Apple vs. Samsung Jury Has Reached A Verdict

If Samsung were smart they would use this opportunity to move over to MS instead of Android. They already pay MS a licensing fee on the MS patents that Google included in Android and they are the only phone manufacturer, besides Apple, turning a profit. I think a Samsung/MS partnership could be very formidable ... a much more dangerous threat to Apple than Google ever was ;)
 
Ryokurin said:
It was the same deal originally offered to Samsung. Microsoft didn't have a problem with it, Samsung wanted to pay less or nothing at all. In the end they still achieved that. Apple wanted $2.5 billion, not the $1.05 they got.
Click to expand...

Samsung still won't pay it...just like Apple never put a court ordered notice on their website that said Samsung did not steal their designs.

Basically, Samsung did not steal the designs but the judge would not let Samsung prove it...therefore Samsung will appeal and the next judge will not be a bought by Apple lawyer like this one was.
 
BBA said:
Samsung still won't pay it...just like Apple never put a court ordered notice on their website that said Samsung did not steal their designs.

Basically, Samsung did not steal the designs but the judge would not let Samsung prove it...therefore Samsung will appeal and the next judge will not be a bought by Apple lawyer like this one was.
Click to expand...

That is if Samsung's (which is also Google's lawyers BTW) actually do their jobs correctly and submit materials on time. Everyone knew there will be an appeal, just like the cases you mentioned were so it's nowhere near over. It's just funny people me with all the people thinking that this is going to kill Samsung, or think that a single piece of evidence was going to change it all. In the end everyone is going to get a piece of everyone's pie.
 
BBA said:
Samsung still won't pay it...just like Apple never put a court ordered notice on their website that said Samsung did not steal their designs.

Basically, Samsung did not steal the designs but the judge would not let Samsung prove it...therefore Samsung will appeal and the next judge will not be a bought by Apple lawyer like this one was.
Click to expand...

The judge should face jail time. Along with all the other corrupt judges.
 
BBA said:
Samsung still won't pay it...just like Apple never put a court ordered notice on their website that said Samsung did not steal their designs.

Basically, Samsung did not steal the designs but the judge would not let Samsung prove it...therefore Samsung will appeal and the next judge will not be a bought by Apple lawyer like this one was.
Click to expand...

LOL.It's nice to have a good laugh in the morning. the appeals process does not work that away. And again for about the 50,0000th time. Samsung are the ones that screwed up, if the ignore the judge set trial schedule, NO Judge in any U.S court is going to let your evidence in period. They schedule are firm for a reason.

Second on appeal you may only rely on the record, and as long as a single reasonble juror could find the outcome, it's valid.

Samsungs best shot is with the jury instructions, but i can't imagine that the judge wasnt ultra careful with her instructions.
 
In my opinion, Apple will pay the fine for itself indirectly. Samsung just needs to increase the price of their components for Apple according to the fines and "licence fees". And it's not like Apple can go anywhere else for many of their components.
 
Cali3350 said:
Ok guys, Samsung destroyed evidence multiple times and disregarded 3 different court orders for evidence handling. You can all run to the "Judge was paid by Apple" camp all you want but Samsung deserved to be disciplined for its behavior.
Click to expand...

Late doesn't matter in the grand scheme, neither does any evidence not allowed. They'll make use of it all during appeal. I expect Samsung to win some things on appeal, but they'll still get smacked. It just won't cost them a $1 billion.

Samsung deserved to be smacked, but not as badly as they got hit.

TouchWiz was pretty obviously modeled after iOS, right down to the icons only having minor differences. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was pretty obviously modeled to sorta look like iPad. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 box was pretty obviously modeled after iPad box. When Google says "hey cut that shit out, it looks too much like Apple" you should probably listen.

I'm amazed that the jury allowed the rectangular object with rounded corners patent though and other vague ones like it. My wife's old LG Chocolate was a rectangle with rounded corners. As was my old Samsung flip phone. So was the Palm Treo minus the giant ass antenna in the left corner. Patents like that are just fucking stupid and never should have been allowed.

Apple shows off the Lumia as a phone that doesn't look like iPhone. Guess what? It's still a rectangle with rounded corners. They just reversed the direction of the rounding.
 
In Asia copy/cloning is a tradebusiness its a different culture.
However the patent business in USA is a joke with its current criteria.
Intel made dmg to AMD and payed up due to evidence was found showing how badly intel did things.

Big business a lot is stealing or copying due to how patent currently works for software solutions.
One big problem right there.
 
ikarinokami said:
LOL.It's nice to have a good laugh in the morning. the appeals process does not work that away. And again for about the 50,0000th time. Samsung are the ones that screwed up, if the ignore the judge set trial schedule, NO Judge in any U.S court is going to let your evidence in period. They schedule are firm for a reason.

Second on appeal you may only rely on the record, and as long as a single reasonble juror could find the outcome, it's valid.

Samsungs best shot is with the jury instructions, but i can't imagine that the judge wasnt ultra careful with her instructions.
Click to expand...

Who says Samsung ignored the trial schedule? You have a complex commercial dispute involving thousands to tens of thousands of documents, it is bound to happen that crucial pieces of evidence will only be uncovered after a discovery deadline has passed. It is patently unfair to punish a party by depriving them of evidence which forms the foundation of a strong argument or counter argument.

And the fact that the judge refused to allow Samsung to tender that evidence would be an appealable point upon which you could argue that there was a denial of procedural fairness which gave rise to a mistrial. In other words Samsung wouldn't seek to have an appeal court review the decision in light of new evidence, it would be asserting that the entire trial process at first instance was tainted because of the judge's decision.
 
defiant007 said:
Who says Samsung ignored the trial schedule? You have a complex commercial dispute involving thousands to tens of thousands of documents, it is bound to happen that crucial pieces of evidence will only be uncovered after a discovery deadline has passed. It is patently unfair to punish a party by depriving them of evidence which forms the foundation of a strong argument or counter argument.

And the fact that the judge refused to allow Samsung to tender that evidence would be an appealable point upon which you could argue that there was a denial of procedural fairness which gave rise to a mistrial. In other words Samsung wouldn't seek to have an appeal court review the decision in light of new evidence, it would be asserting that the entire trial process at first instance was tainted because of the judge's decision.
Click to expand...

And it would be thrown out, as the Judge properly followed all procedural elements in place, not once showing favoritism, even if that's how it comes across.

Even the biggest law experts out there say Samsungs best defence is the jury instructions, not anything related to the actual handling of the case.
 
Cali3350 said:
And it would be thrown out, as the Judge properly followed all procedural elements in place, not once showing favoritism, even if that's how it comes across.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with favoritism and everything to do with fairness and achieving justice.

Cali3350 said:
Even the biggest law experts out there say Samsungs best defence is the jury instructions, not anything related to the actual handling of the case.
Click to expand...

Care to post some links to these expert opinions?
 
defiant007 said:
Nothing to do with favoritism and everything to do with fairness and achieving justice.



Care to post some links to these expert opinions?
Click to expand...

Was in Forbes and Bloomberg yesterday, ill try to dig out the links.
 
I'm going to file a patent on all things rectangular, black plastic, and while I'm at it... Air. I claim air.
 
Were they expecting Samsung to make a triangle shaped phone?

And when you go with something other than a grid of icons to avoid patent lawsuits, you basically end up with the Metro UI. A UI that wastes screen space and that no one really likes all that much.
 
From Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/25/breaking-down-apples-1-billion-courtroom-victory-over-samsung/

Verdict: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/applesamsungverdict.pdf

Response to one user on Engadget regarding "trade dress":

Shifty said:
I just don't get the trade dress claim. If iPhones are so much better than other Androids why would Apple want to sue? And at the end of the day the consumer is offered the choice between buying an iPhone and a Samsung phone. Would I buy a Galaxy S 3 because it looks like an iPhone? No. That's stupid, I'd buy an iPhone if I wanted a phone that looks like an iPhone. Obviously Apple is just being typical Apple by not wanting to compete in the market. The truth is that Samsung has finally made a phone that can rival Apple in popularity and they don't want to deal with it. I am incredibly disappointed with Apple.
Click to expand...

My response:
That's the thing. Majority of consumers aren't like you or myself where we know which product is better and offers more features. Most consumers are mostly the typical people who go to Best Buy and can't tell the difference between one laptop and another other than one is just "faster" and has a "big screen." Stuff like that.

