Didn't Samsung's lawyers have jury consultants? Most people can be willing to forgive a slight whiff of greed if the company is otherwise has a good reputation. But nobody likes companies were it's beyond doubt that they're being greedy bastards. So why did Samsung bring this up when it should have been obvious to them that Intel's contract is an obvious defense, and that would prove that Samsung is trying to double-dip against Apple? That's like giving any jury that isn't paid Samsung shills a reason to hate them.
Agreed. That blatant bit of dishonesty would have been too much for anybody.
I think the reality is that dishonesty is ingrained in Samsung's culture. We are all hearing about this now because the smartphone space is really heavily covered by the media. In reality, Samsung has been doing this for a long time, except earlier they used to copy more boring products like refrigerators and air conditioners.
the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well
I don't know about very nice, its samsung's best phone, ill give you that, I personally think is another bloated piece of crap, but thats just me, it is selling well but mostly because samsung has established its brand by making themselves as much like apple as possible, and they are preying on the ignorance of the consumer. If Samsung had not got where they are by copying, theyd be greasing the bottom of the barrel along with all the others.
I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
If the rumors are true, we'll hear plenty of proof of that come October…
Though with the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.
you mean the ipad Mini? I don't think that will be a great idea personally, and I think it would be far more inspired by the success of the Kindle than anything Samsung has done.
I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
Twelve Angry Men is a great film, but nothing about it remotely corresponds to reality and our perceived ideal of ``Innocent until proven Guilty,'' when Society traditionally views such heinous crimes as ``Guilty until proven Innocent.''
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,
Rx patents have totally different rules
Once a defacto standard
As much as Google would like there to be defacto standards there are not.
And they are not outlawing competitive processes. They are outlawing companies using processes they did not invent ith out the permission of the inventor.
Even Comcast and Time Warner are required to carry competitors' programming and broadband services under licensure.
Not a patent issue so not applicable
Apple should be told to license its "solely unique" flat screen / bezel etc...if others wish to use it.
No they should not. It's not SEP so to force them to license is to take a dump on the reasons for patents.
, but shudder to think what this phone would have cost in the absence of direct competition.
Given that some folks already say it is over priced because it is way over the competition I'd say the presence of such makes no difference so it would cost the same
I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
After one day of jury deliberation, not one day of the trial.
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.
I too had the Motorola RAZR, before getting the iPhone 3G. It was a great phone, but I could never figure out why anyone would want a "smart" phone. At the time, none of them seemed to be all that "smart".
Once the iPhone was released, the definition of a smart phone began to change. By the time the iPhone 3G was released the definition of a smart phone had changed considerably--based upon the iPhone--and it became obvious to me why I might want something more than just a great phone like the RAZR. Apple had completely redefined the category of smart phones, and it is delightful to see that the jury has rewarded them for their innovations.
The very fact that I got an affordable IPhone is based largely on the competing Samsung and other Droid phones in the market .
No you didn't. If that had been a pricing concern the full price for an iPhone would have been more like $300 for the top model, not the $700 that it is? You likely didn't pay that price because some carrier was willing to put up $450 to get you on a contract, but that is the price
the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well
You are aware that phone was put together after the lawsuits over patents and trade dress started right? Pretty much every part of that phone has been pointed at and commented as how they are safe from Apple b/c X Y and Z are all so different from what the iPhone has been doing. Samsung actually designed something original and did well. Now let's make sure they can repeat the process, b/c the jury has made sure they will have to
Quinn Emanuels reputation flushing down a toilet, I wonder if they regret hitching their wagon to the Android cause, although the money's good.
I don't think they have much chance on appeal, Koh and the jury have got all their ducks in a row, Samsung was given multiple chances to settle.
The "disallowed crucial evidence proving Samsung's innocence" was only disallowed because of their failure to lodge it in a timely manner contrary to the rules of the case, a question I am sure the Appeals court will ask why it should be introduced now.
There seem to be very few points of law they can dispute in the handling of the case.
I think Apple really benefited with this case being tried in Silicon Valley, because as a result the jury consisted of largely tech savvy people, who would not fall for the whole "iPhone is the only way to design a phone" claptrap Samsung was presenting.
