So in your expert opinion what should the metric be (i.e., number of items infringed upon?, value of function as a whole or a percentage of device cost?, general ability to differentiate between the devices infringed upon -- anybody remember attorneys not being able to tell which device was their client's?).
I think they ought to have to pay up for the value lost (triple since intentional) plus they must rework the infringed upon code and all licensees be responsible for making these changes for the majority of devices 'fixed' without piggybacking any other upgrades or pay for the cost of the developers that took advantage of these features.
If you take a few minutes to read the ruling, or just a single minute if the last page summation is good enough, it explains why the injunction was denied. Four factors {the eBay factors) need to be met. Apple was close, just not close enough.
So in your expert opinion what should the metric be (i.e., number of items infringed upon?, value of function as a whole or a percentage of device cost?, general ability to differentiate between the devices infringed upon -- anybody remember attorneys not being able to tell which device was their client's?).
I think they ought to have to pay up for the value lost (triple since intentional) plus they must rework the infringed upon code and all licensees be responsible for making these changes for the majority of devices 'fixed' without piggybacking any other upgrades or pay for the cost of the developers that took advantage of these features.
Everyone loves to regurgitate the story of the lawyer that couldn't tell the tablets apart, yet yee all forget that the Tab was found not to infringe.
It's not my job to measure metrics, nor am I an expert, but what I do have is some common sense. Samsung did infringe, but Apple had to prove that people based their reason for buying a Samsung device solely because of the features they copied. If those infringing features were supposedly a strong selling point then why didn't they help sell other Android devices that infringe as well?
Apple is going to cause far more harm to Samsung in a couple weeks when their fall line-up of new products is released. With a larger screen iPhone there's absolutely no reason to put up with some garbage device just because it has a gorgeous screen.
Samsung Mobile is going to have a horrible year-end with executives crying in their beers in the boardroom.
Samsung Semiconductor is going to be popping the corks on bottles of Dom Pérignonwhile looking across the street at those poor souls at Samsung Mobile.
The Federal Court's "causal nexus" requirement means a patent violation must deal you a death blow for you to be entitled to posthumous protection. Hope that gets overturned soon.
Everyone loves to regurgitate the story of the lawyer that couldn't tell the tablets apart, yet yee all forget that the Tab was found not to infringe.
It's not my job to measure metrics, nor am I an expert, but what I do have is some common sense. Samsung did infringe, but Apple had to prove that people based their reason for buying a Samsung device solely because of the features they copied. If those infringing features were supposedly a strong selling point then why didn't they help sell other Android devices that infringe as well?
You are really making two thirds the case against your point. Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone (Ie copied the most closely, so much so that even Google cautioned them about how closely they (above the rest) were copying.
Given that, that they sell the most android devices is fairly predictable (and as a direct result of stealing Apple's ip)
The Federal Court's "causal nexus" requirement means a patent violation must deal you a death blow for you to be entitled to posthumous protection. Hope that gets overturned soon.
Unless of course it favours Apple, then by all means it's justified.
You are really making two thirds the case against your point. Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone (Ie copied the most closely, so much so that even Google cautioned them about how closely they (above the rest) were copying.
Given that, that they sell the most android devices is fairly predictable (and as a direct result of stealing Apple's ip)
Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.
Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.
Occam's razor, When you hear hoofbeats don't think Zebras. When you have a dozen or so almost identical phones that are attempting to rip off an innovative (and industry changing) product, that the one that ripped it off the most closely is the one that sells is surprising to you?
Actually LG's hardware is significantly better than samsungs, That their "droidshare" declined as samsung's noticeably crappier hardware gained droidshare is further indication.
Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.
Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.
Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.
I didn't realise that lions had a penchant for models of the capital of Venezuela.
Occam's razor, When you hear hoofbeats don't think Zebras. When you have a dozen or so almost identical phones that are attempting to rip off an innovative (and industry changing) product, that the one that ripped it off the most closely is the one that sells is surprising to you?
Actually LG's hardware is significantly better than samsungs, That their "droidshare" declined as samsung's noticeably crappier hardware gained droidshare is further indication.
Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.
Except that when you look at the numbers, the phone that most closely resembled the iPhone didn't sell all that well. There sales numbers were laughable. It wasn't until the SGS 3 that Samsung's high end devices start selling well.
HTC has a license deal with Apple, and makes a device that more closely resembles an iPhone than anything Samsung currently makes, so why does it sell so poorly? If you say marketing then you're agreeing that people bought Samsung devices for a reason other than that the looked like a iPhone, and the reason why an injunction wasn't awarded.
My sister filed a restraining order against my wicked aunt. My aunt is a lady who poisoned my mother, nearly killing her, is constantly threatening us and abuses children.
My aunt appealed the restraining order.
Today during court the judge told my aunt to stop going to my sisters work and harassing her.
My aunts reply? "NO. I'm NOT gonna stop going to her work she needs to find a new job!!"
This judge is a total hack! All she needs to do is look at how Samsung went from an also ran in the space to the world's number one manufacturer AFTER they slavishly copied Apple's iPhone down to every little detail. This isn't rocket science.
Comments
If you take a few minutes to read the ruling, or just a single minute if the last page summation is good enough, it explains why the injunction was denied. Four factors {the eBay factors) need to be met. Apple was close, just not close enough.
Articles and pronouns seem to be giving you the slip today.
Everyone loves to regurgitate the story of the lawyer that couldn't tell the tablets apart, yet yee all forget that the Tab was found not to infringe.
It's not my job to measure metrics, nor am I an expert, but what I do have is some common sense. Samsung did infringe, but Apple had to prove that people based their reason for buying a Samsung device solely because of the features they copied. If those infringing features were supposedly a strong selling point then why didn't they help sell other Android devices that infringe as well?
Lol, sun baked and one cerveza too many ;-)
Meh, it's all irrelevant anyway.
Apple is going to cause far more harm to Samsung in a couple weeks when their fall line-up of new products is released. With a larger screen iPhone there's absolutely no reason to put up with some garbage device just because it has a gorgeous screen.
Samsung Mobile is going to have a horrible year-end with executives crying in their beers in the boardroom.
Samsung Semiconductor is going to be popping the corks on bottles of Dom Pérignon while looking across the street at those poor souls at Samsung Mobile.
Everyone loves to regurgitate the story of the lawyer that couldn't tell the tablets apart, yet yee all forget that the Tab was found not to infringe.
It's not my job to measure metrics, nor am I an expert, but what I do have is some common sense. Samsung did infringe, but Apple had to prove that people based their reason for buying a Samsung device solely because of the features they copied. If those infringing features were supposedly a strong selling point then why didn't they help sell other Android devices that infringe as well?
You are really making two thirds the case against your point. Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone (Ie copied the most closely, so much so that even Google cautioned them about how closely they (above the rest) were copying.
Given that, that they sell the most android devices is fairly predictable (and as a direct result of stealing Apple's ip)
The Federal Court's "causal nexus" requirement means a patent violation must deal you a death blow for you to be entitled to posthumous protection. Hope that gets overturned soon.
Unless of course it favours Apple, then by all means it's justified.
Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.
Again, many of the infringing features are present in other Android devices because it's baked in the OS, so why hasn't that helped the other manufacturers? It's not that hard of a question.
Occam's razor, When you hear hoofbeats don't think Zebras. When you have a dozen or so almost identical phones that are attempting to rip off an innovative (and industry changing) product, that the one that ripped it off the most closely is the one that sells is surprising to you?
Actually LG's hardware is significantly better than samsungs, That their "droidshare" declined as samsung's noticeably crappier hardware gained droidshare is further indication.
Using your logic; if you found a mangled caracas in the Lions cage at the zoo you should suspect that it was the Jackals that did it, since no 100% direct proof exists that the lions were actually the cause.
Samsung is undoubtedly (and wisely recognized as) the most "like" the iPhone...
I believe the distinction of being most "like" the iPhone belongs to GooPhone, not Samsung.
I believe the distinction of being most "like" the iPhone belongs to GooPhone, not Samsung.
Because you "believe" it?
I believe that droids crash all the time and are typically infected with a virus after only a couple days of use.
Wow DroidFTW, this is fun...
I didn't realise that lions had a penchant for models of the capital of Venezuela.
Except that when you look at the numbers, the phone that most closely resembled the iPhone didn't sell all that well. There sales numbers were laughable. It wasn't until the SGS 3 that Samsung's high end devices start selling well.
HTC has a license deal with Apple, and makes a device that more closely resembles an iPhone than anything Samsung currently makes, so why does it sell so poorly? If you say marketing then you're agreeing that people bought Samsung devices for a reason other than that the looked like a iPhone, and the reason why an injunction wasn't awarded.
I didn't realise that lions had a penchant for models of the capital of Venezuela.
And a spelling natzi as well... my my, do your talents ever end?
My aunt appealed the restraining order.
Today during court the judge told my aunt to stop going to my sisters work and harassing her.
My aunts reply?
"NO. I'm NOT gonna stop going to her work she needs to find a new job!!"
The judge dismissed the restraining order.
WELCOME TO THE U.S. JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
Who doesn’t have a penchant for Venezuelan models? ????