Apple vs. Samsung Page 7

  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

  • Bremenacht 26 Aug 2012 15:13:43 18,230 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I just hope some other judge in another country makes the opposite judgement and imposes similar fines to balance out this hugely expensive battle of bollocks.

    Incidentally, I've patented posting disagreeable replies, so you'd better all agree with me.
  • Psychotext 26 Aug 2012 16:49:38 54,185 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I'm talking about the software design aspects, bounce back being the standout example in the thread. Not the outer model (and there was a wee bit more to it than a 'rectangle of plastic'.
    Those are the aspects with prior art. That Apple has a patent on them is precisely the problem.
  • Mr-Brett 26 Aug 2012 17:38:20 12,787 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    I just hope some other judge in another country makes the opposite judgement and imposes similar fines to balance out this hugely expensive battle of bollocks.

    Incidentally, I've patented posting disagreeable replies, so you'd better all agree with me.
    I'll see you in court!

    Actually wait I agree with you, that would be rather poetic.

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • maxb 26 Aug 2012 21:26:06 161 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I think only a company with the money of apple could get a court hearing in a place where the jury could actually work for apple and even if them not directly there friends and/or family.fair play to them that's bloody clever.
  • Deleted user 26 August 2012 21:34:24
    It's never nice to ask but do you have severe developmental issues? I only ask because what you wrote barely makes sense.
  • DodgyPast 27 Aug 2012 01:25:55 8,468 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Love the fact that the foreman of the jury turns out to be the owner of a pretty dodgy patent. He then goes on to state that the decision is based on his desire to defend his own patent.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-juror-describes-deliberations-we-wanted-to-send-a-message/
    How on earth Samsung let him slip through the net is rather ridiculous.
    Grounds for mistrial since jurors shouldn't be making decisions based on personal gain?

    Edited by DodgyPast at 01:27:49 27-08-2012
  • mal 27 Aug 2012 03:07:33 22,528 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Not quite. He says he based in it on his view as to whether the patent in question was defensible, and that he (or 'the jury' according to him) wanted to send a message that patent infringement is not the path to fame and profit. Nothing necessarily to do with his own patent, other than his experience in getting it (and presumably, checking for prior art himself first). Still, like you say a bit daft of Samsung's lawyers letting someone with a tech patent on the jury, but it's be a hard argue to strike him from the jury on the grounds that he has applicable experience I'd have thought (they'd have to find something else). I certainly don't think it's grounds for a mistrial, whatever my personal opinion on the shenanigans.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Lamb 28 Aug 2012 16:42:09 474 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    What Apple is really suing for is the lost opportunity of selling something like the Samsung Galaxy SIII as a seventh or eight generation Iphone.

    Android OS & UI vs Iphone OS & UI is dumb to say either is a copy as there are so many manufacturers out there selling their own product. Especially laptops and PCs. Its kind of like the QWERTY keyboard, is it the best layout? Probably not for some people but its been around for over a hundred years.

    "Because a patent is a right to exclude others from practicing in invention, the patent system affects everyone. You cannot choose to ignore patents or decline to participate in the system. The patent holder can take infringers to court to enforce his patent, and possibly to recover damages suffered from the infringing activities. Also, unlike with copyright, independently developing an invention is not a defense. So even if you are developing something by yourself, without paying any attention to what the rest of the world is doing, you could still be stopped by someone who holds a patent on what you are developing."

    -which is lame cause you are restricting useful ideas and someone coming along who takes the ideas to a new level. Like Samsung making a better smartphone. Twenty years for a patent is more than a lifetime to most people.

    http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/whatis/
  • Dirtbox 28 Aug 2012 18:01:52 78,152 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    No not really. Some explanation would be good. Because you appear to be trying to look like you are making a point without actually committing yourself to one.
    Example: Clarks patent shoes with brown laces.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 01:34:13 30-08-2012

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • SuperCoolEskimo 29 Aug 2012 17:35:30 9,822 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Is it really true that Samsung paid the fine to Apple in 5c coins or is this some Twitter joke?
  • Psychotext 29 Aug 2012 17:37:51 54,185 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You must be brilliant fun on April fools day.

