The Verge just listed the models Apple is aiming for
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S2 (AT&T)
Galaxy S2 (Skyrocket)
Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)
Galaxy S2 Epic 4G
Galaxy S Showcase
Seems a lot of old stuff.
Now that the jury in the landmark Apple-Samsung patent trial has returned a $1bn verdict in Apple's favor, the next step will be to decide just which of Samsung's mobile phones will be permitted to be sold in the US. Judge Lucy Koh has set a hearing on September 20 to discuss Apple's request to bar sales of Samsung products, …
It likely doesn't violate the trade dress patents, but it would still violate the UI patents like the bounceback. I'm not sure how Apple would go about asking for it to be banned since it wasn't a subject of this trial. If it requires a whole new trial, Samsung can release new versions faster than Apple can win lawsuits, so even if they end up having to pay damages there wouldn't ever be any bans on current products.
Of course, if it ever gets to that point both sides would probably realize it is easier to just come to some sort of licensing deal similar to what Samsung and the other Android makers already has with Microsoft.
Or they could modify TouchWiz so it doesn't hit the Apple patents in the trial, since AFAIK none of the patents at issue in this particular trial involved Android itself, but rather Samsung's TouchWiz layer on top of Android.
> It likely doesn't violate the trade dress patents, but it would still violate the UI patents like the bounceback.
Where does the S3 use bounceback? It doesn't appear to use it in the gallery application or other applications that I've noticed. Instead, a highlight extends from the edge over the main display, but the main display stays still -- as in stock ICS.
I wasn't aware of this, I assumed they had the same TouchWiz layer on all of them. So the S3 may be safe after all.
Makes me wonder how many other UI differences there are between different Samsung TouchWiz devices. Is there a Galaxy version and other versions for other Samsung phone lines?
I am pretty sure Americans would get pretty fed up pretty quick if all other makers just up sticks and moved out of the market. If I were in charge of Samsung, that's exactly what I would do - they have a big enough market without all this crap.
Let the US have their insane patents, and inferior iphone 4s. Just been made to have one for work, next to my s3 it is utterly crap in so many ways.
The choices we may have in 2112
A new phone please.....
A new microwave....
A new computer.....
A new fridge.......
A new cooker.....
A new watch........
A new toaster.......
'certainly sir we stock all these Apple products'
'any other brands?'
'not since the great patent wars of the early 2000's
'nothing but Apple?'
'once you've made your purchase why not celebrate in the pub next door, a meal in the Dog and Apple, I hear the real ales, brewed locally in the Apple brewery is quite nice!'
"In your world, you seem to want a range of Apple products and a range of cheap, inferior copies of Apple products."
I must express my distaste at your distorted perspective here. I happily bought a Galaxy Nexus instead of an iPhone 4S, WOW, imagine that. No coercion or anything.
You know what! I even LIKE the iPhone 4S. It's attractive, beautifully, slickly animated and erm... very shiny.
* Good call quality
* A big colourful 4.65" hi res display
* A wifi tether that didn't run to the operator to report usage
* Bluetooth file transfers
* Bluetooth audio with previous and next track control via AVRCP (or have they finally added that?)
I also found the large buttonless front of the Galaxy Nexus very stylish and... shiny :D
The Super AMOLED display is so... black and high contrast. It really fits into the aesthetics of the front really well.
"I must express my distaste at your distorted perspective here. I happily bought a Galaxy Nexus instead of an iPhone 4S, WOW, imagine that. No coercion or anything."
I happily replaced an iPhone 3GS with a Galaxy S - and despite Apple's hysterics about it being a "clone" didn't confuse the two of them once.
Always baffled me how Apple could assert that a phone which had significantly more features than the iPhone was somehow a clone at the same time...
I happily replaced an iPhone 3GS with a Galaxy S - and despite Apple's hysterics about it being a "clone" didn't confuse the two of them once.
Same here. I replaced my iPhone 3GS with a Galaxy SII, since the Samsung had a better screen and more responsive applications than the iPhone 4S. The killer feature though was the ability to manage my files by mounting the Samsung as a USB mass storage device rather than having to use iTunes (or more accurately, not using iTunes since I run Linux).
" Always baffled me how Apple could assert that a phone which had significantly more features than the iPhone was somehow a clone at the same time..."
Easy. They look at the better device and realise that's how good they ought to have made theirs, and then conclude *that* is what's being copied.
"The choices we may have in 2112"
"We've taken care of everything,
The words you read, the songs you sing,
The pictures that give pleasure to your eye,
It's one-for-all, and all-for-one,
Let's work together, common sons,
Never need to wonder how or why!"
With apologies to Lee, Lifeson and Peart.
I think there's still a risk that Samsung may still get sales from people buying the older models at lower prices, particularly for the S2. (A phone which still has higher specs than the latest Iphone, despite being well over a year old now.)