The irony is that the Google/Samsung fans on countless tech forums (like this one) posted those arguments for months ahead of the trial, and I was surprised to see Samsung and its lawyers dredging the same troll arguments from the bowels of the Internet to present in court for a handsome legal fee. It was surreal. I thought (somewhere in the back of my mind), that Samsung would show some internal exhibit, some proof or testimony that would convince a jury that it was all just a huge coincidence that Samsung's phones and tablets miraculously look like Apple's after 2007 and 2010. After all, they had these high-priced attorneys. But that never happened! No smoking gun. No dramatic reversal of fortune. Just a bizarre mix of arguing that Samsung didn't copy Apple while at the same time, trying to undermine Apple's patents so it would be OK to infringe on them.
That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.
But even after all that are Samsung going to be better off than say HTC who profited by $350 million for the 2nd calendar quarter? I think everyone else is losing money per quarter as an Android-based vendor. Did Samsung learn anything from their slavish copying that can attribute to original products going forward? Things like fit and finish or industrial design? It's looking to me that their stealing will pay off for them when you consider all variables.
That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.
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.
Some not too bright people must have thought that Steve Jobs was joking when he said "and boy have we patented it.", when presenting the first ever iPhone in 2007.
The jury in this case obviously didn't need to spend any more time, because anybody who is not completely and utterly dishonest could easily see that Samsung was guilty like hell.
And I'm more convinced than ever that quite a few Android users are anti-capitalist commies and thieving cheapskates who have no understanding about patents at all. I've read the comments that many of them have made about this verdict and about patents on other sites. Luckily for Apple, this jury was made up of educated people and even patent holders, as opposed to the dumb people who side with Samsung and claim that Apple shouldn't have been granted certain patents, because they're so obvious. If they were so bloody obvious, then somebody else should have patented them first. A society that praises, values and protects innovation is a better one than an Android/Samsung society with their demented state of mind, where stealing, blatant copying and stagnation is the order of the day.
Fandroids and other serial liars cannot deny that the iPhone changed the whole industry.
Hopefully, Android users will never ever get to see a feature like "bounce back" on their phones in their lifetimes, as they don't deserve it.
Comments
Originally Posted by xRCx
…I dare you to name one design, marketing decision that apple has changed due to Samsungs ill gotten success.
If the rumors are true, we'll hear plenty of proof of that come October…
Though with the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.
Agreed. That blatant bit of dishonesty would have been too much for anybody.
I think the reality is that dishonesty is ingrained in Samsung's culture. We are all hearing about this now because the smartphone space is really heavily covered by the media. In reality, Samsung has been doing this for a long time, except earlier they used to copy more boring products like refrigerators and air conditioners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well
I don't know about very nice, its samsung's best phone, ill give you that, I personally think is another bloated piece of crap, but thats just me, it is selling well but mostly because samsung has established its brand by making themselves as much like apple as possible, and they are preying on the ignorance of the consumer. If Samsung had not got where they are by copying, theyd be greasing the bottom of the barrel along with all the others.
I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If the rumors are true, we'll hear plenty of proof of that come October…
Though with the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.
you mean the ipad Mini? I don't think that will be a great idea personally, and I think it would be far more inspired by the success of the Kindle than anything Samsung has done.
Quote:
Jurors knew Samsung was guilty after first day of deliberations
Yeah they did!
Simply because they are alive they knew it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondafence
Moore's Theorem would point to a dramatically different timeline...similar to chip development.
And that would be a stupid argument to make in patent reform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
I agree that the totality of the evidence is irrefutable - Samsung clearly should have been found guilty. In fact, I felt that way the first time I laid eyes on the Galaxy S.
Having said this, I feel something is wrong when the jurors made up their minds after one day of trial. That's akin to a jury deciding a murder suspect is guilty after seeing gory pictures of blood and guts. I can't help but think that the right verdict emerged from a flawed process.
Twelve Angry Men is a great film, but nothing about it remotely corresponds to reality and our perceived ideal of ``Innocent until proven Guilty,'' when Society traditionally views such heinous crimes as ``Guilty until proven Innocent.''
Rx patents have totally different rules
As much as Google would like there to be defacto standards there are not.
And they are not outlawing competitive processes. They are outlawing companies using processes they did not invent ith out the permission of the inventor.
Not a patent issue so not applicable
No they should not. It's not SEP so to force them to license is to take a dump on the reasons for patents.
Given that some folks already say it is over priced because it is way over the competition I'd say the presence of such makes no difference so it would cost the same
After one day of jury deliberation, not one day of the trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
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.
I too had the Motorola RAZR, before getting the iPhone 3G. It was a great phone, but I could never figure out why anyone would want a "smart" phone. At the time, none of them seemed to be all that "smart".
Once the iPhone was released, the definition of a smart phone began to change. By the time the iPhone 3G was released the definition of a smart phone had changed considerably--based upon the iPhone--and it became obvious to me why I might want something more than just a great phone like the RAZR. Apple had completely redefined the category of smart phones, and it is delightful to see that the jury has rewarded them for their innovations.
No you didn't. If that had been a pricing concern the full price for an iPhone would have been more like $300 for the top model, not the $700 that it is? You likely didn't pay that price because some carrier was willing to put up $450 to get you on a contract, but that is the price
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
the Galaxy S3 is a very nice phone and is not a copy of the iphone. and its selling very well
You are aware that phone was put together after the lawsuits over patents and trade dress started right? Pretty much every part of that phone has been pointed at and commented as how they are safe from Apple b/c X Y and Z are all so different from what the iPhone has been doing. Samsung actually designed something original and did well. Now let's make sure they can repeat the process, b/c the jury has made sure they will have to
Quinn Emanuels reputation flushing down a toilet, I wonder if they regret hitching their wagon to the Android cause, although the money's good.
I don't think they have much chance on appeal, Koh and the jury have got all their ducks in a row, Samsung was given multiple chances to settle.
The "disallowed crucial evidence proving Samsung's innocence" was only disallowed because of their failure to lodge it in a timely manner contrary to the rules of the case, a question I am sure the Appeals court will ask why it should be introduced now.
There seem to be very few points of law they can dispute in the handling of the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
I think Apple really benefited with this case being tried in Silicon Valley, because as a result the jury consisted of largely tech savvy people, who would not fall for the whole "iPhone is the only way to design a phone" claptrap Samsung was presenting.
The irony is that the Google/Samsung fans on countless tech forums (like this one) posted those arguments for months ahead of the trial, and I was surprised to see Samsung and its lawyers dredging the same troll arguments from the bowels of the Internet to present in court for a handsome legal fee. It was surreal. I thought (somewhere in the back of my mind), that Samsung would show some internal exhibit, some proof or testimony that would convince a jury that it was all just a huge coincidence that Samsung's phones and tablets miraculously look like Apple's after 2007 and 2010. After all, they had these high-priced attorneys. But that never happened! No smoking gun. No dramatic reversal of fortune. Just a bizarre mix of arguing that Samsung didn't copy Apple while at the same time, trying to undermine Apple's patents so it would be OK to infringe on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.
Yes, until it faces the injunction.
But even after all that are Samsung going to be better off than say HTC who profited by $350 million for the 2nd calendar quarter? I think everyone else is losing money per quarter as an Android-based vendor. Did Samsung learn anything from their slavish copying that can attribute to original products going forward? Things like fit and finish or industrial design? It's looking to me that their stealing will pay off for them when you consider all variables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That verdict is, what, 90 days of profits for Samsung Electronics handset division? That's not chump change but it does look like Samsung is still far ahead of any other Android-based vendor because of their thievery.
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.
Some not too bright people must have thought that Steve Jobs was joking when he said "and boy have we patented it.", when presenting the first ever iPhone in 2007.
The jury in this case obviously didn't need to spend any more time, because anybody who is not completely and utterly dishonest could easily see that Samsung was guilty like hell.
And I'm more convinced than ever that quite a few Android users are anti-capitalist commies and thieving cheapskates who have no understanding about patents at all. I've read the comments that many of them have made about this verdict and about patents on other sites. Luckily for Apple, this jury was made up of educated people and even patent holders, as opposed to the dumb people who side with Samsung and claim that Apple shouldn't have been granted certain patents, because they're so obvious. If they were so bloody obvious, then somebody else should have patented them first. A society that praises, values and protects innovation is a better one than an Android/Samsung society with their demented state of mind, where stealing, blatant copying and stagnation is the order of the day.
Fandroids and other serial liars cannot deny that the iPhone changed the whole industry.
Hopefully, Android users will never ever get to see a feature like "bounce back" on their phones in their lifetimes, as they don't deserve it.