Apple vs Samsung battle will rage on

The last statement is the most telling.

“Somewhere the courts have to draw the line and afford some degree of protection to innovators.”
Click to expand...

I have said this before the judgement that anyone who sees the evidence that was presented in court during the case will be convinced that there is blatant copying. It is like word-for-word plagarism and then trying to defend it.

If anything in my opinion, it is only going to get worse for Samsung and Android.

We need to have different options and not just someone else doing what the other is doing. What if that way of doing things goes completely wrong and all phones designed like iOS all of a sudden start exploding? The world would be paralyzed.

This is a very good judgement and stand point by the American court for all of mankind. Copying is not good for our very survival.
 
McCrazieGoalz said:
Copying is not good for our very survival.
Click to expand...

It's really too early in the morning to be smoking the stuff you obviously are.

Newborns start copying their parents in order to learn language, movement and social skills. Learners copy their teachers for cognitive and other developmental skills. We basically copy copy copy our way through life ..

In fact I'll wager that we actually have to copy in order to survive. We just don't go around like Apple suing all the others for copying from us what we in turn learned from others.

ps. The trial wasn't all that fair to Samsung, go educate yourself before calling it a good judgement.
 
Last edited:
Jeremy Proome said:
Apple-Samsung battle is “far from over”

Despite victory, Apple’s patent ruling in court is set to face tough appeals going forward
Click to expand...

Despite the last bit of drivel in the article that's already been highlighted, the article is actually very good. Glad people are waking up and realisng that Judge Lucy was biased, and so were the Jury. Surely there's a law that says when one international body sues another international body, the court case needs to be on neutral territory....like South Africa :D?
 
McCrazieGoalz said:
The last statement is the most telling.



I have said this before the judgement that anyone who sees the evidence that was presented in court during the case will be convinced that there is blatant copying. It is like word-for-word plagarism and then trying to defend it.

If anything in my opinion, it is only going to get worse for Samsung and Android.

We need to have different options and not just someone else doing what the other is doing. What if that way of doing things goes completely wrong and all phones designed like iOS all of a sudden start exploding? The world would be paralyzed.

This is a very good judgement and stand point by the American court for all of mankind. Copying is not good for our very survival.
Click to expand...

My, what an apt name you have.

Isn't Lucy Koh, Asian? Traitor :D
 
McCrazieGoalz said:
The last statement is the most telling.
We need to have different options and not just someone else doing what the other is doing. What if that way of doing things goes completely wrong and all phones designed like iOS all of a sudden start exploding? The world would be paralyzed.
This is a very good judgement and stand point by the American court for all of mankind. Copying is not good for our very survival.
Click to expand...

Errm....You forget that Apple buy hardware components from Samsung, China and Korea. The court judgment was around design, (rounded corners, software features etc). You will "survive" a bad design.
 
judges will have to reconsider the entire scope of recent patent grants, which have been given to Apple for such obvious ideas such as the display of icons in a grid and the design of a rectangular phone with rounded edges.
Click to expand...

I'm still amazed at these patents that were granted to Apple. It is quite shocking.
 
Its far from over.
Masters in stating the obvious aren't they?

Let's look what can happen
a) The rulings are not over. The Judge still has to rule on injunctions that will stop Samsung selling certain devices in the USA. Also since the jury found the patent infringement to be wilful the ruling can go up to 3X the current award (Around $3.3B)

b) The judge could reduce the jury's award

c) Regardless of a) and b) Samsung could appeal and drag this out. They will probably appeal anyway which may lead to d).
If the appeal goes ahead it could get better or worse for Samsung (and converseley better or worse for Apple)

d) Cases in other countries may make it better or worse for both companies.

e) Samsung and Apple have tried to broker an agreement and failed. The finding changes the landscape a bit
Samsung and Apple could reach a cross licensing deal across their respective patents.

This is the most sensible course of action but it requires both parties to be more reasonable.
The press reports blaming one party or the other are speculative. In most failed negotiations its due to the intransigence of both parties.

M/S have reached a deal with Apple as to certain features. Apple also pay M/S for certain things (like MS Exchange compatibility).
They have made nice. No reason why Apple and Samsung shouldn't.
But until then both parties will beat their chest.

I am amused how many posters on both sides setup camp in their domain purely because they are loyal to one or agaionst another.
It's business. It's patent business & its a system most of us wish wasn't there.
But as long as it is there we should expect all parties to play it.
They do with varying success.
 
Biscuit1018 said:
No reason why Apple and Samsung shouldn't.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Apple is at fault here as they very insistently say that Samsung copied them.

I'm also willing to say that most people who say "copy, copy, copy" (be it music, movies, software, designs, hardware etc.) has yet to create something original in their life? Its fine if you gave it away, its another thing if you find out somebody else are using yours without permission as their own.

Personally I feel the judgement against Samsung has been too harsh, but I also believe they did wilfully copy Apple.

Disclaimer: I use an Apple iPhone, an ASUS Windows laptop, an LG Washing machine, a Samsung dishwasher & computer screen, a Sansui TV and I drive a Volkswagen. ;)
 
I do believe Apple tried to keep this out of court and warned Samsung on numerous occasions that they would go this route. They also offered them licensing options and Samsung rejected.

Now that they lost in court after all of the pre trial discussion attempts etc. they are moaning (and all their backers) that they lost.
The outcome and fine is minimal. I do believe their reputation has taken a massive knock and they have opened Apple up to take them apart even further. It puts Apple on a pedestal saying that their products are far superior even if somethings come from the appeal. Samsung have lost and I think they had their chance to avoid this.

Microsoft has licensed their new devices to Apple. Maybe they understand patents better than Samsung.
 
ebendl said:
... but I also believe they did wilfully copy Apple.
Click to expand...

Most of the stuff that they copied was stolen property, and should be in the public domain.

I will agree, however, that they shouldn't have copied the cardboard box so blatantly. Maybe a USD100 million fine for that.

But Apple haven't been paying Samsung royalties for the 3G technology. So arrear royalties and a punitive fine of USD600 million for that (USD500m arrears, USD100m fine).

That's quite fair ! IMO.

Edit : Oh, and a USD 1 billion fine for Apple for stealing industry standard patents (bounce-back, pinch-to-zoom, slide-to-unlock, rectangle-with-rounded-corners, etc). Not to be paid to Samsung, but to be used to fix the US Patent Office.
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
Most of the stuff that they copied was stolen property, and should be in the public domain.

I will agree, however, that they shouldn't have copied the cardboard box so blatantly. Maybe a USD100 million fine for that.
Click to expand...

Well, the bounce-back patent, tap to zoom and rectangle patents are stupid, I agree. I am sorry that Apple won in this case (although they didn't in the case of the iPad).

I do think that a bunch of Samsung phones look just too close to the iPhone - even within the realms of "black rectangle designs". For example, the Galaxy S. Why couldn't Samsung just come up with the Galaxy S III back then - it looks vastly different than the iPhone(s)!

The kicker, in my opinion? This document: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui-interface-improvement/in/2971889
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
But Apple haven't been paying Samsung royalties for the 3G technology. So arrear royalties and a punitive fine of USD600 million for that (USD500m arrears, USD100m fine).
Click to expand...

Well Samsung need to deal with it then. Its not for us to decide whats fair, it comes down to the court and Judge. Samsung went the court route.
I do have faith that the judicial system in the US is somewhat fair (even though there are variances from state to state). These are well educated people and have listened to both highly paid lawyers on both sides :) I know I am in no position to fully criticise the outcome because the Jury was accepted by both parties before the case started. The system does seem fair in this case as both had more than enough money to throw into the case.

Its not one of those "my lawyer is better than yours because I have more money, therefore I win" scenarios.
 
freematrix said:
Well Samsung need to deal with it then. Its not for us to decide whats fair, it comes down to the court and Judge. Samsung went the court route.
I do have faith that the judicial system in the US is somewhat fair (even though there are variances from state to state). These are well educated people and have listened to both highly paid lawyers on both sides :) I know I am in no position to fully criticise the outcome because the Jury was accepted by both parties before the case started. The system does seem fair in this case as both had more than enough money to throw into the case.

Its not one of those "my lawyer is better than yours because I have more money, therefore I win" scenarios.
Click to expand...

How do you explain a completely different finding in the Korean Court then?
 
The ultimate good that came from this case was that is spelled out clearly to the consumer that rectangles with rounded sides and a few icons can be sold for far less than the white and silver one's are, and there is still good profit to be made without sacrificing quality

ie a company has told the world under oath that it is effectively gouging customers on pricing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X