing to do.
Sorry for nitpicking, but far beyond what any company in the world? In the space of usability of handheld computing and telephony: yes. Otherwise I'd venture a guess that there are plenty of companies out there innovating like mad and taking huge gambles in their respective fields.
Even if we restrict ourselves to just look at the wireless tech that we are using today: Connectivity has gone up from a measly tens of kilobits/second to over a hundred megabits per second with latencies and connection qualities going up and power consumption going down. Connection prices have come down significantly as well (not only attributable to user number increases). These haven't come for free either. Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, etc. have done quite a lot of innovation on chipsets, radio interfaces, codecs, algorithms etc. to make this possible. Apple could not have made their smartphone the success it is without these. After all how much of the usability and usefulness of the device comes from for example fluid network access? Or from a small form factor (low power miniturized radio chipsets)? Would Apple be as successful if it only produced the iPod touch (no cellular radio components)?
Let's not disrespect the hard work other companies and individuals are doing (including Samsung) to make the remaining parts of all these magical devices possible. The iPhone for example does use some innovative components from Samsung.
I agree with you fully that competition is good and forcing companies to innovate brings us these wonderful devices we have and should accelerate the advances that make this industry so interesting to follow. In this respect, this verdict is good for the industry. However I have a feeling that there be dangers in this verdict too. Time will tell. Makes life even more interesting....
Two years ago, it was usual to read in the news that all the smartPhone become a copy of the iPhone. Now that Apple has a deep, very deep pocket you heard the word monopoly ( by the same people WHO paint in the sky that the android is winning ) which IS a lie.
What bothers me is the hypocrisy in the news media, WHY this cowardice in repeating WHAT all of them were saying back then?
- Samsung and all others did copy Apple and should pay!
- Those companies have a HUGE pocket also, paying will not bankrupt them.
I, too, found Judge Koh's insistence on a settlement frustrating because sometimes you just need to disregard the politics of your position (in Judge Koh's case) and allow justice to prevail. I applaude the jury for getting it right--though I feel they let Samsung off too lightly--this verdict is still, as Mr. Cook has stated, a victory for values; that you cannot steal someone else's property and not be held accountable for your actions. I find Samsung's total disregard for the law, the legal process, and others' IP absurd, arrogant, and willful... and I am very happy that the jury has found likewise.
As my small token of disapproval of this company, I will never buy another Samsung product, but I am glad that they will now be forced to, perhaps, be a little innovative.
Judge koh knew exactly what she was doing.
Maybe she was closing loopholes in the event of an appeal, the fact that at various times during the case she was seen as biased by supporters on both sides of the argument shows that in the end she did an admirable job of walking the tightrope of impartiality.
Samsung will have very little to base an appeal on.
Comments
That is what I mean by all variables. but I think many of those are not sizable losses to consider. If they were then they would not have the sales and profits they have had. People weren't buying Samsung's devices because the jury hadn't yet deliberated. They bought them for a multitude of reasons that are irrelevant to any bad press that Samsung has had for copying Apple's designs for years, and other vendors before that. This court case will not affect that in a meaningful way.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Samsung's sales and profit this holiday will lose to a loss in profits but I'm guessing it's more likely they will do very well and much better than all other vendors using Android.
The pager and cell phone I used to own that I have had good memories with and yes because of my deafness:
1) Motorola t-900 via skytel
2) RIM 850 via Deafwireless and Wyndtel
3) Danger Hiptop Color via T-Mobile aka Sidekick Color 11/2 gen.
4) Danger Hiptop 2 via T-Mobile aka Sidekick 2
5) Danger Hiptop 3 via T-Mobile aka Sidekick 3
6) Blackberry 8820 via T-Mobile
7) Blackberry 8320 via T-Mobile and this is my last phone with T-Mobile to join AT&T for iPhone 3G and that Blackberry 8320 was one of my favorite Blackberry and love em.