Sad how Apple have to resort to court room action rather than innovating. I know their sales have been plummeting (a staggering drop of 10 million sales in the last quarter alone, with falling market share, and Android now at almost 70% dominance), but have some dignity please. (I was also interested to see a graph yesterday showing that WP share, although still small, has been growing significantly over the last few months...)
It ain't over yet - well, unless Judge Koh really is biased... Let's give her the benefit of the doubt before we start counting chickens.
As for the stock market - heck, the speculators are always looking for reasons to make money by shorting stock.
>but patents aren't worldwide
But justice is supposed to be.
If Apple won this case because 12 hicks in East Texas voted for a Merikan company over gooks - then there is quickly going to be another case where a patriotic Korean jury decides to ban all Apple products, and probably Microsoft and Google aswell, in Korea.
"If Apple won this case because 12 hicks in East Texas voted for a Merikan company over gooks - then there is quickly going to be another case where a patriotic Korean jury decides to ban all Apple products, and probably Microsoft and Google aswell, in Korea."
I expect the South Koreans to be intelligent and measured about how they respond to things. Google & Microsoft are partners of a metric %*$-tonne of Samsung's work. No one in their right mind in South Korea is going to start banning them.
2/10 - Poor effort, you can do better!
>I expect the South Koreans to be intelligent and measured about how they respond to things.
You expect Samsung's management to be inteligent about things.
The problem is that these cases are decided by juries of 12 ordinary people. Or more generally these days in the USA - 12 unemployed people, since having a salaried job is pretty much a valid excuse to get off a jury.
So just like juries have occasionally convicted someone in a criminal case just because of their skin colour - we now have juries in the patent lawyers favorite jurisdiction who decide the case based on which company is the most American.
Imagine that just after the Rodney King trial you were a white cop facing a jury of black teenagers! That's going to be the next US company going to court in Korea.
as a big fan of 'breaking bad' I can't help but draw comparisons between Apple's rise to power and willingness to destroy everything around them and that of our 'favourite' protagonist Walter White, the ego is all there, just substitute meth for smartphones and wait for the fireworks......
They have deep pockets and an OCD-autistic desire to spend on mullering the competition anyway they can.
They'll have to keep playing supplier bingo though, for all the touchscreens and other components as they continue pissing everyone off, and that's going to bite them in the arse fairly soon I should think, especially if LG's sensor-in-pixel screens have a crap yield, which is likely.
Booing. Disgrace and no respect - sign of the times unfortunately. Whether or not you like the guy or what he achieved you don't boo someone like that.
Problem is some people take this iPhone vs Samsung / Android too far - pick the phone you want but Samsung do you own work as well - don't just copy.
If Samsung have copied, then so have Apple - the whole idea of making feature/smart phones, apps, grids of icons, touchscreens, multitouch, GPS, Wifi, Internet, video calling, voice recognition, maps, messaging, and far more, all done by other companies first.
And later this year, we have rumours of the next Apple phone being 4" (done by Samsung 2 years ago), or a smaller Ipad (done by Samsung and loads of other companies already).
There isn't anything wrong in copying, technology would be stifled if any given feature or look couldn't be used by anyone else ever.
You're such a dork, Mark - constantly.
Which one of your laundry list includes patent (or other legal method) encumbered technologies which have not been purchased/licensed by Apple?
Some people don't carry "man-bags", so we prefer a size that (a) can be thumb-operated to all four corners, and (b) is small enough & light enough to fit in a vest pocket.
At least 2 females I know have Galaxy IIIs, they love them because they're so big and do whatever it is they expect to do with them. However they always carry bags to have them in and always seem to be able to stop everything and use 2 hands to operate them. For a phone, bigger != better. And since one of them has already had one half inched from her bag, perhaps carrying expensive objects in hand bags is not such a good idea either. YMMV
The metrics are reversed for a tablet, because none of them are pocketable. The optimal size aspect is governed by visual acuity and two-thumb operability. It seems everyone wants to make a 10" these days, that was not previously the case.
Finally, Apple have released neither a 4" phone or a 7" tablet, so that comment is about as worthless as the rest of the drivel you spout in here.
Oh look, I seem to have picked up my very own troll.
"Which one of your laundry list includes patent (or other legal method) encumbered technologies which have not been purchased/licensed by Apple?"
The issue was not patents, but "copying" in the general (including legal) sense. No one disputes that Samsung may have copied, but this is no different to the way that many companies, including Apple, copy.
It may well be that in the US, Samsung's "copying" was ruled illegal - but that's the ruling that many of us disagree with.
I'm not sure what any of your comments about size have to do with my post. My 4.65" Galaxy Nexus fits fine in a pocket, and I use it fine one handed. There are plenty of smaller phones if you want one from companies other than Apple.
"It seems everyone wants to make a 10" these days, that was not previously the case."
