backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by Motoman.. on Aug 30 at 10:39 AM


  (Source: Tech Digest)
Samsung lost an estimated $12B USD in worth from the decision

The weekend has passed, but the shock is still setting in after a potentially precedent setting jury verdict at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which left Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) on the hook for approximately $1.05B USD and facing at least temporary bans on most of its product lineup.

I. "Appleflation"?  Cupertino Company's Win Stirs Controversy

Apple, Inc. (AAPL) was quick to gloat about the victory, whose foundation certainly had some controversial aspects -- such as Apple's ability to re-patent inventions (pinch to zoom) in the context of capacitive multi-touch, Apple's ability to (essentially) patent the animation of natural phenomena (the rubber-band animation is a textbook visualization of nature's transient response e.g. see spring), and Apple's ability to "patent a shape" (Apple's attorneys argued that its design patents offered an exclusive right to make rectangular smartphones with rounded edges).

Thus in the aftermath of the trial, much of the controversy has focused not on whether the jury made the right decision, but whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was crippling the free market with its lacking scrutiny.

Tech mogul Mark Cuban (also a prominent venture capitalist featured on the show Shark Tank) blasted Apple's decision in a series of Twitter posts, as noted by Neowin.  He implies that he is going to boycott Apple's products as a result of the lawsuit, and accuses Apple of conspiring to raise prices for electronics customers a term he calls "Appleflation":
Mark Cuban
[Image Source: Twitter/Neowin]

Mark Cuban
[Image Source: Twitter]

Google, Inc. (GOOG) makers of the Android operating system also chimed in, writing that the claims in the case "don't relate to the core Android operating system", explaining:

The court of appeals will review both 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 US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that.

While that may sound like Google is throwing Samsung to the wolves, Google is aiming to offer Samsung and other Android OEMs powerful long-term protection, by filing a major new suit against Apple, which seeks to ban almost Apple's entire product lineup.

II. What's Next?  Bans, Appeals, Appear Likely

Reuters reports that after the ruling South Korea's markets had a wild day of trading, with 1.27 million shares of Samsung stock changing hands, and the company facing its worst single-day value loss in nearly four years.  Overall, Samsung shed $12B USD of its $160B USD valuation.  Apple, meanwhile added approximately $12B USD to its market cap this morning, reaching $634B USD, and creeping ever closer to Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFTrecord 1998 valuation, which adjusted for inflation totals around $850B USD.

Korean Won
The verdict cost Samsung $12B USD in value. [Image Source: 
SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg]

In a statement to Dow Jones NewsWires, Samsung complained that the ruling would limit consumer choice, writing:

We will move immediately to file post-verdict motions to overturn this decision in this court and if we are not successful, we will appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals

It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.

In other words, Samsung will first try to sway Judge Lucy Koh to reduce the infringement and damages in the trial verdict stage.  The jury's ruling is only guidance for the judge's verdict/sentencing in this kind of civil case, although it usually closely resembles the final ruling.

If it cannot sway Judge Koh, it will begrudgingly move up the food chain with its appeal, while it continues to challenge the validity of Apple's broad patents in complaints to the USPTO.

A memo to employees from Samsung's management highlights how the U.S. ruling was much more punitive than rulings in other countries, who largely rejected Apple's design claims (Germany is the only other region to embrace Apple's design claims).  Samsung writes:

We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company.
...
The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.

The Korea Times quotes a senior Samsung Electronics executive as saying; "It’s absolutely the worst scenario for us."

A South Korean patent lawyer involved in the case asserted, "Judge Lucy Koh will make the final ruling in the next few weeks. Samsung will try best to persuade Koh that we didn’t willfully infringe on Apple’s design patents. Samsung, however, is ready to bring the issue to the Supreme Court as the verdict was based on protectionism."

But a Samsung executive appeared more aware of the likely grim reality, remarking, "As far as I know, it’s very rare for the presiding judge to make a decision going against the verdict by jurors."

Thus Samsung's next move is to move the matter to an appeals court, and (likely) to work on emergency software patches to remove features like tap/pinch to zoom and new body designs, to escape product bans.
 

Unless the Samsung Galaxy S III escapes an ITC ban, Samsung's entire lineup may be temporarily forbidden from sale on the U.S. market.
 
Apple's next move will be to push for speedy product bans.  It will also likely seek to pressure the U.S. International Trade Commission to ban the Galaxy S III, not involved in the case, pointing that it has similar features as Samsung's infringing lineup (e.g. pinch to zoom).  If Apple can ban the Galaxy S III, it may be able to achieve the unthinkable -- secure a complete ban on the products of America's current top smartphone seller.

Sources: Samsung [memo], Mark Cuban on Twitter, Google via The Verge, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Has anyone actually read the patents?
By amanojaku on 8/27/2012 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 5
I reserved my judgement until I read them, and I have to say our patent system is flawed. Patents must be two things:

1) novel
2) non-obvious

The title of the 7844915 patent is "Application Programming Interfaces for Scrolling Operations", then it describes the patent. In summary, when you scroll to the edge of a region the visible portion bounces back in the opposite direction. This is OBVIOUS, because it is nothing more than a simple application of scrolling. Scrolling detects the edge, and normally stops. This is pointed out on page 40:

quote:
Scrolling is the act of sliding a directional (e.g. horizontal or vertical) presentation of content, such as text, drawings, or images, across a screen or display window. In a typical graphical user interface, scrolling is done with the help of a scrollbar or using keyboard shortcuts often the arrow keys. Gesturing is a type of user input with two or more input points. Animating operations include changing content within a given time period.

The set bounce call causes a bounce of a SCROLLED region in an opposite direction of a SCROLL based on a region past an edge of the SCROLLED region being visible in a display at the end of the SCROLL.


Which means it is not NOVEL, since it uses an existing technology.