8) Apple iPhone 3G
9) Apple iPhone 4 (I skip 3GS because I hate plastic back and love the way how 4 feel)
10) Apple iPhone 4S which is what I'm using right now!
11) Looking forward the 6th generation IPhone!!!
I shouldn't be surprised when you write this sort of crap but I am shocked every single time you do.
The Linux/GNU/GPL people want to see the patent system destroyed. But it's not a simple matter of "All Patents are Evil" but rather "two people can come up with exactly the same thing independently because hardware moves at the same pace for everyone." So it's mostly software patents that shouldn't be patent-able, because the useful life of software is far less than 20 years, and in a sense the patents kept a market leader ahead in perpetuity.
20 years ago the NES and SNES were sold, and would no longer be covered by patents (the + shaped controller D-pad for example.) The SOFTWARE however still would. People are still playing NES and SNES games, how about that. There is a tiny market for this, but there are copies of the NES and SNES out there, most come with pirated software baked in.
The areas that really should not be patented are software algorithms, because people routinely come up with identical solutions for algorithms independently, even if the code superficially is different. Software doesn't need to be protected by both Patents and Copyright.
After reading Foremans story its encouraging to see that Innovation is still alive and well. After all we must support those that create and innovate. There will always be the followers and stealers around but they must pay. If they don't than everyone else will because companies will stop innovating.
Quote:
Apple weren't patenting inventions. They were patenting generic design features. The whole patent system needs overhauling.
I'm feeling mixed emotions about this... While most of us NOW take different design features for granted --- multitouch swiping, pinch-to-zoom, the scroll-past-the-end "bounce", etc ---- the fact is that they were quite amazing and innovative when the iPhone came out. NO other Samsung (or other) smartphone on the market was anything like the iPhone. And a few years later, Android through out their original blackberry like design and implemented something very close to the iPhone. Samsung was certainly the most egregious in modifying Android to come even closer to iOS and the iPhone 3G/3GS when it came out. So while they may be "generic design features" now, how would you feel if you invented them and everyone else copied. Would you feel that they are "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable? The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface. Not too mention I'm sure FingerWorks (the mutli-touch company that Apple bought) had a lot of existing patents on this stuff that Apple inherited when they acquired them...
That was the only contention I had with a 2012 jury. At was so revolutionary with their design that there is so much now that people do take for granted. I wondered if they would realize that just a few years ago this was all original and unique.
Dan Frakes says in a tweet what I've been saying for years:
Well CNN has this story and the reply's to the CNN version is that Apple should have lost.
Jury failed to see common practice of competitor benchmark and mislabled that as out right "copying". There is a difference between these two. Also, Samsung's supposed "smoking gun" email specifically labels that the designs and themes should not be too similar to that of Apple's.
The jury's deliberations were way too short and filled with holes. Relevant evidence was rejected solely based on technicalities. This is an appeal waiting to happen and one that would override the current "victory" by the Apple camp. Apple is going to ultimately lose this one.
You all can go about and trash talking your ways against me and my kind (I know I'm in the minority and inside the chimpmunks cave) but here me out. Roughing a few feathers does the body good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
It's dangerous territory to say that no one can ever create a similar product. That is utter nonsense....and Tylenol would be $3 a pill if that were so, Once a defacto standard has beed defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace, to simply outlaw any competitive process is rediculous. Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure. Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it. To say that others are successfully building new phones is a self deceiving lie. THey are simply the next targets of Apple. I love my IPhone and I pad and am considering a mac air, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
No, you are confused by what the lawsuit is about. Don't twist it into something it's not.
The problem with your argument is this "de facto standard" idea which is bullshit. Here, you are using "defacto standard" [sic] as an excuse to deprive Apple of its patent rights. What noble ends justify those means? "Competition"? Or is it copying?
Let's explore why "de facto standards" is bullshit cooked up by Google and faithfully regurgitated by their anti-Apple forum trolls. You claim "a defacto [sic] standard has been defined by penetration / dominance of the marketplace". Is Microsoft Windows a de facto standard? By your definition, it is. Microsoft's competitors should be able to copy it without paying royalties to Microsoft. And if Microsoft sues them, then TOO BAD because its "rediculous" [sic] to outlaw any "competitive process." And copying is a "competitive process" in your worldview.
Let's take another example. Is Google search a de facto standard? Yes, most people who say they enjoy a dominant position in web search. So why can't Microsoft just copy Google search results and serve them up in Bing? Or steal Google Page Rank's code and put it in Bing? I mean, you're saying it's ridiculous to outlaw any competitive process, and we can all agree Google needs competition, right? So the ends justifies the means, right? Google doesn't deserve any protection for their IP, right? No? Don't you believe that once something becomes dominant, it automatically loses patent and trade dress protection? Of course you don't believe that! You are not a purveyor of the double standard like so many devout and eager Google lickers.
You are smart enough to realize that patent laws are not anti-competitive. They protect inventor's rights and gives them recourse if someone else tries to unfairly profit from the invention. So tell me again, what noble ends justifies the means by which we can seize Apple's patents and take away their rights? And tell me again how we can deprive Apple of their IP rights, but not Google or Microsoft or anyone else with intellectual property? Isn't that your real objective? To justify taking from Apple and giving to Samsung?
And why is it a "self deceiving lie" to say "others are successfully building new phones"? Please elaborate on that.
These jurors are much more sensible than most android fans
" "There are other ways to design a phone. What was happening was that the appearance [of Samsung's phone] was their downfall. You copied the appearance?. Nokia is still selling phones. BlackBerry is selling phones. Those phones aren't infringing. There are alternatives out there.""
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
The Linux/GNU/GPL people want to see the patent system destroyed. But it's not a simple matter of "All Patents are Evil" but rather "two people can come up with exactly the same thing independently because hardware moves at the same pace for everyone." So it's mostly software patents that shouldn't be patent-able, because the useful life of software is far less than 20 years, and in a sense the patents kept a market leader ahead in perpetuity.
I'm aware of these issues in software patents, and the worldview held by FSF and their chief ideologue, Richard Stallman. It's still problematic to simply declare all patents "evil" and to do away with them entirely, just to prevent cases of simultaneous invention. Regardless, that's not what Samsung's attorneys argued took place. Samsung attorneys argued the "Apple doesn't own the rectangle" or "Apple doesn't own the color green" or "Apple is paying Susan Kare $80K to testify" angle. They didn't make the patent system the issue, but rather, they attacked Apple.
I don't buy the "market leader ahead in perpetuity" argument. That's theoretical hand-waving from the FSF crowd. Point to a case where this has happened in reality: where a software patent kept a company a market leader for at least the useful life of the software or 20 years, whichever came first.
I have read the news from the first day and I knew Samsung will be guilty. Competition is good but they should make it sure that they should come up will originality. People who like the best yet company should never be so fail to create some uniqueness in their product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market with similar features...offered at comparable rates. It wasn't because Steve thought I needed a price break.
So we got affordable iPhones because a thief was carpet-bombing the market with a stollen product? I fully agree with you on this.
But then you have to look honestly at the consequences of this point: The actual loss for Apple actually includes (1) the whole part of Samsung's smartphone revenues from touch-based devices --which are stolen products--, plus (2) the difference between what Apple charged and what they could have charged on their own products -- the "price break" you mention.
Overall, this is probably in the order of magnitude of 100 B$, not of 1 B$. So Samsung clearly got away with it with a 1 B$ damage bill...
Besides, when was the last time you got a Ferrari at the price of a Kia Forte because you deserved a price break?
I, too, found Judge Koh's insistence on a settlement frustrating because sometimes you just need to disregard the politics of your position (in Judge Koh's case) and allow justice to prevail. I applaude the jury for getting it right--though I feel they let Samsung off too lightly--this verdict is still, as Mr. Cook has stated, a victory for values; that you cannot steal someone else's property and not be held accountable for your actions. I find Samsung's total disregard for the law, the legal process, and others' IP absurd, arrogant, and willful... and I am very happy that the jury has found likewise.
As my small token of disapproval of this company, I will never buy another Samsung product, but I am glad that they will now be forced to, perhaps, be a little innovative.
There mere fact that there are other ways to do something doesn't mean you give a company a monopoly on rounded rectangles...especially when it is shown that rounded rectangles were worked on by other companies prior.
However, I believe Samsung copied Apple...the phone could've looked vastly different and still been a rounded rectangle...
I am glad (a bit) the tablet design patent wasn't upheld...and I'm glad the trade dress claims were.
Samsung has cheapened Android as a whole making it a me too product solely. If I were Google I'd distance myself from them or demand they either use stock or make REAL changes to their custom UIs.
They are a disgrace period.
The theft was so obvious. Sansung: innovate or pay. Full stop!
And... have fun...
Conan O’Brien Breaks Down The Apple/Samsung Trial [VIDEO]
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/08/conan-obrien-breaks-down-the-applesamsung-trial-video
Quote:
Apple took a big gamble and innovated far beyond what any company in the entire world was willing to do.
Sorry for nitpicking, but far beyond what any company in the world? In the space of usability of handheld computing and telephony: yes. Otherwise I'd venture a guess that there are plenty of companies out there innovating like mad and taking huge gambles in their respective fields.
Even if we restrict ourselves to just look at the wireless tech that we are using today: Connectivity has gone up from a measly tens of kilobits/second to over a hundred megabits per second with latencies and connection qualities going up and power consumption going down. Connection prices have come down significantly as well (not only attributable to user number increases). These haven't come for free either. Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, etc. have done quite a lot of innovation on chipsets, radio interfaces, codecs, algorithms etc. to make this possible. Apple could not have made their smartphone the success it is without these. After all how much of the usability and usefulness of the device comes from for example fluid network access? Or from a small form factor (low power miniturized radio chipsets)? Would Apple be as successful if it only produced the iPod touch (no cellular radio components)?
Let's not disrespect the hard work other companies and individuals are doing (including Samsung) to make the remaining parts of all these magical devices possible. The iPhone for example does use some innovative components from Samsung.
I agree with you fully that competition is good and forcing companies to innovate brings us these wonderful devices we have and should accelerate the advances that make this industry so interesting to follow. In this respect, this verdict is good for the industry. However I have a feeling that there be dangers in this verdict too. Time will tell. Makes life even more interesting....
Two years ago, it was usual to read in the news that all the smartPhone become a copy of the iPhone. Now that Apple has a deep, very deep pocket you heard the word monopoly ( by the same people WHO paint in the sky that the android is winning ) which IS a lie.
What bothers me is the hypocrisy in the news media, WHY this cowardice in repeating WHAT all of them were saying back then?
- Samsung and all others did copy Apple and should pay!
- Those companies have a HUGE pocket also, paying will not bankrupt them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun
I, too, found Judge Koh's insistence on a settlement frustrating because sometimes you just need to disregard the politics of your position (in Judge Koh's case) and allow justice to prevail. I applaude the jury for getting it right--though I feel they let Samsung off too lightly--this verdict is still, as Mr. Cook has stated, a victory for values; that you cannot steal someone else's property and not be held accountable for your actions. I find Samsung's total disregard for the law, the legal process, and others' IP absurd, arrogant, and willful... and I am very happy that the jury has found likewise.
As my small token of disapproval of this company, I will never buy another Samsung product, but I am glad that they will now be forced to, perhaps, be a little innovative.
Judge koh knew exactly what she was doing.
Maybe she was closing loopholes in the event of an appeal, the fact that at various times during the case she was seen as biased by supporters on both sides of the argument shows that in the end she did an admirable job of walking the tightrope of impartiality.
Samsung will have very little to base an appeal on.