It wasn't the case when the technology didn't make it possible or worthwhile. Apple weren't making them either previously, after all. The optimal size is clearly a matter of opinion - the idea that there exist two optimums at 3.5" and 10" is one opinion. But millions of people are buying smartphones/tablets (smartphones are tablets, after all) of various sizes, be it 4-5" phones, even the massively popular 5.x" Galaxy Note, as well as the immense success the 7" Nexus is now having. And at 10", I'd rather have a far more functional PC (use with your two thumbs? heh)
And there have been months of vapourware rumours from the media about a 4" phone or a smaller Ipad. I'm sure if they do, you'll be first in line to say how no one wanted to make these until Apple came along, and say how now these are the optimal sizes for devices. And if they don't, then the media were wrong for giving endless hype to Apple - I'd gladly wish they would stop the speculation, and focus on real news about real products that exist today, from successful companies like Samsung.
"No one disputes that Samsung may have copied, "
Obviously you missed the chorus chanting exactly that here and on every fandoid forum while you were doing a solo in the shithouse. Your statement is disingenuous bullshit. Talk about being detached from reality, sheesh.
"...fits fine in a pocket .."
I think you will find I wrote a "vest pocket" which is rather more specific. But then, missing the details is characteristic of your style. Anyway, you probably haven't worn a suit since the prom or whatever your home country version is, but some of us wear them every day (you know, they don't call us "suits" for nothing). For me the iPhone is the maximum size I am willing to tolerate. YMMV
FYI: I will be the last one hailing a 4" iPhone as optimal (it won't be) or a 7" tablet as optimal (it won't be). They are of course useful dimensions for any number of applications of the form factor, as are the infinite variety of other dimensions possible. One handed thumb operation pretty much dictates the iPhone screen size. +/- a bit won't change much other than the marketing materials.
So Apple will block all the Android devices they can - that is anything that isn't shit - and Microsoft will move in to the gap left.
Much as it pains me to say this, given this ruling I think there will be only two players in the mobile/tablet OS market by the end of the decade: Microsoft and Apple. Yes, you heard me right - Microsoft, not Apple are the big winner here, while Apple will be quite happy to keep the luxury end of the market, just like they always have.
was actually about? Not a lot from the evidence to date.
In a nutshell it was about TouchWiz, Samsung's custom Android skin. The Galaxy Nexus, with stock Android isn't covered. 3 of the 28 devices were also found to infringe Apple's design patents, but the big win was over stuff that Samsung had added to TouchWiz. Killing TouchWiz will have no effect whatsoever on Android, put your paranoid fantasies back in their box.
How many tech journalists don't understand either - many of them simply parroting the "This is the beginning of the end of Android" bullshit.. which of course is just what Apple and Microsoft want the press to be saying. Apple have also been saying how it is Android that infringes - but then again they're all a bit rabid.
@sabroni - another reading comprehension failure. There were two basic issues at stake in the case. One was physical appearance, Samsung copying Apple's case design and packaging. The jury said for the most part, no Samsung didn't copy this. The other issue was about software behaviour and appearance. Standard Android isn't covered by these claims. Samsung could re-release the offending devices with stock Android and Apple couldn't do a thing about it.
All Samsung had to do to avoid the case completely was to avoid putting features into TouchWiz that were covered by Apple patents. They had to go out of their way to add them. Android either didn't have them or removed them from later versions. I challenge you to find any other big company that would sit still while patented features were being copied by a competitor.
You're totally entitled to believe that. I think you're wrong, I believe Apple went after Samsung because it's a successful competitor not because of some features in touchwiz. Apple would have used different patents and registered designs but the case would still have happened. Job's threat to go thermonuclear on Android would seem to back this up, he didn't declare war on touchwiz.
Notice how I typed that without dissing your reading ability?
This whole thing has seemed to me to be about Apple wanting to limit the ways of doing things to itself, no matter how close to the only logical way to achieve it. I liken it to the early days of motoring, when each different model of car had the controls in different places. Eventually, someone (I don't know who - perhaps someone out there knows?) came up with the current pedal arrangement, and it became standard, presumably because it is the optimum arrangement. It seems to me that if the company that first did it had Apple's attitude, driving different cars would be difficult (not to mention dangerous!), and there would be iDrivers and the rest.
Disclaimer: I do not have any Android devices, nor do I have any Apple devices - in fact, I'm in a position where my next phone will have to be Windows, because I have serious reservations about both and Symbian is dead.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a patent. A patent holder has the exclusive right to use or license an invention for its life span. Other companies are free to find another way of doing the same thing (Google seem to be doing just fine with this) but Apple's documented solutions are protected by law.
In some circumstances it is useful for a patent to be used by the whole industry to allow interoperability. In that case the owner must commit the patent to be licensed under FRAND terms (Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) for the rest of the industry to agree to that common use. Apple have patents that are included in industry standards in this way, like h264.
