Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    Android 2005 ? Android 2008.
    iOS 2005 ? iOS 2007. I doubt either one had a set roadmap yet.
  • Reply 62 of 93
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    iOS 2005 ? iOS 2007. I doubt either one had a set roadmap yet.

     

    Indeed. Android’s wasn’t set until January 9, 2007. Apple’s, on the other hand…

  • Reply 63 of 93
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    iOS 2005 ? iOS 2007. I doubt either one had a set roadmap yet.

    Considering Jobs did a long demo showcasing the HW and OS and apps of iOS on January 11th, 2007 I think there was definitely a roadmap in place at Apple well before Google bought Android just 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days prior.
  • Reply 64 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Considering Jobs did a long demo showcasing the HW and OS and apps of iOS on January 11th, 2007 I think there was definitely a roadmap in place at Apple well before Google bought Android just 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days prior.

    Soli, don't the insider stories say Jobs didn't even green-light the iPhone project until sometime Spring/Summer 2005? If so that would put it shortly AFTER Google bought Android outright in late 2004 or very early 2005. The press didn't catch wind of it until mid 2005 according to the timelines, when the Android team was moved to Mountain View. You know that Samsung had a shot to buy Android in late 2004, two weeks before Google invested then bought them outright.

    EDIT: Here's the story, apparently sourced from the book "Dogfight"
    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Did-you-know-Samsung-could-buy-Android-first-but-laughed-it-out-of-court_id52685
    http://www.amazon.com/Dogfight-Apple-Google-Started-Revolution-ebook/dp/B00BIV1R98
  • Reply 65 of 93
    nealgnealg Posts: 132member

    Three questions which I have-

     

    1)Did Samsung actually lie in any of the trials related to indemnification

     

    2)If the answer to question 1 is yes, how does that affect Samsung in the present trial

     

    3)Does the indemnification affect anything else related to the trial.

     

    Not sure I saw the answers to these questions anywhere.

  • Reply 66 of 93
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Soli, do't the insider stories say Jobs didn't even green-light the iPhone project until sometime Spring/Summer 2005, putting it around the same time Google bought Android outright after investing in them back in 2004?

    Not even close. Google bought a company in late 2005 whilst Apple was working to create a mobile version of their OS and apps years before that. Forestall stated that in 2004 that Project Purple, the iPhone project was formed, but they started even earlier with hopes of making the mobile OS a tablet. Who knows when they started looking into that HW.

    Investing in a company means nothing if Google wasn't actively developing for them and, in this case, actively developing a mobile OS. I invest in many companies but I can't say I've been a developer of their wares simply by having faith in those companies to make me money. Only when Google took control of Android and started to make it a mobile OS does the clock count.
  • Reply 67 of 93
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Who knows when they started looking into that HW.

     

    I remember reading something somewhere that a team presented Steve with a working OS X tablet prototype in 2003, but as it was a tablet in the 1990s sense, he nixed it.

  • Reply 68 of 93
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I remember reading something somewhere that a team presented Steve with a working OS X tablet prototype in 2003, but as it was a tablet in the 1990s sense, he nixed it.

    I didn't even get into Apple's long history of expertise in OS, apps, and mobile HW before the iPhone was announced that lead to such a great product out of the gate. They fold their IP back into itself to make a better product in a shorter time. I had thought by now that Android's SDK would at least be where Xcode for iPhone was in 2008 when Apple opened it for developers in 2008. The refinement and thoroughness just isn't there.
  • Reply 69 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Not even close. Google bought a company in late 2005 whilst Apple was working to create a mobile version of their OS and apps years before that. Forestall stated that in 2004 that Project Purple, the iPhone project was formed, but they started even earlier with hopes of making the mobile OS a tablet. Who knows when they started looking into that HW..

    Nope. Your timeline is off according to every account of it that I've read.
    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Did-you-know-Samsung-could-buy-Android-first-but-laughed-it-out-of-court_id52685
    "Before being acquired by Google, Andy Rubin’s Android team pitched to Samsung at some point in late 2004, looking for further funding. However, Samsung did not see the potential in Android at the time, preferring to pass on the opportunity to invest in the startup... citing as reference the “Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution” book by Fred Vogelstein... “’You and what army are going to go and create this? You have six people. Are you high?’ is basically what they said. They laughed me out of the boardroom,” Rubin later said. “This happened two weeks before Google acquired us.”

    http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/03/26/new-secrets-behind-first-iphone-project-purple-revealed-by-engineer/
    "The Green light (from Steve Jobs) in early 2005 was the start of what Mr. Christie called a ’2 1/2 year marathon’,” The Wall Street Journal said. Tweaks were made constantly leading up to the announcement in 2007"
  • Reply 70 of 93
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    Your timeline is off according to every account of it.