    I doubt they've even considered paying the fine yet, what with an appeal to come.
  • Deleted user 29 August 2012 17:39:24
    SuperCoolEskimo wrote:
    Is it really true that Samsung paid the fine to Apple in 5c coins or is this some Twitter joke?
    There aren't that many 5c coins in the world.
  • disusedgenius 29 Aug 2012 17:45:32 5,315 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    1 Billion Dollars in 5 cent coins?! I doubt there's even that many of them in existence.

    Edit: damnit, Why did I leave that for about 8 minutes before posting...

    Edited by disusedgenius at 17:46:31 29-08-2012
  • Triggerhappytel 29 Aug 2012 17:46:11 2,695 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @SuperCoolEskimo
    Sadly not. Even if the decision was final (which it's not because the whole trial was bollocks), they would likely pay any fine by bank transfer and they'd probably be allowed something like 60 days to pay.
  • UncleLou Moderator 29 Aug 2012 17:56:28 35,553 posts
    Seen 40 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Hehe, looks like everyone's a patent law expert all of a sudden.

    Personal opinion: if you get inspiration from the competition, don't pick someone who is also your biggest customer. That always is fought a lot fiercer than between "just" competitors.
  • disusedgenius 29 Aug 2012 18:04:43 5,315 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Pfft! Just because your mind's warped by 'the system', man!
  • dsmx 30 Aug 2012 01:33:03 7,602 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't think this ruling matters in the end, the devices apples got a ban for are last years models and samsung have already got the next lot out or coming out.

    By the time the appeals process finishes chances are samsung will have another batch of models out as well so apple can't really stop them by getting court orders because the court process takes longer then simply making another phone model not covered by the ruling.

    The fine while annoying isn't going to have an impact on samsung in the long run as it's a one off cost and they'll carry on operating as normal.

    I really can't see why apple even bothered taking it to court because it seems utterly pointless.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • DodgyPast 1 Sep 2012 17:37:14 8,468 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19425052

    Prior art was discounted since Apple's code wouldn't run on the prior art devices.

    The guy's a complete looney. He then goes on to state he thinks that the jury would probably not have ruled in Apple's favour.

    Can someone explain how this isn't a mistrial... It's almost like Samsung have persuaded him to discredit the verdict.
  • Deleted user 1 September 2012 17:52:16
    How in the world does that constitute a mistrial?
  • disusedgenius 1 Sep 2012 17:58:29 5,315 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    No accounting for crazy jurors I suppose...
  • DodgyPast 1 Sep 2012 18:03:52 8,468 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.[/quote ]
    He's saying prior art can be discounted because Apple source code wouldn't run on the devices that demonstrated the prior art.
    So all prior art wasn't judged by the jury according to the law, but instead by a non existent law made up by the foreman.

    Surely if he thought this Samsung should be excused as their code wouldn't run on Apple devices.

    Edited by DodgyPast at 18:08:36 01-09-2012
  • mal 1 Sep 2012 18:22:18 22,528 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I don't understand his point about source code at all. If he's discounting prior art because you can't run iPhone apps on old phones, someone should point out you can't run them on Samsung's Android phones either.

    Edit: Or what DP said.

    Edited by mal at 18:22:55 01-09-2012

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Deleted user 1 September 2012 18:45:03
    Prior art was considered.

    But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

    And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

    So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.

    And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art.
  • disusedgenius 1 Sep 2012 18:57:13 5,315 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah, that's the crazy part you've just quoted.
  • Deleted user 1 September 2012 19:07:32
    The fuck happened to what I wrote after the quote.
  • disusedgenius 1 Sep 2012 19:18:54 5,315 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm sure every word of it was gold. :)
  • Deleted user 1 September 2012 19:47:59
    Post deleted
  • dsmx 1 Sep 2012 21:22:43 7,602 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    If samsungs lawyers didn't have any ammunition for the appeal against the courts decision that one interview to the BBC is like a present from god. Completely invalidates everything, ah well I'm looking forward to Apple V Samsung round 2, but the lawyers are probably looking forward to it even more.

    "If we hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a a house of cards, checkmate." Zapp Brannigan

  • Dirtbox 7 Sep 2012 15:23:17 78,152 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    :D

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Mr-Brett 7 Sep 2012 15:31:44 12,787 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    As dirty as that is, it's also quite impressive. Now we wait and see if that actually is the next iPhone design.

    Portable view - Never forget.

  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

Log in or register to reply