Actually there's already an example of precedent for this in the mobile industry with industry standard softkeys. Nokia's softkey paradigm was eventually adopted by most of the major manufacturers simply because users were used to it.
I've no idea what Nokia's internal reaction to it was, because as far as I know they never even stated it publicly, let alone tried to use it to generate revenue.
Microsoft and Nokia are big winners here - I can certainly see a lot of manufacturers jumping ship to Windows Phone now and Nokia are already there. At the end of the day most people do not really give a fig for Android - so if their next phone happened to run Windows so be it.
That is the big benefit Apple have - they have more brand loyalty - with Android you buy a HTC, then a Samsung then a ???
Interesting articles on Groklaw about the trial. It appears the Jury did not read their instructions and are quoted as wanting to make the fine punitive even though this was forbidden in 2 documents they should have read. Also that they answered the questions far quicker than was expected and made a fair number of mistakes such as applying a fine for one phone that they had previously said did not infringe.
Also interesting take on Samsung being told they had done various things too late. In one case Apple did something one day and Samsung were told they could do the same. When they tried the very next day they were told they were too late with no specific legal rule quoted as to why they were too late.
.. and certainly the jury would appear to have rushed their decision making process. Of course they may well have felt pressure from the judge, given her very strict timekeeping for the courtroom side of the case, especially the last few days farcical gallop through the witness list.
This one is going to appeal, on so many grounds it's not even funny, the process errors alone make that obvious. And let's not get started on the 'rectangle with rounded corners' aspects!
"they may well have felt pressure from the judge, given her very strict timekeeping for the courtroom side of the case"
Actually the verdict was delivered in time for the jurors to make it home for the weekend - i think they had other pressures in mind...
All you have to do is point over to groklaw and see why the jury foreman right royally f'ed up apples win. Can not wait for the appeal. Apple will likely only walk away with 200,000. Fanboys take special note of the judges instructions in regards to damages. I think it was no.34.
An the jury foremans own patent application is just as pathetic as Apples. I can see Tivo/ or any media set top box maker shaking in their boots. he owns and developed no tech and wants a patent on video recording, tv internal storage, attached wireless keyboard and digital media streaming. After reading more on the dude I think he could have been a Samsung plant to screw up the trial!
A month being paid eff all to listen to lawyers drone on about technicalities made them in no way keen to get the job over and done with.
Unfortunately for Samsung the test is "no reasonable jury" would have made the decision that they did, and judges are loathed to overturn jury decisions. Unless the verdict was grossly unfair and obviously wrong (and a million screaming fanboys doesn't make it so) it will probably stand.
Steve Todd:"Unfortunately for Samsung the test is "no reasonable jury" would have made the decision that they did"
The juries own statements establish this was not a 'reasonable jury' as jury's are meant to be formed and act and everything they decided is open to challenge.
Unfortunately for Apple and Apple fanbois the problem here is the jury justified their decisions based on the lack of prior art, prior art the court withheld from them. If they'd just shut their mouths it would probably end with 'no reasonable jury' but they A: established prior art is too important to be excluded the way it was, B: raised enough questions about jury corruption that A will get considered as a side effect.
So the question becomes: if all the prior art was seen what would a 'reasonable jury' decide. And this jury is no guide to that because they don't look remotely like a 'reasonable jury'.
This is going to retrial. That's not that interesting though, the real issue here is whether this threatens the rest of the Android world. As the days pass, as I consider it more, it seems less important. Samsung aren't innocent and certainly aren't as skilled at surfing right on the edge of what's legally permissable as Google showed in Oracle vs Google.
Android was created by an entity more aware of what they could get away with and with more ability to fight the nonsense patents Apple are using. The real battle hasn't begun and it will be brutal and hopefully put us back 30 years to a world where innovation has to be real to survive the market, not imposed by a parasitic legal system.
Don't forget the judge in Oracle vs. Google was way more (let's say) accustomed with technology, patents and copyrights. If you followed the saga, at a certain point in time it was like the judge was favoring Oracle when in reality he wanted to make sure his decision will be less likely to be appealed. On the contrary, the judge in Apple vs. Samsung accepted (some would say swallowed) everything Apple proposed just to end this as quick as possible. Which, my friends, sets a good foundation for appealing the sentence.
You're conflating two different issue. Firstly excluded evidence. Under the rules Samsung were late in introducing it and it is perfectly valid for it to be withheld. We're not talking about criminal law here, both parties had plenty of time to do their homework and Samsung didn't suddenly find the F700 in their sock drawer. Apple also had plenty of evidence excluded so no, this didn't show bias and is unlikely to be grounds for a successful appeal.
Secondly your idea of what establishes unreasonable behaviour on the juries part is sadly limited. It has to be pretty extreme before it will be overturned. Saying things like they skipped the written instructions isn't that extreme (they had been given verbal instructions by the judge already), providing that they considered the evidence in an impartial way and gave a finding based on honest opinion then they are probably OK.
its not that he skipped it but ignored what it said/ Koh instructed!
compensation should be for loss of sales to apple due to Samsungs infringement and not be punitive. The dude is a self serving douche who has handed Samsung a very good card for the appeal along with the others including that they were only penalised for deleting emails, even though apple had done the same. Most judges would have spotted that one or at least cared.
If you could read, there was a lot of latitude as to how to calculate the damages, i.e. lost past and future revenues due to the infringements. The jury came in at the low end of the suggested numbers. They could have ignored the various calculations and made it 127 billion dollars, or 1 dollar. They didn't, but they chose a number that was within the suggested ranges AND significant enough to send the message not to do it again.
It is indeed a ridiculous situation that juries have to give up their livelihoods for a month unpaid, especially for a civil case between multinationals. But if I was annoyed by that, I would hardly reward the one who had brought the case, with one billion dollars!
No, that's not the reason at all. It is possible we might have had a case where one guy was strongly in favour of guilty, and the rest couldn't be bothered to argue - but then that's just yet more of an argument in favour of how bogus the result was.
"and a million screaming fanboys doesn't make it so"
The only one screaming here are the ones claiming that Samsung "copied". The rest of us would just like our hard earned money to go to the company we pay it to, rather than being put to a company we oppose; and the freedom of choice to buy the product that's best on the market.
Apparently both Apple and Samsung (and the judge) where all fine with the choice of jury.
Even the judge warned both of them about this trial and if they could come together around the table. Both, and let me repeat BOTH Apple AND Samsung didn't found this necessary.
Android lovers should complain to Samsung for not objecting against the choice of jury, but don't come afterwards wining that the jury wasn't any good. Samsung had it's chance in this.
A jury who decides to ignore the defendant arguments just because it is bogging them down (and in the process decides to punish Samsung for products that do not even infringe), a judge who decides to not allow Samsung to show jury prior art and a magistrate judge who decides to punish Samsung for being one day late after telling them they can file whenever they want. And you're trying to tell us Samsung had its (look, no apostrophe here!) chance ?
The losers always seek to blame the jury - take it on the chin and wire the money over to Apple please. Let's have done with it and move on. It may do Samsung good - they get rapped for copying (as almost any impartial person would agree) and now it's proven - innovate yourself and who knows it may be for the good.
If Dyson had just copied the existing vacuum cleaners...
It is when you (apple) gets to look at the jury selection list and chuck ones off you don't want which is what I believe happened based on a piece in El Reg on Friday...
Apple would need idiots on the jury who'd never done anything technical or designery as any designer will say something like 'Well yo'ure not going to make it with sharp corners, that's obviously silly. So, now you know you need rounded corner you UI should have rounded corners to maintain consistency, and now you've decided on icons then a grid is the most logical arrangement..' and so on.
So if the jury selection list shows the jobs and ages of the jurors you can easily filter out the smarter more individual-thinking ones and reject them. Plus comparing their age/sex/etc (if noted on the sheet) you can also select likely fanbois as you know your own marketing demographic.
This assumes they get to toss folks off the jury selection list of course but I think IIRC that's standard practice
Now, Googlemprobably is wishing it took more countermeasures in Android....
" With Samsung Electronics staggering from a stomach punch in its high-profile intellectual property dispute with Apple, Google seems unsure whether it should step in to support its friend or look the other away.
Samsung, the world’s largest mobile-phone maker, has been the undisputed flagship carrier of Google’s Android mobile operating system, the industry’s most convincing challenge against Apple’s robust consumer smartphone presence.
The Korean technology giant was handed an overwhelming loss by a jury in San Jose, which awarded Apple $1 billion in damages in backing its claims that Samsung had copied the look and feel of the revolutionary iPhones and iPads.
This crushing loss was an alarming development for Google, which sees Apple widening its battle front against Android makers. The company apparently doesn’t want the Samsung setback to drag the whole fleet down and is now distancing itself from its most critical business partner.
``The court of appeals will review both the infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office,’’ Google said in a statement sent to The Korea Times, Monday.
This is the first time Google officially commented on Samsung’s defeat at the San Jose court. The company seems eager to argue the Samsung-Apple feud as a case example isolated from the rest of the Android bunch.
While the mobile industry is moving fast and all players are building upon ideas that have been around for decades, Google said, the issues between Samsung and Apple deal with Samsung specific software implementations and hardware design decisions.
The statement didn’t please Samsung executives, some of them saying they were ``unhappy.’’ Google assisted Samsung in the U.S. court battles, offering advice on legal and technology-related issues, similar to the way it has been helping other Android makers like HTC.
Industry watchers believe the San Jose verdict will end up exposing the seams of what had been a tight Samsung-Google relationship.
``What Google is trying to do is to make it solely a Samsung vs Apple fight instead of an Apple vs Android one. After the court decision in San Jose, Google seems to be distancing itself from its key Korean partner,’’ said one industry source."
From the article you quote:
"the industry’s most convincing challenge against Apple’s robust consumer smartphone presence"
"revolutionary iPhones and iPads"
It does depress me the way that Apple bias seeps into so many media articles. Why aren't anyone else's devices prefaced with marketing-speak like "revolutionary"? And the wording suggests Iphone is number one, when that has *never* been the case. With Android at nearly 70%, and Apple around 16%, it's a complete joke to talk about Android merely being a "convincing challenge", or saying that Apple have the most consumer smartphone presence - sorry, Samsung are number one (as they earlier say), with Nokia, not Apple, number two in the market.
Revolutionary? Sorry, I'm still waiting for this revolution, and have happily enjoyed smartphones from a range of other companies. What's revolutionary about a feature phone whose headline features are those already available years before in other platforms.
The jury foreman has his own patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7352953.html - "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information". Filed in 2002, after TiVo was released in 1999.
In his own words: "When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”
For posterity, here are two other quotes - one from the foreman, and the second from another juror:
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
"After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. ... In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."
the phones apple went after or had to go after in the trial when judge said shorten the list were all old phones, only handful at best are even still available to get in the US. Ones that are, you get them dirt cheap to free so loss is pretty much nothing to Samsung. You know if Apple tries to go after samsung again it will be in same court since that area is biased in favor of apple since most people around there know someone that works for apple, that or their business gets a lot of apple employee's in their stores.
I can see electronic goods becoming more & more disappointing for the consumer - public patent squabbles such as this one will diminish the ability to create & implement standards in a fast growing market, as more & more of these corporates claim ownership of increasingly petty methodologies.
it would make my day if all non usa,apple parts producers just decided to take the one of hit to the wallet and just turned around and pulled out of supplying parts to apple,are their any decent size cpu fab factories in the usa,are their any screen fabs in usa,any memory fabs in usa.
china cannot build this generation of parts without outside non usa help.
they could decide just to cut the usa out of next generation of electronics,its what the idiots deserve,i would go for it if it means devices go up by a third in price.
percentage of usa sales versus world-wide sales,15-18% ? so not such a huge loss,windows 7 is not realy an alternative,microsoft just as big a bunch of crooks as flapple.
i still stick with my prediction that flapple will have collapsed to almost nothing by 2020,their stock only gone up 2·5% after redneck jury decision,the money folk will run with the cash soon,apple is just the next exonn waiting to happenflapple is just the next cash bubble
we could all try to force our elected representatives in the whole e.u to ban flapple products on the basis of them being copied from braun,which i am sure is still a german company and sir j ives has admitted enough times that he just copies braun design style.
am still hoping braun just waiting for dust to settle and then begin a case in germany/eu to ban all flapple products and to pay back dated reparition for blatant theft.
how long would flapple last with usa as the only available market,remembering that their sales in china are already collapsing,down to less than 10% of top end devices.
Someone needs to go learn about the World Trade Organisation. Should the EU try a stupid move like that they would be subject to economic sanctions. Enough with the school yard stuff.
Countering nonsense with nonsense. The EU is not going to go tit for tat on this because, unlike say Boeing versus Airbus which did go to the WTO and both were found culpable of unlawful subsidies, this is not about European companies.
There are several court cases between Apple and Samsung proceeding in different EU countries. As a result the European Commission has announced its intent to look at the abuse of patents in such court cases and indicated that sanctions are likely for all. Separately, it may take time for the cases to work through and a consensus to be achieved. Currently, we have conflicting judgements in the UK ("coolness" cannot be patented) and Germany ("whatever you say Mr Apple" and this in my local court which is really quite depressing) which are clearly affecting trade within the single market: I can buy a Galaxy Tab 7.7 in England or France but non in Germany? This distortion cannot be allowed to continue, but, because we don't allow hick courts to take decisions for the whole of the EU it's going to take a while for this to work through. At no stage will the WTO be involved.
Where the WTO might get involved would be between the US and Korea if Apple succeeds in getting a blanket ban on Samsung products. Don't hold your breath on that though as such cases take at least 5 years to work through. That could only be part of a broader international attack on America's patent and court system that could be considered to unfairly hinder free trade.
I think Samsung should play a smart move now: sell all their products without any pre-installed OS (as assembled PC's were once sold), only with a bare essentials sw that lets you make a phone call with limited internet connectivity. Then they could make their personalized version of Android available as an open-source download from a server in any country (like most of Europe) that does not honor all these idiotic software patents. It would then be each individuals' responsibility to download and install the full OS; which could easily be furnished in many versions, from a no-frills non-infringing version to a feature-packed "infringing" version. What will Apple do then? Sue everybody that uses non-Apple smartphones? The manufacturer could surely not be held responsible for the consumer that installs infringing software!