     

    Better update Wikipedia and all its citations, then.

  • Reply 71 of 93
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Nope. Your timeline is off according to every account of it.

    Did Google not buy Android, which had no shipping OS, in August 2005?

    Did Apple not announce and demo a working iPhone in January 2007?

    Did Forestall not state that he started the iPhone project in 2005?

    Was it not stated that before the iPhone project the IP was being developed for a tablet project?

    If you think that Apple took everything it did to make that iPhone demo in 2007 in under 1 year, 4 months, and 25 days I think you're nuts but that would also mean that Apple is even more impressive of a company than I've ever given them credit for because that creation in under 1.5 (or 2) years would be such a monumental masterpiece of engineering and design that I can't even begin to fathom that sort of focus and genius.
  • Reply 72 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Did Google not buy Android, which had no shipping OS, in August 2005?

    Did Apple not announce and demo a working iPhone in January 2007?

    Apparently not. That was the first press mention of it, not the date Android was acquired according to the story.
  • Reply 73 of 93
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Apparently not. That was the first press mention of it, not the date Android was acquired according to the story.

    So what was the date Android was acquired if not August 17th, 2005?
  • Reply 74 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So what was the date Android was acquired if not August 17th, 2005?
    According to interviews of those involved it was very late 2004/very early 2005, approximately two weeks after Samsung laughed them away.
  • Reply 75 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    solipsismx wrote: »

    ...but that would also mean that Apple is even more impressive of a company than I've ever given them credit for because that creation in under 1.5 (or 2) years would be such a monumental masterpiece of engineering and design that I can't even begin to fathom that sort of focus and genius.

    I'd agree with you.
  • Reply 76 of 93
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member

    IIRC, Judge Koh limited Apple and Samsung to 5 claims each (and 25 hours of trial time). Apple reduced their list to 5 patents, asserting infringement of one claim in each. Samsung reduced their list to 4 patents, then dropped 2 which were standard-essential patents (SEPs).  

     

    Note: Apple itself doesn't practice every one of the five asserted claims from these five patents, altho it does practice at least one claim in each of the asserted patents. (There are multiple claims in each patent.)  During the trial, Samsung tried to make this into a big deal in an attempt to paint Apple as a patent troll (non-practicing entity (NPE)).

  • Reply 77 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    mark2005 wrote: »
    IIRC, Judge Koh limited Apple and Samsung to 5 claims each (and 25 hours of trial time). Apple reduced their list to 5 patents, asserting infringement of one claim in each. Samsung reduced their list to 4 patents, then dropped 2 which were standard-essential patents (SEPs).  

    Note: Apple itself doesn't practice every one of the five asserted claims from these five patents, altho it does practice at least one claim in each of the asserted patents. (There are multiple claims in each patent.)  During the trial, Samsung tried to make this into a big deal in an attempt to paint Apple as a patent troll (non-practicing entity (NPE)).
    Nice post. . .

    It would also have probably been more "fair" to both sides too if Judge Koh had also barred Apple from stressing each of the patent claims' validity in front of the jury when she properly prevented Samsung from even mentioning that some of the asserted claims were being reexamined by the USPTO. Other judges have done so when the issue of re-examinations/validity has come up in pre-trial.
  • Reply 78 of 93
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

    IIRC, Judge Koh limited Apple and Samsung to 5 claims each

     

    Which, I’ll say again, cannot be legal. :mad:

  • Reply 79 of 93
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    WRT Apple's numerous other patent infringement claims against Samsung which were forcibly dropped by Koh... am I wrong in assuming there will be future trials resurrecting each and every infringed patent claim? I see no reason to allow infringements go unaddressed.
  • Reply 80 of 93
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    I see no reason to allow infringements go unaddressed.

     

    I see no legal justification for allowing them to go unaddressed here

Sign In or Register to comment.