If you were to put a Samsung Galaxy S3 and an iPhone next to each other at a store, the consumer will go with what's most recognizable to them. A lot of it has to do with marketing the product. One shape and visual appearance is more familiar than the other. Remember, the majority of the people in this world, in reality, judge by their sight (and wallet to some extent) than with their brain. Why do you think there is a saying, "Beauty is only skin deep"? Not everyone listens to it. Look at many commercials today on TV. Appearance is everything in commericals-- how we dress, how much we weigh, glitz and glamour, et cetera.

Then, you add the fact that most consumers aren't computer friendly. Most of the people I've met at Best Buy that ask their employees such as "Can I sync this with my iTunes using such-and-such phone?" are the typical consumers you'd find everyday there. Apple is a marketing behemoth, either ingenious or maniacal or both. Samsung doesn't have iTunes or an iPod or stuff that many people are familiar with. Familiarity wins in this game of who's better than the other.

This is why I believe Microsoft Surface will succeed as a better competitor against Apple's iPad than Android-tablets out there even the Galaxy Note 10.1. More people are familiar with Microsoft's products even Windows that they know or have an idea that both products will work together with their Windows-based PCs at home. Again, it's because of familiarity of the product being used and being marketed. And, you have to market it right and often. The same applies in the processor market. Intel beats AMD not on just performance but on marketing as well. More people are familiar with Intel than AMD. Practically every computer-related commercial on TV today has the Intel logo and that familiar chime mentioned in it. AMD doesn't have that established familiarity with their products.

For example, you say "Samsung" or "HTC" and I bet you that most consumers would ask, "What are they?" You say "Apple" or "iPod," "iTunes," "iPhone," or "iPad," they'll immediately recognize them right away. Heck, even certain celebrities patent their hairstyle. You can recognize Conan or Jay Leno just by the hairstyle they have. That's the mindset of people nowadays. There are companies that will go so far to sue another just because one's product looks too much like one of their own products, even when product names are too similar to each other.

If I were to put a Hyundai Genesis next to a Mercedes Benz E-Class sedan, and if it wasn't for the Mercedes Benz logo, one consumer would have mistaken the Genesis to be a Benz.

And, that's where the jury sided with Apple regarding trade dress.

Plain and simple: Most consumers are stupid. People will buy what's familiar and more recognizable to them.

For Samsung to avoid future lawsuits regarding trade dress, their future smartphone designs have to be so far off different from Apple's iPhone in order to be differentiated easily between the two. It's just unfortunate that the "rectangular phone with rounded edges" is an Apple-exclusive now (until 2021 that is), so Samsung has to be very creative to get around it.

But, last but not least, Samsung has to beat Apple in marketing and at the same time, Google has to make Android more connected on the Windows PC (and Mac as well). If not, Microsoft is going to beat them both at that game when Surface comes out alongside Windows 8 and the onslaught of connected products related to its release. Then, the only major players will be Apple and Microsoft again.​
 
Samsung and Apple attorneys have been talking with Judge Koh about a preliminary injunction hearing, and have apparently agreed to schedule it on September 20.

Link
Click to expand...
So the first injunction hearing is set for Sept. 20th. My guess is Apple will seek to have a large swath of Samsung's smartphone and tablet line blocked from sale in the US, and they may well get it after yesterday's verdict.

I had been thinking about picking up a GS3, but now I'm a bit hesitant. I can't imagine Samsung USA support for devices they'll no longer be allowed to sell to be very strong.
 
Guess Apple really couldn't stand Samsung's "Next big thing commercials"
 
octoberasian said:
From Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/25/breaking-down-apples-1-billion-courtroom-victory-over-samsung/

Verdict: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/applesamsungverdict.pdf

Response to one user on Engadget regarding "trade dress":



My response:
That's the thing. Majority of consumers aren't like you or myself where we know which product is better and offers more features. Most consumers are mostly the typical people who go to Best Buy and can't tell the difference between one laptop and another other than one is just "faster" and has a "big screen." Stuff like that.

If you were to put a Samsung Galaxy S3 and an iPhone next to each other at a store, the consumer will go with what's most recognizable to them. A lot of it has to do with marketing the product. One shape and visual appearance is more familiar than the other. Remember, the majority of the people in this world, in reality, judge by their sight (and wallet to some extent) than with their brain. Why do you think there is a saying, "Beauty is only skin deep"? Not everyone listens to it. Look at many commercials today on TV. Appearance is everything in commericals-- how we dress, how much we weigh, glitz and glamour, et cetera.

Then, you add the fact that most consumers aren't computer friendly. Most of the people I've met at Best Buy that ask their employees such as "Can I sync this with my iTunes using such-and-such phone?" are the typical consumers you'd find everyday there. Apple is a marketing behemoth, either ingenious or maniacal or both. Samsung doesn't have iTunes or an iPod or stuff that many people are familiar with. Familiarity wins in this game of who's better than the other.

This is why I believe Microsoft Surface will succeed as a better competitor against Apple's iPad than Android-tablets out there even the Galaxy Note 10.1. More people are familiar with Microsoft's products even Windows that they know or have an idea that both products will work together with their Windows-based PCs at home. Again, it's because of familiarity of the product being used and being marketed. And, you have to market it right and often. The same applies in the processor market. Intel beats AMD not on just performance but on marketing as well. More people are familiar with Intel than AMD. Practically every computer-related commercial on TV today has the Intel logo and that familiar chime mentioned in it. AMD doesn't have that established familiarity with their products.

For example, you say "Samsung" or "HTC" and I bet you that most consumers would ask, "What are they?" You say "Apple" or "iPod," "iTunes," "iPhone," or "iPad," they'll immediately recognize them right away. Heck, even certain celebrities patent their hairstyle. You can recognize Conan or Jay Leno just by the hairstyle they have. That's the mindset of people nowadays. There are companies that will go so far to sue another just because one's product looks too much like one of their own products, even when product names are too similar to each other.

If I were to put a Hyundai Genesis next to a Mercedes Benz E-Class sedan, and if it wasn't for the Mercedes Benz logo, one consumer would have mistaken the Genesis to be a Benz.

And, that's where the jury sided with Apple regarding trade dress.

Plain and simple: Most consumers are stupid. People will buy what's familiar and more recognizable to them.

For Samsung to avoid future lawsuits regarding trade dress, their future smartphone designs have to be so far off different from Apple's iPhone in order to be differentiated easily between the two. It's just unfortunate that the "rectangular phone with rounded edges" is an Apple-exclusive now (until 2021 that is), so Samsung has to be very creative to get around it.

But, last but not least, Samsung has to beat Apple in marketing and at the same time, Google has to make Android more connected on the Windows PC (and Mac as well). If not, Microsoft is going to beat them both at that game when Surface comes out alongside Windows 8 and the onslaught of connected products related to its release. Then, the only major players will be Apple and Microsoft again.​
Click to expand...

Atleast HTC knows how to design a phone. The HTC One X is sexy.
 
refraxion said:
Atleast HTC knows how to design a phone. The HTC One X is sexy.
Click to expand...

Yup, a friend of mine has one. It's a very good phone too from what he tells me. And, at least HTC didn't make something that looks like an Apple iPhone and get sued for it.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how my Galaxy Nexus or the Galaxy S 3 looks anything remotely like an iPhone. S3 you could argue the UI but the phone itself? It's a massive 4.8 inch behemoth that puts the 3.5 inch iPhone to shame. I guess maybe the physical home key that's shaped like a trapezoid compared to the round one on the iPhone? I don't know.

How in the hell do you confuse a GNex with an iPhone though? Seriously?
 
Vermillion said:
I'm still trying to figure out how my Galaxy Nexus or the Galaxy S 3 looks anything remotely like an iPhone. S3 you could argue the UI but the phone itself? It's a massive 4.8 inch behemoth that puts the 3.5 inch iPhone to shame. I guess maybe the physical home key that's shaped like a trapezoid compared to the round one on the iPhone? I don't know.

How in the hell do you confuse a GNex with an iPhone though? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Most consumers are blind...
 
Consumer:
"It looks like an iPhone, it's just bigger."

Other person or an employee:
"It's not an iPhone."

Consumer:
"Oh."
 
octoberasian said:
Consumer:
"It looks like an iPhone, it's just bigger."

Other person or an employee:
"It's not an iPhone."

Consumer:
"Oh."
Click to expand...

You are assuming that they can remember what an Iphone looks like, which is why making similar boxes and ads was a problem. The GN injunction was dealing with the ability to search files, apps and the web through a single interface, not the looks anyways.
 
Ryokurin said:
You are assuming that they can remember what an Iphone looks like, which is why making similar boxes and ads was a problem. The GN injunction was dealing with the ability to search files, apps and the web through a single interface, not the looks anyways.
Click to expand...

That's with the trade dress verdict from above: Was any of Samsung's products too familiar to be confused to be an iPhone? The jury found Samsung guilty of that.
 
octoberasian said:
That's with the trade dress verdict from above: Was any of Samsung's products too familiar to be confused to be an iPhone? The jury found Samsung guilty of that.
Click to expand...

I have a galaxy nexus cuz I despise Iphone and ios and anything resembling it, I'm pretty sure that I would notice if it resembled an iphone LOL

Now the s3 and the touchwiz garbage that did make it look like an iphone, i can see that.
Who the hell wants touchwiz anyway? I would root that bitch and put some sexy vanilla on there before my first battery recharge....
 
Cmdrmonkey said:
And when you go with something other than a grid of icons to avoid patent lawsuits, you basically end up with the Metro UI. A UI that wastes screen space and that no one really likes all that much.
Click to expand...
I'm looking down at my Lumia 900 right now, and I'm having trouble finding any "wasted" space. The home screen is packed with live information...
 
Vermillion said:
I'm still trying to figure out how my Galaxy Nexus or the Galaxy S 3 looks anything remotely like an iPhone. S3 you could argue the UI but the phone itself? It's a massive 4.8 inch behemoth that puts the 3.5 inch iPhone to shame. I guess maybe the physical home key that's shaped like a trapezoid compared to the round one on the iPhone? I don't know.

How in the hell do you confuse a GNex with an iPhone though? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Nexus but the S3 was spared from the law suite (though not the S2, go figure :rolleyes: ).

Here's a quick and easy work around....put the phone's name right on the front of the device (Centered in the black flanking the receiver speaker) so that when customer's see the phone, regardless of front or back, they immediately see its called a ___ , not an Iphone. BAM, you'd have to be illiterate at that point to if you fail to realize what kind of phone your looking at...which then defeats your ability to even use the device.
 
octoberasian said:
Yup, a friend of mine has one. It's a very good phone too from what he tells me. And, at least HTC didn't make something that looks like an Apple iPhone and get sued for it.
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't have a replaceable battery or the ability to add a memory card, just like the iPhone.

I wonder if Apple has a patent for non-expandable memory and a non-replaceable battery. They might be sueing HTC next.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Not sure about the Nexus but the S3 was spared from the law suite (though not the S2, go figure :rolleyes: ).

Here's a quick and easy work around....put the phone's name right on the front of the device (Centered in the black flanking the receiver speaker) so that when customer's see the phone, regardless of front or back, they immediately see its called a ___ , not an Iphone. BAM, you'd have to be illiterate at that point to if you fail to realize what kind of phone your looking at...which then defeats your ability to even use the device.
Click to expand...

Even someone who was blind wouldn't confuse the Samsung S3 (thin, sleek, huge screen) for the iPhone ( thick, clunky, tiny screen)
 
USMCGrunt said:
Not sure about the Nexus but the S3 was spared from the law suite (though not the S2, go figure :rolleyes: ).

Here's a quick and easy work around....put the phone's name right on the front of the device (Centered in the black flanking the receiver speaker) so that when customer's see the phone, regardless of front or back, they immediately see its called a ___ , not an Iphone. BAM, you'd have to be illiterate at that point to if you fail to realize what kind of phone your looking at...which then defeats your ability to even use the device.
Click to expand...

Even beyond that...doesn't Joe Average walk into the store and say "I want an iPhone,"? What about when you activate the phone? The big ass Android icon in the background doesn't make people go "huh,"?
 
Here's the simplicity of this case. Apple wants control of the smartphone market. This lawsuit was a way to do that. This is bad for everyone.

Here is an example of how stupid this case is.
honda_civic_coupe_2011.jpg

2011-Hyundai-Elantra-Limited-2.jpg

2012-Kia-Forte-25.jpg


VKrhZ.png

images


nike_free_2_men_black_white.jpg

realflex.jpg

adidas-climacool.jpg


353_25446_D90_34l.png

canon_5d_mark2.jpg


Competition is good for everyone. Apple just doesn't want competition.
 
That's because Apple isn't really that innovative, and this is their way of crying about it.
 
rflcptr said:
I think the court determined otherwise. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

"the court" is 9 people with exactly zero qualifications. they hear apple every day, they probably mostly own iphones, they have friends and relatives who work for apple 9case was 10 miles from apple), and they probably think samsung is from japan. thats who decided this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top