If the US does not quickly revise their patent system, and invalidate ALL software patents, along with "rounded rectangle" patents, they might find themselves in a new digital "dark age"
By letting 12 morons decide the future of technological innovation is just too much!
Now see how the USA plays in business once it leans it sucks at that to, just like war... I swear, the us gets more corrupt every day, cant even play fair in business..
Well I hope samsung raises the cost to apple for the hardware, then it'll be all the smartphone and tablet users paying the bill.
This post has been deleted by its author
Jobs rejected the touch screen when it was shown him in 1977. In the following years versions of motion control including stroking to scroll and other related motions were incorporated in software for various pointer related products including touch pad and touch screen products. Big yawn at the PC and Apple world where graphics were still unborn or still born (Lisa).
Most of us got out of the business after Gates made it clear that the stupid mouse was the only pointing device he would allow on a PC. He did this by not telling us little guys about software changes affecting the "Mickeys" or graphic move commands for pointers, and putting us right out of business as our pointers stopped working for our customers when they upgraded Windows 1.X.
So it's clear to me that the Korean's counsel made no effort to find previous art.
It's also clear that the Korean's are too proud to ask our community of pointing device people to invent them out of their rut.
Just in case someone would like to know, all the Koreans have to do is tell us what area in general needs to be avoided and exactly how much they will pay us to find a pathway to avoid it. Of course our solution will be more appealing then Apple's and it will overcome the one major remaining problem of touch screens.
What ARE you yammering about? The existence of touch screens wasn't prior art, what was needed was devices that used gestures that covered the patented work. Pinch to zoom (which Samsung lawyers tried to say was like resizing the borders of a Windows window - that's about 180 degrees from what it is), bounce back when you scroll past the end of a document etc.
Touch screen PCs are, for the most part, dumb ideas. In specialist roles like help kiosks then fine, but spending the whole day reaching out to your screen? I can see EXACTLY why Windows 1.x didn't support it.
"Pinch to zoom (which Samsung lawyers tried to say was like resizing the borders of a Windows window - that's about 180 degrees from what it is), bounce back when you scroll past the end of a document etc."
In other words, about trivial ideas, and not technological inventions like a touchscreen.
"Touch screen PCs are, for the most part, dumb ideas."
I agree. I'll take my more functional 10" Samsung netbook over a 10" Apple touchscreen tablet any day.
Who said it was touch screens in Win 1.x? Stop inhaling.
The existence of multi-touch was prior art. Indeed its detecting and being able to use the presence of two or more elements in the detected space (general) or capacitance layer (sheet).
Multi-touch is a product of the first low cost high impedance touch screens and panels, also imbedded wire systems which predate touch screens and low cost pads by at least 15 years (1950's). All these systems had the capability. Some of us wrote systems to take advantage of this ability i.e. multi-touch interfaces. this was before software patents or even the linking of software into a hardware invention through processes. However this material is still a precedent for the multi-touch material.
Now many think pinching and spreading are special and basic but let me assure they are not. Multi-touch and some related things are.
Stay tuned to see if Apple Cider is 100 proof.
expect the South Koreans to be intelligent
What about the bias towards one of the largest Apple's partner - Samsung? I wouldn't ban Google, it didn't start all this idiocy. Ban Apple and Microsoft, since the latter most probably vigorously instigated Apple to get an advantage for their own crap, called Windows 8. Despite the seeming differences of the two scoundrels, Microsoft and Apple like one crappy hand washing another putrid hand.
Please tell me English isn't your first language.
No, it is not, it is my third one. However, in this sentence of yours, I'd use something before the word English: a comma, conjunctions if, whether or that.
And whilst, you keep kissing vigorously both Microsoft's and Apple's rear ends, forgive my bad American English.
Samsung gets to pay a fine, likely to be reduced on appeal and in the meantime has actually become a reasonably innovative company in its own right (with IP of its own in areas like pen input, the neat bit about calling someone who's just texted you and so on) and now it's business as usual again. I find the amount of energy spent on what turned out to be a fairly meaningless pissing contest quite remarkable.
This post has been deleted by its author
ban all the samsungs to protect our people, or they won't be able to buy hundreds of millions of semi-automatic weapons!!!!!
As far as i can tell , the USA - stuff it , the whole of modern civilisation - is a darwin award just waiting to happen.
You don't deserve to make it, you silly talking monkeys!
Surely it is quite simple - all of this "patent" rubbish is just pure garbage.
You can have either a system that locks you in, annoys and aggravates you at every turn, is difficult to add new content to but "looks good" (i.e. Apple products - sorry hate itunes - just can't understand how illogical it is) - Question: how many people do you know with an Iphone who have no idea how to use it, so just use it for making calls? Loads I guess.
or some other product (e.g. android etc) - do apple think consumers are so dumm that we need to be "protected" from our own free will/choice incase we make a bad decision (have only one option then no fear of that)?
Apple is dangerous - run by dictators - but the way they are doing business now will only lead to their downfall (look at all the other companies that were once on top and now no longer - nokia, bebo etc all spring to mind).
So my advice is short the stock (some time in the future) and watch your fortune grow - ha ha
If only Gottlieb Daimler was alive today - think what fun he could have with the car firms :)
I believe this will tarnish Apples name by perceived, as tight, penny pinching, bully boy corporation, which is what they are!
I hope all those Apple fanbois out there are feeling real smug about jobs evil empire.
Bill Gates didnt behave like this when apple brought out the Ipad.
Thats is because hes not a twat like Jobs was
Am I the only one that thinks this court case is very insulting to Apple users?
If you agree the whole "trade dress" thing and agree that the S2 looks just like the iPhone, and then suggest that Apple lost sales because of this, is that not incredibly insulting to the Apple community?
After all, you are saying that the Apple wana-be's but bought an iPhone got INCREDIBLY confused when they were given a box labelled "Samsung..." and then look at the device that had SAMSUNG in big shiney silver on the front of the phone at the top..... Easy mistake to make I guess, if you're an idiot!
(which is why I do not believe this was infringed, unless, they really ARE that stupid???)
A few points.
1: Accusing the jury of corruption is a serious allegation. I have seen no serious media suggest this, only the rabid fandroid community unhappy with the jury's decision.
2: It is pleasing that you (unlike the fandroid classes for the most part), have come to see that Samsung are not in fact "innocent". I don't now your previous position, so if it has changed, so be it
3: Android was created by some company no one can remember the name of, and I don't care. Google bought Android, and are using it for their own purposes. Google is very possibly the largest serial abuser of laws in the world. Breaking the law is their business model - and they show no signs of changing this approach.
4: Patents were not invented 30 years ago, so that is a pointless time frame (unless you refer specifically to software patents (which you didn't), and I can't be bothered chasing software patent history at this moment). Patents have existed for a very, very long time. The innovation and development of the industrial revolution was on the back of patents - or perhaps you didn't know? As has been pointed out other places, someone patented the steam engine, someone did patent the motor car with 4 wheels and an engine, and Westinghouse patented the air brake and became very wealthy on the back of that, and everyone got rich, and innovation and industrialisation moved on apace. The idea that patents inhibits innovation and industrial activity is disproven by the historical record - something which quite a lot of commentards whould be aware of, but aren't.
>The idea that patents inhibits innovation and industrial activity is disproven by the historical record
You could make an argument for Watt's objection to high pressure steam and his stranglehold over patents on the steam engine. And Andrew Carnegie getting very rich by the US's ignoring of foreign patents on steel making.
The problem is that patents are now being used to crush other markets. So design patents because they are more enforceable than copyright, business method patents on comparison shopping.
East Texas jury shopping becoming like the libel cases in London where you can prevent publication of something anywhere in the world by threatening to sue in London.
I'm not convinced that the real problem here isn't juries. They have an important role in criminal trials to stop the police having it all their own way - but since these cases innevitably go to a higher court, wouldn't it be easier to just have the trial in the higher court? Or separate technical courts as in Germany. Having technical patent or complex tax cases decided by 12 random people off the street is like Intel picking 12 random shareholders to design a CPU or rolls Royce having a turbine design approved by the first 12 people off a flight.
... or America's national pastime of copyright infringement ...
Even so, Watt couldn't build steam engines fast enough, and new technologies have continuously appeared to improve or replace patented inventions (or patents have expired).
OK, I am not a fan of software patents. However, if using that instrument is what it takes to stop copycat companies (in this specific case Samsung, but they are not alone), then that is what it takes.
Some of the commentards should be dumped in the middle of SE Asia so that they might better understand the industrialised scale and culture of copying that exists. It might realign them to the actual reality, rather than their distorted self invented reality.
Disclaimer: Samsung has had lots more of my money than Apple, just not for phones.
Might interest you on the subject of steam engine patents that Bolton & watt patented the crank shaft attached to a piston, yes really. London Science Museum has an example of a work round involving two gears, one fixed to the crank shaft and one fixed to the piston rod. A tie rod maintains the two in mesh so the shaft is 'dragged' round by the action of the tied gear. B&W remember are the company that had patents on low pressure steam engines (really they did) parallel motion links for beam engines (quite lateral thinking tbh) the apple like B&W behavior held back 'high pressure' techniques dreadfully (Trevithick's troubles with B&W, look how he slipped from history almost) like the piss poor fixed engine hauled uphill gravity railways mimicking contour canals etc. the dead hand of B&W litigation......
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022