More importantly, it DOES NOT describe an API, it describes a general concept. Again, from page 40:

quote:
An API is a source code interface that a computer system or program library provides in order to support requests for services from a software application. An API is specified in terms of a programming language that can be interpretive or compiled when an application is built, rather than an explicit low level description of how data is laid out in memory. The software that provides the functionality described by an API is said to be an implementation of the API.
Nowhere in the patent will you find source code, or anything that looks like source code.

The scariest thing is that this patent is not limited to smartphones. From page 42:

quote:
Embodiments of the disclosure described herein may be part of other types of data processing systems, such as, for example, entertainment systems or personal digital assistants (PDAs), or general purpose computer systems, or special purpose computer systems, or an embedded device within another device, or cellular telephones which do not include media players, or multi touch tablet devices, or other multi touch devices, or devices which combine functions or apsects of these devices.
The 7469381 patent is more of the same. Samsung's lawyers lost this case because they're incompetent.




RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By Tony Swash on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
By Solandri on 8/27/2012 3:36:35 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is the patent is on the net result, not the method by which it's accomplished. I can design a totally different way of making the bounce animation (it's a standard behavior from a spring-mass-damper 2nd order system). But Apple can still sue me under the patent because it will look similar.

This is nearly as bad as the XOR mouse cursor patent. That one also took a fundamental concept well-known in the industry (XOR is one of the four logical operators - AND, OR, XOR, NOT), and patented the graphical application of it (mouse cursor was the inverse of the background color, so it's always visible). You could work around it all you wanted, but the net effect would still be an XOR, so the patent still applied.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1044018/would-p...


RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By bupkus on 8/27/2012 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 3
I consider myself a fan of Android and I believe myself to not be whining. If disagreeing with Tony Swash means to be whining then I gladly accept the description, but I also gladly accept the desire to see you face those you insult on a city street. You are after all pretty generous with insults safe behind your anonymity.

I admire the work the Android programmers have done. I believe they have gone well beyond the restrictions that Apple executives have placed upon their programmers' work and created something much better than iOS.

Sure, Apple has won a court case in their home town but that should have been expected. Not dissimilar to the decision reached when seven L.A. police officers were tried for assaulting Rodney King and a change of venue was decided upon from L.A. with an established minority population to a very white Simi Valley. We all know about the ensuing fallout immediately following that court's decisions.
If this doesn't provide enough entertainment value try the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_...

But patience is needed as this is far from over.


By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2012 4:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Semi Valley wasn't just white at the time, it was and still is extremely conservative.


RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By Tony Swash on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
By Belard on 8/27/2012 7:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
But Apple is COPYING them by making a 7" class "iPad Mini" tablet to go against the Samsung Nexus7 and Kindle tablets.

I think and HOPE Apple gets sued. Why *IS* Apple coming out with a 7" tablet? Oh yeah, because Kindle and Android has proven that there is a market for that size. Never-mind that Steve Jobs himself said there WILL NEVER be a different size iPad. But since he is dead, apple releasing... a smaller iPad.

The detail are important. Apple shouldn't have been granted for that shape - which the the shape of phones LONG before the iPhone. What next? A computer or phone than is shaped like a circle?

Find people who bought a Samsung phone who thought it was an iPhone. I did a google search, no posts from anyone crying "I bought a Samsung by accident".

For the past few months, since I'm about to upgrade my phone and not happy with my past experience with a Samsung Android phone, I was opened to Windows Phone (Lumia 900) - which looks quite cool and the iPhone4 as well as latest Android phones. WP7 lost because its tech is out-dated and Win8 is fail. I already have an iPad1 which I am *HAPPY* with... with this ruling and apple's stupid-ass tactics. I'm getting another Android phone and I won't be buying an iPad4. Apple made that decision for me. I'm NOT a Apple-fan boy, not an Android fan boy and of course I have no love for Microsoft. I get what works.

I've picked my phone to get in the next week or so, it won't be Samsung - not because of apple or Samsung, but its a personal preference for me to get the Motorola after trying them out. I know the Samsung Galaxy S3 is the best phone on the market at this time.

So screw Apple... I *WANT* them to gain market share and kick Microsoft in the balls. But *I* want them to do it with technology and proper business and support for its customers. Not doing baby bull-shit in the courtroom.

This may make investors happy for now, but it makes Apple look like a smelly turd. The articles and reaction from many in the industry and us consumers is already starting a back-lash against Apple. What if this costs Apple 200,000 iphone and iPad sales? That could costs them about $500m in profit. I don't know the reaction to most people, but other than Apple fanboys such as yourself - Apple is becoming poison.

*I* really want Apple to stop this. I want them to WIN my business and anyone else on their products, not because they lock out competition out of the market over bullshit with "Rectangle with curved corners". As the poster above stated from the actual patent. They didn't actually patent the way to do the scroll bounce, just the idea - after the fact.

Hmmm... Apple has added the pull-down notification shade in iOS 5.0... something that has been in Android for a long time. Apple has STOLEN a function... I'm sure they're trying to patent too.


RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By CarlosViscarra on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2012 8:17:33 PM , Rating: 5
31 years old and still mentally in high school you mean.


By SlyNine on 8/28/2012 3:12:27 AM , Rating: 1
No, but you are incredible naive if you think nothing can happen to you.

Nothing is worth putting your lively hood in jeopardy, and that's what you're doing here.

For all you know he could be a serial killer, or a nobody. The point is why even bother, what are you gaining/fighting for?

How is it worth the risk? Do you somehow think their is no real risk, what if it comes knocking at your door?

Sorry just trying to scare you out of doing dumb things like this.


RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2012 11:16:47 AM , Rating: 1
The Starbucks in Alameda? Hey pendejo I was just there. I saw your F-150 with the custom mural of Jesus Christ with a waterfall and rain forest in the background. NICE!

Anyway you guys talk big when you boys from MS-13 have your back. Why don't you come down here so after I whip your ass, you can mow my lawn?


By Adonlude on 8/28/2012 2:31:53 PM , Rating: 3
So you two brutes going to duke it out over a nice frothy pair of orange mocha frappachinos?


RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By CarlosViscarra on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Has anyone actually read the patents?
By Tony Swash on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
By Helbore on 8/27/2012 6:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
You like to point out how even Microsoft copy Apple. How about pointing out how the iPhone and the iPad would still be being laughed at by the business community if Apple didn't license EAS from Microsoft?

Oh Microsoft used a similar font. Oh, android used a similar animation.

Apple needed to license a Microsoft technology to stop businesses laughing at their definition of a smartphone.

Apple need Microsoft - and they are smart enough to know that.


By BroNumsi on 8/29/2012 9:33:04 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously?

The whiner here is crApple, running like a little kid to the parents, crying "they made something that kinda looks like something I made, boo hoo. Make them stop, daddy!"
And the dim-witted parents just go "Of course, baby, anything for you. Just give me some vague idea of what you want to do and i'll protect you from others already doing it."

And everyone else just go "WTF just happened?"


By Mobious918 on 8/28/2012 12:06:54 PM , Rating: 1
Apple could have easily said "Hey, you guys are using pinch-to-zoom which is patented by me, I'll let you keep using it for a nominal fee," rather than throwing a tantrum and suing he crap out of Samsung. Everyone who uses an Android is already comfortable with pinch-to-zoom, it's basically a standard at this point, so why try to monopolize it? If they want credit for it cuz they have it patented then fine, make Samsung pay you royalties.

Samsung phones are/were selling like hotcakes, taking their droids off the market isn't going to make those people go "Oh well, guess I'll buy an iPhone", they're just going to go buy a different droid, aka: no extra $$ for Apple. If Apple instead was making royalties off the boatloads of Samsungs being sold, it's still a profit for them and they don't look like a jerk in the process.

In the end, the damage is already done, at least the patent system has had it's flaws revealed to the public eye. Patents or not, Apple has abused this situation; never was and never will be a fan.


By Shadowmaster625 on 8/28/2012 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with patents. It is about finding people who own a rising stock in a large company, loading them onto a jury, and using their own greed to further empower the fascist entity.


A note about patent law
By deathwombat on 8/27/2012 12:42:40 PM , Rating: 1
The original intent of patent law was to protect paradigm-altering ideas, not incremental or obvious improvements. One of the requirements for the issuance of a patent is that an expert in the field has to consider the invention to be clearly brilliant.

So, I'm trying to imagine the reaction from the expert who reviewed Apple's patent for a rectangular, minimalist design. He must have shot out of his chair and remarked, "A rectangular computer? That's brilliant! This is an idea that deserves to be protected, given its obvious superiority to triangular designs with tons of unnecessary buttons. This will revolutionize computing!"

If I had been the expert, my reaction would have been "duh". What other shape would one use? Why include a lot of buttons if you have a touch screen?




RE: A note about patent law
By Theoz on 8/27/2012 1:44:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
One of the requirements for the issuance of a patent is that an expert in the field has to consider the invention to be clearly brilliant


Dead wrong. See the statute regarding obviousness, 35 USC 103:
quote:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.


So replace "expert in the field" with "person having ordinary skill in the art" and "clearly brilliant" with "not obvious" and you would have been correct...


RE: A note about patent law
By deathwombat on 8/27/2012 3:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. That flies in the face of what we learned in school. The exact quote from my textbook was "...must be considered brilliant by an expert". It was an American textbook by a reputable publisher. Sadly, this isn't the first time that I've seen a textbook's claim debunked upon examination of the actual language of a legal document. That, or 35 USC 103 may be taken out of context. It seem both unnecessary, and impossibly burdensome for the judicial system, to protect any idea that isn't obvious to a person of ordinary skill. I would definitely demand reform if this text actually means what it appears to be saying.


RE: A note about patent law
By Theoz on 8/27/2012 3:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with protecting only massive leaps in innovation is that many of the best inventions ever have seemed insignificant at first. See the zipper or the band-aid for two.

If we require such a high standard for protection then 1) fewer will invest in innovation because there is such a high bar to receive protection and 2) many important inventions will go unprotected.


RE: A note about patent law
By BifurcatedBoat on 8/27/2012 6:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Most ideas are built on what came before. If it's not a massive leap, then it shouldn't be patented. Do you really think Apple would have decided not to create the iPhone if they couldn't get a design patent on the rectangle?

Besides, rectangular touchscreen phones existed before the iPhone. They weren't as polished, and they weren't well known, but they did exist.


RE: A note about patent law
By EricMartello on 8/28/2012 6:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
The basic purpose of a patent is to protect the person/company that spends time, money and effort to develop an idea, only to have another company copy the final product and sell it as their own. It is a necessary protection but I think that many patents that are being filed simply don't stack up and are too broad. There needs to be higher standards for specificity and they need to improve the general process for reviewing patent applications. Our legal system is at least a decade or two behind current tech at any given time.


Didn't Apple copy Sony?
By woody1 on 8/27/2012 5:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't I read stories that Jobs copied a "prior art" Sony device when it created the iPhone? I don't understand why Sony isn't suing the bejesus out of Apple. Maybe Google should buy Sony start coutersuits.

Either way, I would love to see Google get all medieval on Apple's ass!




RE: Didn't Apple copy Sony?
By retrospooty on 8/27/2012 5:25:01 PM , Rating: 3
LOL... But I wouldnt worry.

