Support NeoGAF

[AndyD]

I think you should judge each separate argument based on its content, the facts on hand, and one's own critical thinking instead of relying on reputation.

This. I like perusing the actual court documents posted by Groklaw and others before I take their interpretation at face value.

But I would love to read the transcript of the actual hearing and arguments regarding the jury instructions from early on in the trial. Its all irrelevant to the case in the end, but I bet its interesting nonetheless.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

So where has this case stranded? The court is over right?

 

[numble]

So where has this case stranded? The court is over right?

They made their closing arguments, it's up to jurors to deliberate, I guess. I haven't read anything specific on the rules for deliberation.

 

[Zeth]

Verdict imminent apparently.

Edit: Jury has reached a verdict.

According to CNET, the jury has reached a verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung trial after three days of deliberations. The three-week trial has resulted in interesting testimony and evidence from both sides, including looks at early iPhone and iPad prototypes, Apple and Samsung mobile device sales numbers in the U.S., and an internal Samsung memo that examined what the company needed to change in its Galaxy line of smartphones to compete with the iPhone.

The decision will be announced later this afternoon.

 

[LCfiner]

Verdict imminent apparently.

Edit: Jury has reached a verdict.

well, that was fast.

this should be interesting

 

[SUPREME1]

GO SAMSUNG

 

[mcfrank]

Hoping for a pro Apple verdict. They presented a pretty compelling case of Samsung's shameless copying. And I own stock in AAPL

 

[Zeth]

Mind is blown that they did this in 3 days. Highly recommend Nilay Patel's latest editorial at The Verge, really interesting. They had to answer over 700 questions on almost 30 phones.

20 pages of charts and blank lines for damages.

 

[snacknuts]

Does this verdict even matter? Whatever happens will be appealed by either side. The whole trial was a mess.

 

[Valnen]

Hoping for a pro Apple verdict. They presented a pretty compelling case of Samsung's shameless copying. And I own stock in AAPL

Hoping nobody wins. These bullshit lawsuits need to stop.

It's scummy they can't just compete by having the better phone. They want to be the ONLY good phone on the market.

 

[DataStream]

I'm guessing apple will get something but very little. Most of the patents will be deemed invalid but the trade-dress stuff will work on a few products.

 

[Wario64]

http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/

 

[Goldrush]

Hoping nobody wins. These bullshit lawsuits need to stop.

It's scummy they can't just compete by having the better phone. They want to be the ONLY good phone on the market.

Nobody wins is the best result here. Only when it's completely inefficient to get any result will the companies actually stop this bs.

 

[giga]

Let's hope apple loses. Who really gives a shit if samsung copies. Imitation, flattery, yadda yadda.

Just do better.

 

[Milchjon]

Ermahgerd, so exciting

 

[Valnen]

Nobody wins is the best result here. Only when it's completely inefficient to get any result will the companies actually stop this bs.

They should just fine the companies 500 million dollars every time they file one of these lawsuits.

Or maybe a billion.

 

[massoluk]

Hoping for a pro Apple verdict. They presented a pretty compelling case of Samsung's shameless copying. And I own stock in AAPL

I found Samsung prior art argument pretty convincing.
/shrug.

Hopefully lots and lots of patents get invalidated. This shit is going to appeal court anyway, whoever win.

 

[Wario64]

My body is ready

 

[Davidion]

LMAO, Apple store is down randomly.

here we go

 

[Davidion]

Ooooooooh, looks like Samsung loses? Guilty on all products.

Scoble: "Holy shit"

hahaha

 

[LCfiner]

LMAO, Apple store is down randomly.

here we go

great timing, lol.

first verdict. Samsung products infringe on "claim 19 of 301 patent"

second one. claim 8, samsung found to infringe. (except for a couple products. Ace Intercept and Replenish - never heard of these)

 

[saelz8]

Apple won.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

HOLY SHIT.

Dat Apple.

 

[SUPREME1]

fuck us all

 

[LCfiner]

A big chunk of Gaf is gonna be salty the next little while...

 

[Dreams-Visions]

man, Samsung is getting the business.

A big chunk of Gaf is gonna be salty the next little while...

they can be mad. the case was sound.

 

[KingJ2002]

Yeah... looks like Apple won.

Wow.

is this thing finally over? or is it the beginning of Apple vs. Google?

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

hooray for shitty patent systems!

but also hooray because I like apple products

 

[dabig2]

I can already hear the appeal being written.

 

[LCfiner]

D889 patent was "no" for infringement. so which one was that?

now, was samsung willful in it's infringement?

Yes for a ton of phones.


ouch.

edit: the D'889 patent looks like the one that temporarily blocked the tab 10.1 from sale

http://www.pcworld.com/article/258380/samsung_galaxy_tab_101_blocked_from_sale_in_the_us.html

so I guess it's good that one was turned down

 

[Davidion]

D889 patent was "no" for infringement. so which one was that?

now, was samsung willful in it's infringement?

Yes for a ton of phones.


ouch.

I don't understand why it only applies to certain variants of the Galaxy GII? Outside of the sprint model they all looked exactly alike...

Wait, Not willful infringement, it's "Whether Samsung should have known"

 

[LCfiner]

I don't understand why it only applies to certain variants of the Galaxy GII? Outside of the sprint model they all looked exactly alike...

Wait, Not willful infringement, it's "Whether Samsung should have known"

yeah, but then they got "yes" for the next question - which was willfulness.

invalid patents. I suppose here, if they're not invalid, then Apple can wield them like a hammer.

No across the board.

jesus christ. this feels like a rout.

OK, trade dress. Apple has proven that only the iPhone 3G trade dress is protectable. I guess that makes sense since they didn't present anything about other iphone designs.

edit: Damages are 1 billion, 51 million and 855 thousand dollars. that's a lot.

edit: And on samsung's claims against apple on the iPhone 3G. no for all, it seems.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

big day indeed, for many reasons.

 

[LCfiner]

so it seems like some of the patents that Apple "won" here were the tap to zoom, scroll bounce back and pinch to zoom patents.

that has got to freak out anyone making phones or tablets these days. that's kinda scary.

 

[eastmen]

Samsung should just raise prices when the contracts are done

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

so it seems like some of the patents that Apple "won" here were the tap to zoom, scroll bounce back and pinch to zoom patents.

that has got to freak out anyone making phones or tablets these days. that's kinda scary.

Not really, you just pay Apple a licence fee to use them. In turn Apple will probably pay you a licence fee for a piece of patented technology you own.

 

[Septimius]

Samsung owes Apple 1,000,000,000$ then? Holy fuck.

Not really, you just pay Apple a licence fee to use them. In turn Apple will probably pay you a licence fee for a piece of patented technology you own.

But still. It's like the core of why these patents are stupid.

 

[LCfiner]

Not really, you just pay Apple a licence fee to use them. In turn Apple will probably pay you a licence fee for a piece of patented technology you own.

Apple hasn't been licensing these patents or licensing them for low rates. I remember early stories which said Apple didn't want to license them at all. this trial showed a document showing Apple wanted something like 30 bucks a device to license the patents in question to Samsung. that's a lot.

 

[SRG01]

so it seems like some of the patents that Apple "won" here were the tap to zoom, scroll bounce back and pinch to zoom patents.

that has got to freak out anyone making phones or tablets these days. that's kinda scary.

The tap-to-zoom is the one that feels the strangest. That has been in existence since... almost forever? Since feature phones and Opera Mini at the very least.

 

[CharminUltra]

Woah... Sadsung got owned big time.

At first I was positive Apple would win the second they showed that massive "just copy the iPhone" document from Samsung, but then kinda lost hope once Samsung was able to get away with the whole "destroyed evidence" thing.

 

[FStop7]

A big chunk of Gaf is gonna be salty the next little while...

Funny thing is I bet that the fans of the world are going to be saltier than the Samsung execs out there. They probably see it as the cost of doing business. They'll appeal it, maybe eventually pay it, and if so they'll write it off as they continue to make money and produce new products.

The bad news is really for those small groups of people or even individuals who don't have billions of dollars and are trying to create and innovate, yet they're having to dodge an incomprehensible minefield of patents.

 

[Goldrush]

Besides the doom and gloom, do you think this was a poor performance by the lawyers or an unavoidable result since the selection of the jury?

 

[zedge]

This sums it up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ap...-decision-days/story?id=17076455#.UDhLFdZlQ3g

Samsung, stung by the verdict, called it "a loss for the American consumer."

"It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices," said Samsung in a statement. "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."

Oh, and fuck Apple.

 

[Sean]

Besides the doom and gloom, do you think this was a poor performance by the lawyers or an unavoidable result since the selection of the jury?

I think it was an unavoidable result, Apple had a solid case and once that 132 page Samsung document was shown it was game over for them.

 

[maharg]

Can't wait for the appeal. Take it all the way to the supreme court and maybe we can end this madness.

 

[numble]

Can't wait for the appeal. Take it all the way to the supreme court and maybe we can end this madness.

Definitely, Apple's FRAND arguments were sound. The former head of ETSI basically testified and said there was FRAND abuse. The jury rejecting those arguments still open the door for FRAND abuse in the future.

But the issue was resolved for Apple through a finding of patent exhaustion, so their might not be a good case for appeal. And maybe FRAND abuse is avoided in the future since OEMs buy their chips from antenna chip suppliers, and establishing patent exhaustion means FRAND can't be used against the final assemblers in the future. That could hurt Nokia as it pursues FRAND claims.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Not really, you just pay Apple a licence fee to use them. In turn Apple will probably pay you a licence fee for a piece of patented technology you own.

Apple's stated it won't license to any Android OEMs.

 

[teh_pwn]

Can't wait for the appeal. Take it all the way to the supreme court and maybe we can end this madness.

I agree. As a software engineer, I do not want to be a developer in a world where this kind of stuff is patentable. It's maddening. I hate root access passwords, let alone frivilous nonsense about inventing gestures and shapes. If any company can do this, it's a loss for everyone. Consumers, developers, innovation.

 

[mcfrank]

Apple hasn't been licensing these patents or licensing them for low rates. I remember early stories which said Apple didn't want to license them at all. this trial showed a document showing Apple wanted something like 30 bucks a device to license the patents in question to Samsung. that's a lot.

My numbers could be off but I believe it works out to $49.40 per phone/tablet that Samsung has to pay at minimum. Because they were found to willfully infringe on the patents, the judge could triple that number to just under $150/phone. Samsung could have licensed the technology from Apple for around $38/phone according to the evidence that was presented in the trial. So, in the end and at least speaking of the USA, they should have just paid what Apple wanted from the start.

 

[maharg]

My numbers could be off but I believe it works out to $49.40 per phone/tablet that Samsung has to pay at minimum. Because they were found to willfully infringe on the patents, the judge could triple that number to just under $150/phone. Samsung could have licensed the technology from Apple for around $38/phone according to the evidence that was presented in the trial. So, in the end and at least speaking of the USA, they should have just paid what Apple wanted from the start.

It's extortion either way.