Court set to rule on Apple vs Samsung case in a few minutes

Status
Not open for further replies.
642780172-202be373037cd7294c3f72853c43c720.50380770-full.gif
 
Microsoft isn't getting sued for the surface. This could have been avoided along time ago.
 
I doubt that. Apple just doesn't want people ripping off their ideas. I don't think they'd charge more for it.

Do you really honestly believe that?

Also I'm really enjoying all of the live tweets that have "?" at the end of them. This is gonna take a while to get everything straight.
 
I just need to know if I have to bury my Nexus s4g in the back yard?

I don't want it to explode in my hands here.
 
This reminds me of how people attach to trivial non-issues and boogeymen instead of discussing and resolving the big picture problems. Apple, Samsung, Google, etc are all companies living in a terrible world of bullshit patent law, and rooting one way or the other here ignores the real problems in order to have a good guy and a bad guy to help you mentally parse and compartmentalize your opinion.
 
Hahaha hilarious how emotional the response to a patent case is. It's bizzare. Popcorn.gif
 
Samsung did this to themselves. What they did with the original Galaxy and Touchwiz was disgraceful and shouldn't be allowed in the United States. Companies get away with that stuff in the black market in Asia.

I am not an Apple fan or Apple user, but I've heard countless people mistake the Galaxy phones for iPhones. This case was a slam dunk for Apple. As a matter of fact I own 2 of the original Galaxy phones and it's laughable how much they went out of their way to make the things look like iOS and iPhone 3G.

God forbid consumers have a familiar UI on devices that are supposed to do the same thing.

God forbid another company make a better version of what Apple is offering.
 
3:54:36 PM PDT

D'677: Yes for Fascinate, S 4G, S2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant
3:54:06 PM PDT

Question 9 — was Samsung willful in its infringement? Big one here for damages.
 
Yup, Silliest thing I have seen. Whomever wins, the consumer loses so I am not sure why people are happy about this.

I don't think that's the case. I believe by protecting intellectual property and patents you protect innovation which is good for consumers. It gives value to individual creation and encourages companies to create new things. When you devalue patents and innovations you punish originality. The Galaxy S was not an original device. It was a blatant copy of a very popular product.

If you are going to compete with Apple and win as Samsung did, then it should be because you came up with something original, not because you were meticulous about copying every facet of Apple's products as the court evidence demonstrated.
 
Quick recap:

scroll back bounce : infringe
tap to zoom: infringe
scrolling gestures: infringe

305, iphone gui: infringe

677 and 087, iphone hardware design: infringe
889, ipad hardware design: DOES NOT infringe

And the big one:
Willful infringement on samsungs part? yes, yes, and yes
 
This reminds me of how people attach to trivial non-issues and boogeymen instead of discussing and resolving the big picture problems. Apple, Samsung, Google, etc are all companies living in a terrible world of bullshit patent law, and rooting one way or the other here ignores the real problems in order to have a good guy and a bad guy to help you mentally parse and compartmentalize your opinion.

the best thing i can see out of this case is maybe the $$ will be enough to put focus on the shitty system
 
Does Windows Phone effectively dodge most of these patents?

That always struck me as a genuine alternative to iPhone-inspired design. But I'm sure that was a conscious decision, coming so late in the game.
 
3:55:33 PM PDT

'889 No for both Galaxy Tab models.
3:55:25 PM PDT

D'305: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Showcase, Gem, Indugle, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant.
3:54:58 PM PDT

D'087: Yes for S 4G, Vibrant. No for S2 ATT, S2 Epic 4G Touch, S2 Skyrocket, Infuse 4G.
3:54:36 PM PDT

D'677: Yes for Fascinate, S 4G, S2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant
3:54:06 PM PDT

Question 9 — was Samsung willful in its infringement? Big one here for damages.





Ouch...those are gonna hurt.



EDIT:
3:56:00 PM PDT

Sorry, last question was whether Samsung should have known. This next one is willfulness.


Bah, nevermind.
 
3:55:33 PM PDT

'889 No for both Galaxy Tab models.

3:55:25 PM PDT

D'305: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Showcase, Gem, Indugle, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant.

3:54:58 PM PDT

D'087: Yes for S 4G, Vibrant. No for S2 ATT, S2 Epic 4G Touch, S2 Skyrocket, Infuse 4G.


---


3:56:00 PM PDT

Sorry, last question was whether Samsung should have known. This next one is willfulness.


lol verge
 
When will we get a decent patent system? and how?

No not when massive companies pay a shit ton for thing like this to happen. Things really couldn't being going better for Apple. They are knocking out one of their main rivals in any way they can and its working.
 
What is clear from this is that the Jury did not do their job like they we're suppose to. They basically went into deliberations with the mindset that they wanted to be done with this whole thing in time for the weekend.
 
Wait wait wait, apple trademarked the bounce-back? Why on earth would a system allow such a thing to be patented. That's like saying Henry Ford could have patented the auto-mobile and we would be here in 2012 with far inferior cars costing twice as much.

Let me guess, the patent office isn't a 'non profit' organisation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom