Apple and Samsung rest cases patent damages trial, jury to decide on Monday

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    HyperealityHypereality Posts: 31unconfirmed, member
    jkichline said:
    What Samsung fails to realize is that the entire phone has to be designed and completely rethought in order to fit into the design. The whole notion of a single display without a physical keyboard was a radical concept at the time. Samsung would like you to think design is how something looks. No, design embodies the entire piece as a whole.
    The lack of a physical keyboard was so radical that almost every 'expert' I met at the time told me that the iPhone would fail because of it. 

    The summer after the announcement of the phone by pure chance I found myself seated next to the head of Microsoft's mobile devices division at dinner.  His main argument for the impending failure of the iPhone was its lack of a physical keyboard. 

    After the announcement of the iPad, similarly I was informed repeatedly by Apple's competitors that it would fail because of its inability to become part of a Macbook, in a similar mode to the later Surface approach which remains a niche market. 

    To me this is a great test for innovation, if its clear that competitors rubbished a key design feature, then they can't claim afterwards that the design was not innovative.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    nunzynunzy Posts: 663member
    jkichline said:
    What Samsung fails to realize is that the entire phone has to be designed and completely rethought in order to fit into the design. The whole notion of a single display without a physical keyboard was a radical concept at the time. Samsung would like you to think design is how something looks. No, design embodies the entire piece as a whole.
    The lack of a physical keyboard was so radical that almost every 'expert' I met at the time told me that the iPhone would fail because of it. 

    The summer after the announcement of the phone by pure chance I found myself seated next to the head of Microsoft's mobile devices division at dinner.  His main argument for the impending failure of the iPhone was its lack of a physical keyboard. 

    After the announcement of the iPad, similarly I was informed repeatedly by Apple's competitors that it would fail because of its inability to become part of a Macbook, in a similar mode to the later Surface approach which remains a niche market. 

    To me this is a great test for innovation, if its clear that competitors rubbished a key design feature, then they can't claim afterwards that the design was not innovative.

    jkichline said:
    What Samsung fails to realize is that the entire phone has to be designed and completely rethought in order to fit into the design. The whole notion of a single display without a physical keyboard was a radical concept at the time. Samsung would like you to think design is how something looks. No, design embodies the entire piece as a whole.
    The lack of a physical keyboard was so radical that almost every 'expert' I met at the time told me that the iPhone would fail because of it. 

    The summer after the announcement of the phone by pure chance I found myself seated next to the head of Microsoft's mobile devices division at dinner.  His main argument for the impending failure of the iPhone was its lack of a physical keyboard. 

    After the announcement of the iPad, similarly I was informed repeatedly by Apple's competitors that it would fail because of its inability to become part of a Macbook, in a similar mode to the later Surface approach which remains a niche market. 

    To me this is a great test for innovation, if its clear that competitors rubbished a key design feature, then they can't claim afterwards that the design was not innovative.
    Did Samsung rubbish the lack of a physical keyboard?
  • Reply 23 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,041member
    nunzy said:
    jkichline said:
    What Samsung fails to realize is that the entire phone has to be designed and completely rethought in order to fit into the design. The whole notion of a single display without a physical keyboard was a radical concept at the time. Samsung would like you to think design is how something looks. No, design embodies the entire piece as a whole.
    The lack of a physical keyboard was so radical that almost every 'expert' I met at the time told me that the iPhone would fail because of it. 

    The summer after the announcement of the phone by pure chance I found myself seated next to the head of Microsoft's mobile devices division at dinner.  His main argument for the impending failure of the iPhone was its lack of a physical keyboard. 

    After the announcement of the iPad, similarly I was informed repeatedly by Apple's competitors that it would fail because of its inability to become part of a Macbook, in a similar mode to the later Surface approach which remains a niche market. 

    To me this is a great test for innovation, if its clear that competitors rubbished a key design feature, then they can't claim afterwards that the design was not innovative.

    jkichline said:
    What Samsung fails to realize is that the entire phone has to be designed and completely rethought in order to fit into the design. The whole notion of a single display without a physical keyboard was a radical concept at the time. Samsung would like you to think design is how something looks. No, design embodies the entire piece as a whole.
    The lack of a physical keyboard was so radical that almost every 'expert' I met at the time told me that the iPhone would fail because of it. 

    The summer after the announcement of the phone by pure chance I found myself seated next to the head of Microsoft's mobile devices division at dinner.  His main argument for the impending failure of the iPhone was its lack of a physical keyboard. 

    After the announcement of the iPad, similarly I was informed repeatedly by Apple's competitors that it would fail because of its inability to become part of a Macbook, in a similar mode to the later Surface approach which remains a niche market. 

    To me this is a great test for innovation, if its clear that competitors rubbished a key design feature, then they can't claim afterwards that the design was not innovative.
    Did Samsung rubbish the lack of a physical keyboard? 
    It was Verizon behind much of it since the iPhone was an ATT exclusive.
    nunzy
  • Reply 24 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,041member
    Here's a clip from an article at another Apple-centric blog, maybe worth thoughtful discussion:

    "Apple’s core argument is that its patents should be given the broadest possible interpretation, and that they covered the entire look of the iPhone – and any other phone with a similar look to an iPhone was infringing its patent. This is the infamous ‘rectangle with rounded corners’ argument.

    Now, Apple is right about a lot of things in this case. It’s absolutely right to point out that all previous smartphones had physical keyboards. Apple’s decision to entirely abandon a hardware keyboard and design a phone that was, for the time, all screen was a hugely innovative one. Apple is also right that the entire smartphone industry later followed its lead – Samsung included.

    But let’s be honest here. Apple copied the idea of a smartphone. It also copied the idea of an mp3 player. It copied the idea of a mouse, of a graphical interface for a computer, of a clamshell laptop, of a tablet, of wireless headphones, of smart speakers, of a streaming music service, of a near-bezel-free smartphone …

    Almost nothing Apple has created has been an original idea at a conceptual level. Apple’s strength has always been watching someone else invent something, watching other companies have a go at it, and quietly working at refining that idea into a really beautiful and easy to use version.

    So I think it’s hypocritical to argue that Apple should be able to protect as concept as broad as a keyboardless phone. Just as it was right that Apple got to have a go at creating its own near-bezel-free smartphone after Samsung did it first, it was right that Samsung got to have a go at creating a keyboardless smartphone."



  • Reply 25 of 30
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 653member
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a clip from an article at another Apple-centric blog, maybe worth thoughtful discussion:

    "Apple’s core argument is that its patents should be given the broadest possible interpretation, and that they covered the entire look of the iPhone – and any other phone with a similar look to an iPhone was infringing its patent. This is the infamous ‘rectangle with rounded corners’ argument.

    Now, Apple is right about a lot of things in this case. It’s absolutely right to point out that all previous smartphones had physical keyboards. Apple’s decision to entirely abandon a hardware keyboard and design a phone that was, for the time, all screen was a hugely innovative one. Apple is also right that the entire smartphone industry later followed its lead – Samsung included.

    But let’s be honest here. Apple copied the idea of a smartphone. It also copied the idea of an mp3 player. It copied the idea of a mouse, of a graphical interface for a computer, of a clamshell laptop, of a tablet, of wireless headphones, of smart speakers, of a streaming music service, of a near-bezel-free smartphone …

    Almost nothing Apple has created has been an original idea at a conceptual level. Apple’s strength has always been watching someone else invent something, watching other companies have a go at it, and quietly working at refining that idea into a really beautiful and easy to use version.

    So I think it’s hypocritical to argue that Apple should be able to protect as concept as broad as a keyboardless phone. Just as it was right that Apple got to have a go at creating its own near-bezel-free smartphone after Samsung did it first, it was right that Samsung got to have a go at creating a keyboardless smartphone."



    I think the point is that Apple has figured out a much better way to do a lot of these things, like smartphones, tablets, etc. That is the critical aspect of their innovation, and just because they make it look easy (mostly because their products are easy to use) doesn’t mean that it is easy. 

    The idea of a “jet pack” has been around forever, but nobody has ever made one that was practical for the mass market. If Apple were to come out with a relatively inexpensive, compact and very easy-to-use jet pack tomorrow, it would probably be a huge hit, but there would be plenty of people saying Apple wasn’t innovative, because we’ve been seeing jet packs in movies for ages. Then if Samsung came out with a nearly identical model a year later, it would be clear that they copied Apple, but some would say that it was inevitable, etc. But if it were actually easy and inevitable, it would have been done decades ago. 

    The fact that various companies were making things like crappy tablets for years before Apple showed them how to do it well should just make it more clear that Apple’s elegant designs are deceptively tricky to conceptualize and implement. 


    radarthekatStrangeDays
  • Reply 26 of 30
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a clip from an article at another Apple-centric blog, maybe worth thoughtful discussion:

    "Apple’s core argument is that its patents should be given the broadest possible interpretation, and that they covered the entire look of the iPhone – and any other phone with a similar look to an iPhone was infringing its patent. This is the infamous ‘rectangle with rounded corners’ argument.

    Now, Apple is right about a lot of things in this case. It’s absolutely right to point out that all previous smartphones had physical keyboards. Apple’s decision to entirely abandon a hardware keyboard and design a phone that was, for the time, all screen was a hugely innovative one. Apple is also right that the entire smartphone industry later followed its lead – Samsung included.

    But let’s be honest here. Apple copied the idea of a smartphone. It also copied the idea of an mp3 player. It copied the idea of a mouse, of a graphical interface for a computer, of a clamshell laptop, of a tablet, of wireless headphones, of smart speakers, of a streaming music service, of a near-bezel-free smartphone …

    Almost nothing Apple has created has been an original idea at a conceptual level. Apple’s strength has always been watching someone else invent something, watching other companies have a go at it, and quietly working at refining that idea into a really beautiful and easy to use version.

    So I think it’s hypocritical to argue that Apple should be able to protect as concept as broad as a keyboardless phone. Just as it was right that Apple got to have a go at creating its own near-bezel-free smartphone after Samsung did it first, it was right that Samsung got to have a go at creating a keyboardless smartphone."



    That's from 9to5Mac and it's a mess of faulty logic and contradictions. That 3rd paragraph alone is a disaster and makes no real sense relative to how patents actually work. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 27 of 30
    chasmchasm Posts: 770member
    Apple traditionally does better with jury trials than bench trials, so I'm cautiously hopeful Apple will get more than ~$300M in this case. What I'd really like to see is that Samsung gets none of the money it has already paid Apple (nearly $600M) back, and the icing on that cake would be if they have to pay still more.

    All that said, Samsung essentially still got away with it -- but a stiff penalty here plus the (at least) hundreds of millions in legal fees they've racked up over the past seven years, plus Apple slow withdrawal of Samsung parts in every area they can -- may just have convinced the company that the copying ultimately wasn't worth it.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 28 of 30
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,760member
    And who doesn’t enjoy a good old lawsuit now and then, amirite?
  • Reply 29 of 30
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,371member
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a clip from an article at another Apple-centric blog, maybe worth thoughtful discussion:

    "Apple’s core argument is that its patents should be given the broadest possible interpretation, and that they covered the entire look of the iPhone – and any other phone with a similar look to an iPhone was infringing its patent. This is the infamous ‘rectangle with rounded corners’ argument.

    Now, Apple is right about a lot of things in this case. It’s absolutely right to point out that all previous smartphones had physical keyboards. Apple’s decision to entirely abandon a hardware keyboard and design a phone that was, for the time, all screen was a hugely innovative one. Apple is also right that the entire smartphone industry later followed its lead – Samsung included.

    But let’s be honest here. Apple copied the idea of a smartphone. It also copied the idea of an mp3 player. It copied the idea of a mouse, of a graphical interface for a computer, of a clamshell laptop, of a tablet, of wireless headphones, of smart speakers, of a streaming music service, of a near-bezel-free smartphone …

    Almost nothing Apple has created has been an original idea at a conceptual level. Apple’s strength has always been watching someone else invent something, watching other companies have a go at it, and quietly working at refining that idea into a really beautiful and easy to use version.

    So I think it’s hypocritical to argue that Apple should be able to protect as concept as broad as a keyboardless phone. Just as it was right that Apple got to have a go at creating its own near-bezel-free smartphone after Samsung did it first, it was right that Samsung got to have a go at creating a keyboardless smartphone."



    That's from 9to5Mac and it's a mess of faulty logic and contradictions. That 3rd paragraph alone is a disaster and makes no real sense relative to how patents actually work. 
    Indeed. The idea of a smartphone isn’t the question here. It’s the shameless reproduction of Apple’s patents and specific implementations and design. It’s like a Coke bottle — Coke didn’t invent the bottle but they did design their own unique bottle, which is why Pepsi can’t copy it and sell Pepsi in a Coke-shaped bottle. It’s confusing to consumers. 

    The rest of all that is FUD nonsense. Not surprising considering who posted it here, lol. “FUD, FUD, FUD...oh ey, oh...”
    edited May 22
  • Reply 30 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,041member
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a clip from an article at another Apple-centric blog, maybe worth thoughtful discussion:


    StrangeDays said:
    gatorguy said:
    Here's a clip from an article at another Apple-centric blog, maybe worth thoughtful discussion:

    That's from 9to5Mac and it's a mess of faulty logic and contradictions. That 3rd paragraph alone is a disaster and makes no real sense relative to how patents actually work. 
    Indeed. The idea of a smartphone isn’t the question here. It’s the shameless reproduction of Apple’s patents and specific implementations and design. It’s like a Coke bottle — Coke didn’t invent the bottle but they did design their own unique bottle, which is why Pepsi can’t copy it and sell Pepsi in a Coke-shaped bottle. It’s confusing to consumers.  

    The rest of all that is FUD nonsense. Not surprising considering who posted it here, lol. “FUD, FUD, FUD...oh ey, oh...”
    At least part of your post was thoughtful. It's a start.
    edited May 22
Sign In or Register to comment.