In the end Apple will get what they deserve. They 1 upped everyone else in the smartphone arena in 2007, now the rest of the industry is passing them by while they sit still with their aging IOS and lack of innovation in the past 5 years. They see that and are suing, but it will only get them so far. Android went from nothing 2 years ago to , to 2.5 to 1 last year. This year Android is already outselling Apple more than 4 to 1, and that trend will continue.

The bigger the BS the less staying power it has, and right now Apple is running off pure BS.


RE: Didn't Apple copy Sony?
By Mint on 8/28/2012 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just waiting for the right time to short them. I should have done the same with FB, but was too lazy. I think they'll have strong iPhone5 sales and will get some momentum there, and that'll be the right time.


RE: Didn't Apple copy Sony?
By tng on 8/28/2012 11:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
You are right, I think, but after looking at the 5 I just don't see anything groundbreaking about it.

It will be well received by allot of people who wanted one already or do have to have the latest/greatest, but to people who already have a smartphone they already like, there is just not enough there as far as I can see to invest.

That has been a pattern as of late with Apple, new products, but mostly just like the old products.


RE: Didn't Apple copy Sony?
By retrospooty on 8/28/2012 6:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, Nice Apple... Welcome to the 4 inch screen and 4G wonderland your competition that copies you had years before you. Not quite sure how that works. LOL.


I like Mark Cuban
By tayb on 8/27/2012 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 4
That is all.




RE: I like Mark Cuban
By justjc on 8/27/2012 3:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, Mark Cuban deserves respect for his statements on Twitter.

I hope more Apple users follows him on the ban, so Apple truly can feel that they shouldn't use legislation but rather innovation to keep costumers. Sadly the world haven't seen much innovation from Apple since they launched the iPhone 3G.


RE: I like Mark Cuban
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2012 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
Only so many times you can come with a groundbreaking change in computing devices. You and they shouldn't expect to come up with industry changing devices every year. They deserved their initial success, but they shouldn't think that entitles them to be the only game in town forever.


RE: I like Mark Cuban
By CarlosViscarra on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: I like Mark Cuban
By Natch on 8/28/2012 7:42:05 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, really classy there. And the word is "douche", noob!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/douche?s=t

The holier than thou, "Look at me, I'm so much better than you" elitist attitude you Apple fanboys have is a big part of the reason why people are turned off to Apple products.


Why this is bull!
By Belard on 8/27/2012 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
Apple sues Samsung because it sells a lot of phones, nothing more. Square with rounded corners? My Samsung monitor looks just like an iPhone!

The high-tech components inside the iPhones are designed/built by Samsung. The products are assembled in China.

Funny, Apple is NOT suing the makers of the AirPhone4. Look it up on youtube. It looks just like an iPhone4, just a tad thicker. Of course its a knock off. The packaging *IS* the iPhone4. Its all plastic with fake metal band. The UI is very much like the iPhone4... but its just a hack job.

Its $100 or less off the shelf.

Again, Apple isn't suing the company that is actually making a product that looks like theirs. That should have been pointed out by Samsung.




RE: Why this is bull!
By nshoe on 8/27/2012 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, do you see the airphone4 for sale in the United States? Apple can't sue the maker of the airphone4 in the US because the device is not for sale in the United States (and they probably can't sue them in China because China has vastly different laws on the subject)

Learn a little about the law before spouting off on things you know nothing about.


RE: Why this is bull!
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2012 4:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
China has zero interest in protecting US intellectual property. So long as we don't pressure them to knock it off they will keep this stance, it strengthens their economy and weakens ours.


By Belard on 8/27/2012 8:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
In the next few weeks, Apple will soon demand to have Samsung devices to be pulled from the market. The thing is.. not all Samsung devices were called out as being the infringing device.

This is the list of Samsung devices:
Galaxy S 4G
Galaxy S2 (AT&T)
Galaxy S2 (Skyrocket)
Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)
Galaxy S2 Epic 4G
Galaxy S Showcase
Droid Charge (This looks more like an old Blackberry)
Galaxy Prevail

These are ALL old phones that not many people are getting anymore.




By Camikazi on 8/28/2012 10:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
They will go after the SG3 and Nexus as well, they just weren't added to the list in time. Thing I find funny is that in the trial the jury was awarding money to Apple for devices that they even said did not infringe on Apples patents. So basically a phone was found to not violate any Apple patents yet they decided to give Apple money as if the phone did violate a patent, it makes no sense.


Couldn't care less about Apple
By GotThumbs on 8/27/2012 5:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'll never own an Apple product.

Even if I have to purchase my phones from Ebay and use a monthly plan.

If the jury was privy to the pre-existing art...I don't think Apple would have won....but I guess Justice in this county is now deaf and dumb. Sometime is it's to the point of laughable its so sad and pathetic.

Add to the fact that we have a sitting president who signs presidential orders that go against current US Law.

Hello! McFly! How dumb will things have to get for people to wake up?




But is it Apple's fault really..?
By nikon133 on 8/27/2012 7:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
I've been following Apple vs. Samsung trial with great interest, and was disappointed with verdict. Having high hopes that appeal will be successful.

But I'm also trying to remain cool-headed.

I don't like Apple's aggressive approach to patenting (and using in court) "inventions" that shouldn't be patentable. But end of the day, Apple is trying to achieve what any other company is - maximize profit. Are they more greedy, more unscrupulous and ruthless than others? Maybe. Are they working the system to their advantage better than others? Definitely. But... they are working within the system.

So for me, major problem is not Apple being big bad wolf, but system letting them to be big bad wolf. They should not have been granted number of their "patents", or even if they did, number of them should have been annulled by court.

I guess at my age, I'm not idealistic enough any more to expect Apple to put a finger on their forehead and say "well, we can do it, but it would not be nice, even if we lose billions otherwise". They are obviously threatened by Samsung, and someone pressed panic button. I don't think they really though this all the way out, and I expect - hell, hope - that this will backfire at them in a fashion Microsoft's monopolistic muscle workout fired back at them back in the days. That would make them a bit more humble, like it did to MS.

