I read that the judge is likely to issue a directed verdict on that specific patent because the jury was confused. If that happens, Samsung will be found to be in violation on the tablet too.
If so, the amount of damages could be raised, also.
A directed verdict is a highly unusual move from a judge except in the most extreme circumstances. While it's always possible, I wouldn't bet on it happening merely because there's evidence that the jury was confused about Apple's legal rights for an unregistered versus a registered product. In light of the fact that Apple pretty much won everything else (and the Galaxy Tab's sales have been dismal), it would be hard to see Judge Koh making that change.
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
The issues become simply licensing issues. No big deal. Cross licensing is common among all sorts of devices and companies. And such licensing affects ultimate pricing very little, since each both receives and pays licensing fees, the net cost nears zero.
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.
I am in no way a fan of software or business process patents, but what I do hope happens out of this is that we get a more innovative and competitive marketplace in the phone industry. The possible reality though is that we end up with another dark ages like 2000-2005 where Blackberry was the only game in town and each new generation added a single feature to make itself compelling. If Apple's main goal is a do-not-clone clause in their agreements then this should go the right direction.
One thing is sure though-- the big winners here are Microsoft and RIM. Not sure if there really is a big loser yet though; the damages would need to be $2B for Samsung to be sufficiently hit.
Too bad for Google, Apple has been using drop downs since 1984 and had variations working on iPhones prior to Android even being released.
Then there's the small issue of Android being "open", Apple has just as much right to use parts of it as Google has to use WebKit and other Apple open source software.
Android being "open" does not mean in the public domain. IP restrictions still apply and are subject to whatever licensing and payments the owner may require.
This same logic applies to any such "open" products, such as WebKit, GNU software etc. None of these products are in the public domain, and use of each are subject to contractual obligations.
i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.
You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.
What is interesting is to consider the Long-term future of various mobile operating system.
Willl Android usage decrease?
I think Android will stop being the go-to device. But, between Apps and skinning, it has a useful place.
Will WinMo (whatever) usage increase?
I think it suddenly became viable. Before, it was likely DOA, but now it has a real shot at 15% market share.
Will RIMM license QNX?
If there was ever a chance to split software and handset divisions, now is it. Really comes down to how long before QNX is viable.
Will Symbian be revived?
Nokia's deal with Microsoft likely precludes that happening.
How about WebOS?
It would need to be spun off. It can't survive with HP's noose around its neck. Even then, it is hard to imagine how they will get inertia going. When did they last release a successful product?
Android being "open" does not mean in the public domain. IP restrictions still apply and are subject to whatever licensing and payments the owner may require.
This same logic applies to any such "open" products, such as WebKit, GNU software etc. None of these products are in the public domain, and use of each are subject to contractual obligations.
Is Android GPL3? If so, I understood patents to need to commute. MSPL might actually be a good direction for Google to go though, because it has it's own "thermonuclear" patent clause.
But, I do agree that open source is not public domain and Apple could not just incorporate features at will.
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing
i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.
ITC Plans to investigate those claims in 2014 ( no kidding).
The other thing to consider is that it is not a lawsuit, and the ITC just said no to all of Motorolla's last set of complaints. The original complaints were their strongest by far.
You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.
Apple is happy to cross-license. Apple does not generally license anything for a fee. The only exception I know of are the pools they are in.
You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.
do your homework before you spout off. apple offered some patents for licensing but never any covering 'design' of which at least 4 of the 7 in dispute are design related. apple will not license what they think is a 'look alike'. they aren't MS.
Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing
Have you ever heard of a patent troll? Ie. somebody who doesn't make any money off of their any products of their own, but who nevertheless has a proven track record of successfully forcing others to pay them license fees to implement patented technologies?
ITC Plans to investigate those claims in 2014 ( no kidding).
The other thing to consider is that it is not a lawsuit, and the ITC just said no to all of Motorolla's last set of complaints. The original complaints were their strongest by far.
the recent are not 'standard-essential'. we will see what happens. and don't expect the recent jury to hold up. that 1+ billion to apple ain't gonna happen this time.it will be reduced (at the least)
This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
Here are a few specifics:
They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble.
And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time.
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
The Judge's Role
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision.
This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
Here are a few specifics:
They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble.
And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time.
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
The Judge's Role
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision.
Have you ever heard of a patent troll? Ie. somebody who doesn't make any money off of their any products of their own, but who nevertheless has a proven track record of successfully forcing others to pay them license fees to implement patented technologies?
The same principle could apply here.
So you're saying that Apple is a patent troll? That's pretty bizarre.
In any event, the entire concept of a 'patent troll' is flawed. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patent. Patents are enforceable (and should be) even if you don't many any products of your own.
Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing
Partially correct.
Even open source software has a license agreement. If Apple doesn't follow the license agreement, then Google can sue. In addition, if Google creates something new that's part of Android but does not license it under the open source license, they can sue Apple.
Of course, we're a long way from Google proving that their patent is valid (i.e, that there's no relevant prior art) or that Apple infringes, anyway.
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
An interesting point is the fact that Apple holds several patents dating back to 1995 and Newton that describe how these functions are handled in the background. Google's problem if you read though their application is they just copied the procedures from Apple's patents for their system then just added the notification center section. If you stripe away the rest of the infringing parts the Center would cease to function.
This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
Here are a few specifics:
They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble.
And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time.
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
The Judge's Role
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision.
Groklaw is always the best place to go for the legal side of tech news.
Utter piffle.
Why?
...quoting Wikipedia or Groklaw is like playing wackamole...the crap justs keeps popping up all over the place. @Inkling
You must have just visited Ars, where there is a thread devoted to the delusional ratings of the clueless intent on impugning the jury with totally unsubstantiated allegations that are baseless, uninformed and well...impossible to consider since not even the judge is party to the jury's deliberations. Except of course if you believe that Apple bought the judge and jury, ownd the legal system and flat out lied about everything.
I repeat, utter blowhard piffle.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I read that the judge is likely to issue a directed verdict on that specific patent because the jury was confused. If that happens, Samsung will be found to be in violation on the tablet too.
If so, the amount of damages could be raised, also.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/
A directed verdict is a highly unusual move from a judge except in the most extreme circumstances. While it's always possible, I wouldn't bet on it happening merely because there's evidence that the jury was confused about Apple's legal rights for an unregistered versus a registered product. In light of the fact that Apple pretty much won everything else (and the Galaxy Tab's sales have been dismal), it would be hard to see Judge Koh making that change.
The issues become simply licensing issues. No big deal. Cross licensing is common among all sorts of devices and companies. And such licensing affects ultimate pricing very little, since each both receives and pays licensing fees, the net cost nears zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
i don't think so. google (motorola) just filed new lawsuit and is asking to stop import of apple devices. i think they are just going to do what apple is doing and try to stop them completely at first. apple isn't like MS. ms is more than happy to take a fee and allow use, apple doesn't want you using what they believe is theirs. i also wonder what effect the news that jurors put aside 'prior art' will have on appeal to the recent big money verdict.
One thing is sure though-- the big winners here are Microsoft and RIM. Not sure if there really is a big loser yet though; the damages would need to be $2B for Samsung to be sufficiently hit.
Android being "open" does not mean in the public domain. IP restrictions still apply and are subject to whatever licensing and payments the owner may require.
This same logic applies to any such "open" products, such as WebKit, GNU software etc. None of these products are in the public domain, and use of each are subject to contractual obligations.
You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.
I think it suddenly became viable. Before, it was likely DOA, but now it has a real shot at 15% market share.
If there was ever a chance to split software and handset divisions, now is it. Really comes down to how long before QNX is viable.
Nokia's deal with Microsoft likely precludes that happening.
It would need to be spun off. It can't survive with HP's noose around its neck. Even then, it is hard to imagine how they will get inertia going. When did they last release a successful product?
Is Android GPL3? If so, I understood patents to need to commute. MSPL might actually be a good direction for Google to go though, because it has it's own "thermonuclear" patent clause.
But, I do agree that open source is not public domain and Apple could not just incorporate features at will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
You're absolutely right... Google has filed for a patent in 2009 for the notification center and it's dropdown. Once this patent is granted we'll have to see what Google will do with it, but I think chances are they'll ask Apple for licensing fees, and if Apple refused this will lead to new lawsuits...
These software patents really need to stop, but I doubt they will.
Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing
ITC Plans to investigate those claims in 2014 ( no kidding).
The other thing to consider is that it is not a lawsuit, and the ITC just said no to all of Motorolla's last set of complaints. The original complaints were their strongest by far.
Apple is happy to cross-license. Apple does not generally license anything for a fee. The only exception I know of are the pools they are in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
You are flatly wrong that Apple doesn't want you to use what is theirs. Apple licensed patented technology to MS. Evidence in the Samsung case showed Samsung refused to license IP from Apple when it was offered in 2010.
Please, do your homework before propagating ignorance.
do your homework before you spout off. apple offered some patents for licensing but never any covering 'design' of which at least 4 of the 7 in dispute are design related. apple will not license what they think is a 'look alike'. they aren't MS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karimseed
Google Cant sue Apple because Android is open source. Google is not losing money on The notifications bar that apple has. As long as Android is free they can do nothing
Have you ever heard of a patent troll? Ie. somebody who doesn't make any money off of their any products of their own, but who nevertheless has a proven track record of successfully forcing others to pay them license fees to implement patented technologies?
The same principle could apply here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
ITC Plans to investigate those claims in 2014 ( no kidding).
The other thing to consider is that it is not a lawsuit, and the ITC just said no to all of Motorolla's last set of complaints. The original complaints were their strongest by far.
the recent are not 'standard-essential'. we will see what happens. and don't expect the recent jury to hold up. that 1+ billion to apple ain't gonna happen this time.it will be reduced (at the least)
This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
Here are a few specifics:
They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble.
And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time.
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
The Judge's Role
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision.
For more details on the jury's problems, go to http://www.groklaw.net
Groklaw is always the best place to go for the legal side of tech news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
This is Phase 1 in the fallout of this decision by the world's sloppiest jury.
Here are a few specifics:
They seemed to have ignored the judge's instructions, because reading and understanding that would take too long, perhaps two or three days.
They decided to not take into account prior art, per their own comments, because that was confusing and too much trouble.
And they even tried to fine Samsung for items they're ruled not in violation--I suspect because they didn't even take the time to read their decision over a second time.
This was the jury from Lazytown. It's likely to result in a lot of messy, expensive complications.
Samsung's Win with the Galaxy Tab
And while most of their blunders tilted heavily toward Apple, having decided to vote in favor of Apple on the first day, again per their own comments, in their sloppiness, they found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 non-infringing, despite the fact that a court and an appeals court had ruled it infringing. That then frees Samsung to sue for damages, as here, and go on to create a host of tablets that aren't infringing because they look like this Galaxy. That virtually destroys Apple's primary reason for this lawsuit.
The Know-it-all Foreman and a Mistrial
Based on remarks by jurors, all these jury blunders seemed to flow from a juror who became their 'expert' and foreman because he had a patent (just one) of his own. That fits with my 'blowhard' theory for this too-quick decision and what's leaking out afterward: the unfortunate jury was dominated by one or two know-it-alls who forced the rest to do what they wanted. There was little deliberation and a host of blunders.
What I'm now wondering is if or why either side permitted that patentee to be on the jury. People who've had some personal experience related to the issues at trial are usually excluded, so that experience cannot shape their decision. Did both Samsung (in general) and Apple (over the Galaxy) blunder badly, or did this juror/foreman withhold that information from the court?
If the latter is true, this drawn-out and expensive trial could quickly become a mistrial.
The Judge's Role
I will say one thing in favor of some of these jurors. By wondering why they weren't being shown examples of prior art in defense of Samsung, they were seeing through the wall Judge Koh erected against Samsung presenting that evidence to the jury. Her efforts to exclude that evidence on technicalities only confused the jury and perhaps contributed to their sloppiness. I can easily imaging a few of them thinking, "Well, if the court isn't allowing us to consider all the evidence in this case, why should we bother to take the time to examine the evidence that was presented. Why not just decide quickly and be done with it?" Judge Koh's unprofessional haste to try and be done with it, became their haste to reach a decision.
For more details on the jury's problems, go to http://www.groklaw.net
Groklaw is always the best place to go for the legal side of tech news.
What qualifies you, personally, to state your opinion as fact on any of these matters.
Are you trained in patent litigation?
Did you attend the trial?
Were you present during the jury deliberations?
I could go on... but, it would just cause you further embarrassment!
You should read this and consider all points of view... even your preferred groklaw participants disagree on some of the points:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
know-it-all rambling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
What qualifies you, personally, to state your opinion as fact on any of these matters.
Are you trained in patent litigation?
Did you attend the trial?
Were you present during the jury deliberations?
I could go on... but, it would just cause you further embarrassment!
You should read this and consider all points of view... even your preferred groklaw participants disagree on some of the points:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/26/apple-v-samsung-did-the-jury-blow-the-galaxy-tab-verdict/
These armchair-attorneys are just coming out of the woodwork. They're legends in their own minds.
So you're saying that Apple is a patent troll? That's pretty bizarre.
In any event, the entire concept of a 'patent troll' is flawed. A patent owner is free to do whatever they want with their patent. Patents are enforceable (and should be) even if you don't many any products of your own.
Partially correct.
Even open source software has a license agreement. If Apple doesn't follow the license agreement, then Google can sue. In addition, if Google creates something new that's part of Android but does not license it under the open source license, they can sue Apple.
Of course, we're a long way from Google proving that their patent is valid (i.e, that there's no relevant prior art) or that Apple infringes, anyway.
An interesting point is the fact that Apple holds several patents dating back to 1995 and Newton that describe how these functions are handled in the background. Google's problem if you read though their application is they just copied the procedures from Apple's patents for their system then just added the notification center section. If you stripe away the rest of the infringing parts the Center would cease to function.
Utter piffle.
Why?
...quoting Wikipedia or Groklaw is like playing wackamole...the crap justs keeps popping up all over the place.
@Inkling
You must have just visited Ars, where there is a thread devoted to the delusional ratings of the clueless intent on impugning the jury with totally unsubstantiated allegations that are baseless, uninformed and well...impossible to consider since not even the judge is party to the jury's deliberations. Except of course if you believe that Apple bought the judge and jury, ownd the legal system and flat out lied about everything.
I repeat, utter blowhard piffle.