In the meantime, I'm unlikely to purchase another Apple product, as I'm finding hard to support company I don't agree with. But like I said - don't expect Apple to be the saint, blame the system that lets them be the devil.




We are doomed!
By ihateu3 on 8/28/2012 7:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
Someone hurry up and patent round wheels on a car that utilizes Apple hardware or software!!!

Hey, when pinch to zoom hit the capacitive screen, it was suddenly innovative!




Only the Lawyers Benefit
By tng on 8/28/2012 11:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
I will say that this is not good news for the electronics industry as a whole, but I am not sure why everybody is so worked up over this.

If Samsung products are banned, there is a certain percentage of the public that will backlash against Apple. How large this will be is anybodies guess, but Apple will feel it.

This will be appealed to a higher court and at least some of it will be reversed. In the end I don't think this is all about what Apple wants anymore really, it is about what Apple's lawyers tell them they can do and they will want to keep collecting a paycheck, so this can't be the end.




By Roy2001 on 8/29/2012 11:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
So we can no longer blame Chinese for copying. more choices, right?




By Any14Tee on 8/29/2012 7:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's the Samsung electronics inside the Apple that makes it an Apple. Apple may have innovated but inventions? Please someone think of one, tablet? smart phone? PC? MP3? Answer is no, excuse me yes, rectangle with round corners, I knew there was something Apple could call their own!




Microsoft all over again?
By superstition on 8/29/2012 11:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft's monopoly position, which was particularly prominent when Apple was practically on its death bed and Linux wasn't even close to viable as a mainstream desktop OS (not that it's all that close even today), resulted in the "Microsoft tax". Studies found that Windows in particular, and to some extent Office, were overpriced due to monopolization.

Then there's Microsoft's elimination of Netscape and the paid browser market. Netscape was an innovative force until its cash flow was sucked dry by MS's underhanded tactics.

I have to wonder if the same level of outrage that we see from certain folks over Apple's gaming of the patent system (a worthwhile endeavor since the best way to get it fixed is to expose its flaws -- the same argument hackers make when they hack OS X and crow about it) was expressed during Microsoft's most abusive days? I doubt it.

But, when we come down to it, disliking companies for being greedy is utterly idiotic in a capitalist system. Capitalism's entire basis is the notion that greed is good. Ironically the very folks here who are the most apt to label things they don't like socialism seem to have a problem with capitalism and all of its many warts, when it doesn't benefit "their team".




By Roy2001 on 8/27/2012 12:26:04 PM , Rating: 1
WTF, thieves are providing copies of original ideas as multiple choices?




The facts are...
By petrosy on 8/27/2012 7:30:19 PM , Rating: 1
Iphone is still a shit phone regardless of Samsung "copying" its trade dress.

The verdict does not alter reality, Samsungs phones are still better. iPhone can keep their dated UI that looks like and acts like a toy.

iPhone = Smart phone for dumb people
Android = Smart phone for smart people




Choice
By hiscross on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Choice
By Motoman on 8/27/2012 11:47:40 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry, dipsh1t. Apple isn't "protecting their work."

A rectangle with rounded corners isn't an invention...it's geometry.

Apple's patents are specious. They shouldn't have been shameful enough to seek getting them in the first place. The USPTO shouldn't have been moronic enough to have granted them. And Apple shouldn't continue to be so shameful as to use them to troll the market.

There isn't the slightest virtue in Apple. Nor is there any in their defenders.

You, sir, are a tool.


RE: Choice
By RjBass on 8/27/2012 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
So then why isn't Apple suing makes of WinMobile 7 or 8? Their phones are rectangles with rounded corners, use pinch to zoom etc....

Apple is a bully, and closer to a monopoly than any electronics company in the past has gotten to include Microsoft.


RE: Choice
By Zuul on 8/27/2012 12:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
MS and Apple have cross licensing agreements in place whereas Apple will get $$ from MS and vice versa for using each other's patents.

btw it's Windows Phone, not Windows Mobile.


RE: Choice
By BSMonitor on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Choice
By Motoman on 8/27/2012 12:15:18 PM , Rating: 4
Think you'd be OK paying a license fee to make a product in a rectangular shape?

Apple's patents are laughably specious. As are their defenders. GTFO.


RE: Choice
By messele on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Choice
By Solandri on 8/27/2012 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Rectangle with rounded corners" refers to the design patents Samsung was found to infringe upon. You can read through them really quickly (they're just pictures and a list of references). They actually don't look very much like any of the Samsung phones, so the only way one could construe Samsung to be infringing is if one interpreted the patents to be on any design of a flat rectangle with rounded corners.

http://www.google.com/patents/USD618677
http://www.google.com/patents/USD593087

Samsung was found not to be infringing on the similar patent for the iPad. Apparently the jury agreed sufficient prior art (Star Trek, Knight-Ridder) existed to invalidate the patent. Samsung was barred from introducing similar prior art for phones (namely, its internal designs for phone prototypes it was working on before the iPhone was released) due to a technicality (missed a court filing deadline).
http://www.google.com/patents/USD504889

And no it was not an overall look and feel case. Each individual element, each patent, was individually examined in detail and determined to be infringing or not infringing. There was no "overall look and feel" infringement. That's a cognitive dissonance fabrication of the folks who wanted Apple to win but were honest enough to admit that these individual patents were too basic and obvious to be patented.


RE: Choice
By gixser on 8/27/2012 4:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Can you patent something so intangible as "look and feel"? (Not saying there is no protection, e.g. Copyright.)

The 5 requirements of patentability are discuseed here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent

In Diamond v. Chakravarty the Supreme court said the scope of patentability should be broad but also held "abstract ideas are not patentable."

So, is "look and feel" an abstract idea and consequently not subject to patent protection?


RE: Choice
By ritualm on 8/27/2012 12:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong.

The single biggest reason why most companies refuse to enter into patent licensing deals with patent trolls: the former ends up legitimizing the behavior of the latter. Apple is a patent troll, even if it does "produce" something.

Microsoft did this for Apple, not simply to save the company from ruin, but because of pre-existing antitrust issues if they don't.


RE: Choice
By theapparition on 8/27/2012 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
Apple isn't suing MS because they can't. They have broad cross licensing agreements between the two companies.

I completely weep from this action. This is completely against any sort of innovation.

Imagine if you will, how the automotive market would be now if our legal system was similar 100 years ago? The complete lack of innovation and stifling competition.

OMG, someone else made a car with 4 wheels too. Even though we had covered wagons and horse drawn carriages with 4 wheels, this is a self propelled 4 wheel design. IT MUST BE PROTECTED AND WE DEMAND JUSTICE!!!! They can't "willfully" copy our 4 wheel car!

What's that? Someone added brakes and a windshield. Clear case of infringement.


RE: Choice
By spamreader1 on 8/27/2012 1:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be suprised how much patent wars play out in the background by auto manufacturers. My favorite was the windshield wiper delay patents suites.


RE: Choice
By Solandri on 8/27/2012 4:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the wiper patent was really stupid. You had pre-existing mechanical wiper delay systems. But someone patented the exact same system using electronics (control systems are mathematical constructs - whether the elements are mechanical, electrical, chemical, or whatever is irrelevant - that's why you can build a computer using mechanical relays, electronic transistors, or even Minecraft blocks). A non-engineering analogy would be like taking an existing method of drawing using a pencil, and patenting that same drawing method using a pen.

But the same patent drama already played out in the automotive industry. Seldon patented the idea of sticking an engine onto a carriage, and held the entire industry hostage for 16 years. Eventually Ford won the lawsuit and modern manufacturers' automobiles were found not to be infringing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Selden#The_...


RE: Choice
By ritualm on 8/27/2012 11:50:59 AM , Rating: 1
So much nonsense. Apple doesn't want anyone to use their so-called design and software patents. Oh if you want to use them, you gotta pay so much in Apple taxes-cough-licensing fees your own competing products end up being too uneconomical.

The only winner here is Apple. Everyone else loses. How is that "not limiting choice"? I bet you don't have a clue iota what you're talking about.


RE: Choice
By retrospooty on 8/27/2012 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not forget they havent "won" yet. At best you can call this a single case that was won by a Jury of 9 jurers and a Judge from the Silicon Valley, just minutes away from Apple HQ with key evidence disallowed by the judge. Let the appeals courts do their job. They are a "higher level court" for a reason.


RE: Choice
By Theoz on 8/27/2012 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 1
All these "consumer choice limited" articles and complaints are ridiculous. Patents are limited-term monopolies. Monopolies inherently limit consumer choice. The US government (patents are in the constitution!) and every other developed nation has determined that innovation incentives, in the form of patents, are more important than consumer choice. I personally would rather have incentives for innovation than more choices of unnecessary tech toys.


RE: Choice
By rountad on 8/28/2012 12:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't you a patent attorney?


Mark Cuban
By BSMonitor on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Mark Cuban
By Motoman on 8/27/2012 12:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
...reckon anyone cares what you think?


RE: Mark Cuban
By BSMonitor on 8/27/2012 12:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
touche


RE: Mark Cuban
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/27/2012 10:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
In your case, more like Douche...


Can somebody explain to me...
By messele on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By Motoman on 8/27/2012 12:14:19 PM , Rating: 5
Simple.

Apple never innovated anything in the first place. They either stole the concepts to begin with, or managed to get patents for things that are obviously unpatentable.

What you just said about Samsung is at least equally, probably more valid about Apple.

Granting a company the exclusive rights to a basic geometrical shape, or for animations that mimic nature, is not the "best thing that could have happened." And no one is going to win. Except Apple that is. This is exactly the worst possible ruling any court could have ever made - it is the blackest day ever in patent law. It is, in fact, the strongest step made toward fascism ever seen.Simple.

Apple never innovated anything in the first place. They either stole the concepts to begin with, or managed to get patents for things that are obviously unpatentable.

What you just said about Samsung is at least equally, probably more valid about Apple.

Granting a company the exclusive rights to a basic geometrical shape, or for animations that mimic nature, is not the


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By BSMonitor on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By ritualm on 8/27/2012 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't rebuked his reply - which is 100% true - and you called him out for trolling.

Pot, meet kettle.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By messele on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By ritualm on 8/27/2012 12:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Now you're just throwing random BS at Apple-hating non-believers and hoping that something, anything would stick.

Keep pratce, Tony Swash.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By messele on 8/27/12, Rating: 0
By retrospooty on 8/27/2012 12:58:59 PM , Rating: 5
It's not that Apple never inovated anything, they do sometimes. The issue is that they copy more than innovate and this verdict, if upheld in an appeals court basically says that its OK for Apple to copy but not for anyone to copy Apple.

If you want to say "Apple is being copied", then take it back to the root. Apple "copied" the whole mobile phone idea, as well as putting and OS and apps on a phone from Palm/Handspring - grid layout of icons and all. All companies do this. The entire industry builds off ideas of others. It always has. All industries always have. Its as if to say, Toyota, GM, BMW and Honda shouldnt be allowed to make cars because they all copy Ford. This is how business has always been done on planet earth since the dawn of civilization. Somehow Apple thinks that they are above it now.

Fortunately all that happened is a court and a jury from Apple's hometurf in the Silicon Valley is all that agreed (and they did that with evidence that showed Samsung had those designs prior to the iPhone thrown out by the Judge, so the jury never got to see it).

If you cant see the problem there, then you are the troll.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By ritualm on 8/27/2012 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're still sprouting BS, the only difference being you truly, utterly believe all the delusional, insane and hypocritical things you talk about makes the remotest of common sense.

You're surrounded by sane, logical, well-reasoned folks and the best retort you have is "you all still come across as a bunch of rabid psychos". How pathetically laughable.

Here's a clue. AT&T the monopoly tried - and failed - getting the courts to ban all "telephone accessory" products. More than half a century later, we're watching the exact same circus-du-insanity unfold in the courtrooms.


By theapparition on 8/27/2012 12:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Internet Explorer. No Apple credits.

Windows Media Player. No Apple credits.

Challenge accepted and won. Now where's my cookie?


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By BSMonitor on 8/27/2012 2:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
What is there to rebuke?? Apple hasn't innovated ANYTHING. If he truly believes this... Nothing I can say could convince him otherwise...

The notion is so blatantly ignorant that arguing with someone like that only gives the notion credibility... Which, it has none.


By NellyFromMA on 8/27/2012 12:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
He's upset about a foolish decision. Also, it's not a flame, it's kind of the truth...


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By messele on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By jshadow121 on 8/27/2012 1:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Quote:
"Basic geometric shapes? No, a rectangle is a basic geometric shape, round the corners off and it's no longer basic. Familiar yes. Basic no."

What about a Cafeteria Tray?
It's a Rectangle with rounded corners, and that has existed for over 70 years.
That should count as previous art.

http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-18445BR/Brea...


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By mcnabney on 8/28/2012 9:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of prior cell phones that were rectangular with rounded edges. The LG Chocolate comes to mind, but there were scads of others.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By Theoz on 8/27/2012 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 1
This post is hilarious (I'm not being sarcastic). Good show.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/2012 2:18:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Basic geometric shapes? No, a rectangle is a basic geometric shape, round the corners off and it's no longer basic. Familiar yes. Basic no.


Okay fair enough, I'll go with that.

Except pretty much every phone before the iPhone had rounded corners. The Blackberry, the Palm Trio, the Nokia E62. Even those cheap flip phones that made up the majority of the market at the time, rounded corners. Rounded corners are just obvious, everyone does it, and always has. Big hint, phones usually go in pockets. Do you like sharp edges on things in your pocket?

There's no way Apple should have been granted a patent on something that's an industry standard and obvious as hell. And if they are, it should be VERY technical. As in the exact radius of the angle. Not just a broad generic "angle" patent.

Anyway I'm sure you'll just troll your way out of this, cause that's how you roll.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By BSMonitor on 8/27/2012 2:26:40 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, this was the one patent that the jury found Samsung did not violate.


By BifurcatedBoat on 8/27/2012 1:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
All of the stuff that Apple has patents for, they stole from somebody else. Seriously, I'm not making this up, you can find it for yourself.

For example, they were granted their patent on pinch to zoom in the context of capacitive touch. This would be like getting a patent on the use of a cylinders in a motor that burns a new liquid fuel type that was recently discovered.

A rectangular shape should be obviously unpatentable, because it's the shape of a screen. Of course you're going to make something whose dimensions are based on the shape of a rectangular screen rectangular. It would be idiotic to use any other shape.

The iPhone was not even the first touchscreen phone on the market. There were others before it, they were just less well-done, and consequently not popular. Apple's contribution then was popularizing existing technology, not inventing it. That's what Apple always does though.


RE: Can somebody explain to me...
By Uncle on 8/27/2012 1:46:00 PM , Rating: 1
I love it. Keep going Apple. Monopolize the USA market, keep other products off the market in the USA, while the rest of the world innovates and moves forward. The people who buy into this, deserve what they get. Two choices apple or junk, and I'm not saying that apple could be the best choice. The USA just won't know, their won't be anything on the market place to make an informed decision. Yes apple, shut the USA imports down, protect apples market. I love it makes me feel good when I see how the USA capitalism and free market system works. No wonder the USA is the Free Enterprise system of the world. Cheers to you apple, maybe the USA can build a solid wall like china around itself to protect its people from making their own choices in the market place. Its obvious that apple thinks it has to protect USA people that are too stupid to know the difference between an apple product and a Samsung product or any foreign product. No wonder apple is losing market share in china, they can't bullshit the people over there and shall I say no one to protect apple there.


3 articles? JM must really be butthurt
By corduroygt on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: 3 articles? JM must really be butthurt
By xti on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: 3 articles? JM must really be butthurt
By messele on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
By ritualm on 8/27/2012 12:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
Do you honestly expect Jason Mick et al. to run this place out of their own pockets, and expect them to not post anything negative on Apple?

Apple is perfectly content towards stealing everyone else's ideas, but infinitely intolerant of the reverse. Apple is losing because the competition works smarter, better, faster, and its solution thus far? Sue everyone, ban everyone, until only Apple products are left standing.

If Apple continues to get courts to rule in their favor, the only things you can buy in America anymore are things that have the glowing Apple logo plastered over them. That is not choice, sir... that is tyranny at its worst.


By theapparition on 8/27/2012 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Besides, everyone knows the best Android is Google's stock version and that's fine and doesn't infringe on anything.

Apparently not everyone, since you don't know that apple applied for an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus, a pure Google device.

Apple only wants to destroy Android, not live it. While virtually printing money right now, they are shaking in their boots as they see their market share shrinking. Just as their PC market virtually disappeared. Only this time, they've covered themselves better with dubious IP.

You can always tell the difference between a fanatic and someone with logic. I'm quite content to have a thriving Apple as a competitor in the marketplace. However the fanatics only talk of banning the others' products completely, or throwing executives in jail.


By BZDTemp on 8/27/2012 1:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
Stop being silly. The ink on the verdict isn't dry yet and the Apple lawyers are still hung over on Champagne. Wait a few weeks and you could well see the amount of choices go down quickly.

Furthermore have you not realized how the patent was is escalating costing tech companies billions of dollars!

Dollars that could have spend on developing new stuff, paying the wages for designers, engineers, programmers, scientist and what not only now they go towards lawyers and owners of patent collections.

All this hoopla is bad for everyone in the long term even if there is short term winners.

In fact "everyone" could very well include Apple in just a moment - look at Motorola(google) vs. Apple and you'll see that if Motorola succeeds Apple will be banned from importing anything except perhaps keyboards and mice. If that happens Apple will be out of the hardware business in the US since all their stuff is made in Asia. Then Microsoft will really start laughing because they might end up being the only player left (aided by Nokia that is).


By kamiller422 on 8/27/2012 1:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Google did not say the verdict does not affect core Android. It says it _mostly_ doesn't. Google hopes to invalidate the rest, probably patents '381, '915 and '163. And if they can't get them invalidated? Appleflation.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/appl...


To All Apple hating Geeks:
By CarlosViscarra on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: To All Apple hating Geeks:
By inperfectdarkness on 8/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: To All Apple hating Geeks:
By messele on 8/29/2012 1:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
Because you are too lazy to read the history for yourself?

They did try and sue Apple once they realised what they had given away but Apple had bought themselves in, fair and square, and came out not only with the crown jewels but the guys who invented it as employees such was Xerox blindness to the brilliance of their own people.


Just a Thought
By WhatKaniSay on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Just a Thought
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2012 4:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the technology was at an acceptable level when MS was doing the tablet. But really the smart phone is built on top of all those early devices - palm pilot, gps devices, windows mobile, etc. Apple hit the timing perfect putting all these devices together when the hardware was finally good enough. They also did a brilliant job tying it all together with iOS. But still everything was their beforehand and its not like you can expect to block every other company from developing a mobile GUI OS.


RE: Just a Thought
By Vertigo2000 on 8/27/2012 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
Apple does innovate... they don't invent. Many people routinely misuse these 2 words and think of them as interchangeable when they mean completely different things.

Innovate = to make changes; do something in a new way. IMO, this means that products/processes already exist (ie. have been invented), the innovator simply makes changes to improve the product or process.

Invent = to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment. IMO, this means the product/process did not exist before the inventor created it.

In business, innovation is probably more important simply due to decreased risk and development costs (making a change to a product people readily use as opposed to inventing a brand new product that people have never seen and may have no use for), but the USPTO is supposed to be more about protecting invention.


RE: Just a Thought
By BifurcatedBoat on 8/27/2012 6:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
It should be obvious, but it's because they were successful. Being successful at selling a product doesn't mean that you invented it. In fact, there are numerous examples throughout history of inventors dying penniless while some business exec struck it rich selling their product.

Apple takes other people's ideas and makes them commercially successful, but that shouldn't give them a right to a monopoly over the market. Those ideas still don't belong to them.


Cry me a river
By Tony Swash on 8/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Cry me a river
By theapparition on 8/27/2012 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
So honestly, and I mean honestly, answer this.

Do you think Apple should have been granted a patent for pinch to zoom on a capacitive screen, even though multi-touch existed on other devices (prior art)?

Do you think that is innovation?

I don't think Android is doomed because of this. In fact, I see this a a huge loss for Apple in the long run. Now others manufacturers will rush to patent overly broad and obvious designs and use them against Apple. Google is already starting, which you already whined about. Apple being too heavy handed can soon find themselves on the outside looking in.

It's really sad that the company you evangelize only want to compete by making local governments try to ban their products.


RE: Cry me a river
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2012 4:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
Blatant copy of minority report, Tom Cruise should be suing apple. :)


RE: Cry me a river
By bupkus on 8/27/2012 3:19:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Grow a pair"?

quote:
Are you pathetic numb nuts

quote:
The ball is in your court.

The topic for today is balls.

Oh, Tony, you're such a manly man. Stop taunting the wild animals with your poking stick.

Assignment for the day-- create a sentence using both the words "stagnation" and "entrenched".

Fortune cookie says: Your walled garden will begin to crumble in the coming months.


RE: Cry me a river
By Tony Swash on 8/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: Cry me a river
By momorere on 8/27/2012 10:33:48 PM , Rating: 1
Please take time and educate yourself alittle with all these conflicting interviews by your fellow iSheep. After reading that you can't possibly believe the verdict was true and thought out although in your Apple alternate reality, I'm sure you won't see the point.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201208251...


RE: Cry me a river
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/28/2012 9:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
He will never see the point, it's futile to even attempt.


RE: Cry me a river
By atlmann10 on 8/29/2012 10:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
The funny part of this is do you know who pays the 1 Billion dollar fine if of course any of it is ever paid? That would be Apple customers in raised prices on the processors, memory, lenses, and screens on there APPLE devices that are made by SAMSUNG!


RE: Cry me a river
By Motoman on 8/28/2012 10:03:04 AM , Rating: 3
That article is awesome, and shows definitively just how wildly biased that jury was.

The jurors will be exceedingly lucky if they don't wind up in jail themselves.

Things will be even worse for Apple in the end because of this. Would have been better for them just to have lost this one cleanly and be done with it.


RE: Cry me a river
By atlmann10 on 8/29/2012 10:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and the only real victor will most likely be Microsoft in any market where there are less Android phones as they have new hardware popping out with a new integrated for mobile OS in the next month. Apple does as well but there customers will just be paying SAMSUNGS fine and APPLE will of course have lower earnings VS because there units are more expensive.


RE: Cry me a river
By Motoman on 8/30/2012 10:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
If that happens then Samsung, and probably all Android vendors, will have just cause to sue Apple even more, for it's anti-competitive market manipulations using specious patents.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki