WSJ: Verdict: Samsung Violated Apple Patents

[ajk23az]

SAN JOSE, Calif.—The jury has reached a verdict in the landmark trial between Apple Inc. AAPL +0.09% and Samsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE -0.93% over which company invented signature features of their popular smartphones and tablets, or whether they copied each other's innovations.

The jury found that Samsung smartphones and devices infringed on at least three Apple patents, including patents relating to touch-screen screen features such as multitouch gestures and zooming. The verdict was still being read as of 6:45 p.m. ET.

The verdict ends a nearly month-long trial that pitted two of the world's largest and most recognizable companies—and their high-priced legal teams. While the ruling won't affect any of the companies' latest products, it could shape how smartphones and tablets are designed and the fortunes of companies that make them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html?m od=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

http://stream.wsj.com/story/apple-v-samsung-trial-over-patents/SS-2-38559/

[kmp77]

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

Another live feed. Samsung is getting tore up right now. Still a lot to be said but so far not looking good for them.

[kmp77]

Jury finds all patents valid. Ruh roh samsung!! :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://www.argusi.com/e107_images/newspost_images/ruhroh.jpg

[kmp77]

Damages: $1.05 billion......:eek: :eek:

[trickblue]

Wow... this is a huge verdict...

I'm sure Sam will be weighing in soon... I'm sure he is shocked...

Next up? Google...

[kmp77]

I found a live photo of Apple and Samsung in court right now....

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/83671d1217872852-animated-gif-thread-slap.gif

[masomenos]

Wow... this is a huge verdict...

I'm sure Sam will be weighing in soon... I'm sure he is shocked...

Next up? Google...

I certainly hope so :D

[dez_for_prez]

:muttley:

[numnuts23]

Not sure why this is funny to some. In terms of business this is really bad. Say hello to higher cost for the consumers.

[kmp77]

Not sure why this is funny to some. In terms of business this is really bad. Say hello to higher cost for the consumers.

Well, that's Samsung's fault. They copied, got caught, now they have to pay....

[ajk23az]

Not sure why this is funny to some. In terms of business this is really bad. Say hello to higher cost for the consumers.

Some people don't care as long as everything goes Apple's way. They are called sheep (http://amelstrange.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/istore.jpg).

[Lodeus]

Some people don't care as long as everything goes Apple's way. They are called sheep (http://amelstrange.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/istore.jpg).
Some people on twitter are proving this point.

[numnuts23]

Well, that's Samsung's fault. They copied, got caught, now they have to pay....

Look around at all technology. Companies used other designs forever. What did it equal? Better products for the consumers. This isn't a good result at all. I could care less on the Apple argument.

Apple is good. Samsung is good. Together their designs and prices could be great.

[ajk23az]

Look around at all technology. Companies used other designs forever. What did it equal? Better products for the consumers. This isn't a good result at all. I could care less on the Apple argument.

Apple is good. Samsung is good. Together their designs and prices could be great.

Exactly.

IIRC, Steve Jobs was the one that said, "good artists copy, great artists steal."
:cool:

[theogt]

Not sure why this is funny to some. In terms of business this is really bad. Say hello to higher cost for the consumers.Yes, not being able to buy illegally produced products increases customer costs. That's an awfully myopic view of what is "good" or "bad" for customers, however.

[a_minimalist]

Exactly.

IIRC, Steve Jobs was the one that said, "good artists copy, great artists steal."
:cool:

Steve Jobs didn't say that, Picasso did.

On another note, something tells me Sam isn't going to be very happy about this.

[numnuts23]

Yes, not being able to buy illegally produced products increases customer costs. That's an awfully myopic view of what is "good" or "bad" for customers, however.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.....its not worth discussing this topic with you if you can't get past the little fruit on the outside.


But i'll pretend this won't turn into a fanboy war of words. Theogt, you seem like a smart guy so please explain how technology has not advanced by using others designs? All tech companies have been guilty of this. Filing patent suits against each other will only harm the advancement and cost in the future.

This is only going to cause other companies to patent everything and hire more attorneys to file patent suits against each other. Good for attorneys - bad for consumers.

I own a Samsung Galaxy S II, 1 Samsung Windows phone, an HTC EVO and both a 4s and Ipad2 (of course wife and work phones - not using all myself) but I think they all are great and each have their own strengths. If each could build off each others weakness, a make a better phone...that's awesome. BUT if the norm will now be buying patents and firing off patent suits before the other, then I think you could figure out how the rest goes.

[theogt]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.....its not worth discussing this topic with you if you can't get past the little fruit on the outside.


But i'll pretend this won't turn into a fanboy war of words. Theogt, you seem like a smart guy so please explain how technology has not advanced by using others designs? All tech companies have been guilty of this. Filing patent suits against each other will only harm the advancement and cost in the future.

This is only going to cause other companies to patent everything and hire more attorneys to file patent suits against each other. Good for attorneys - bad for consumers.Policy debates about patent law are boring. And difficult on a forum like this. Saying patent law is "bad for consumers" is a pretty simple approach that can hardly be substantiated. It's quite a complex topic that doesn't lend itself to such unstudied, broad-strokes statements.

Clearly I have views on the reasonableness of patent law, and ones that are unaffected by my views on either Apple or Samsung. I'm hardly a biased person on this topic. Regardless, what Samsung did was illegal. So my statement was apropos.

[vta]

Boing. 1bn smacks. They should hit up Mayor Bloomberg for a loan. He has around a 22 Billion net worth. I wonder if in cases like these, do the companies actual pay that penalty?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61866000/gif/_61866917_appledes.gif

[numnuts23]

Policy debates about patent law are boring. And difficult on a forum like this. Saying patent law is "bad for consumers" is a pretty simple approach that can hardly be substantiated. It's quite a complex topic that doesn't lend itself to such unstudied, broad-strokes statements.

Clearly I have views on the reasonableness of patent law, and ones that are unaffected by my views on either Apple or Samsung. I'm hardly a biased person on this topic. Regardless, what Samsung did was illegal. So my statement was apropos.

By all means, I'm not here to argue about patent laws in general. They have their place in business. Now if I understand correctly, Apple was arguing many infringements, but won on items such tap zoom and bounce back when hitting the end of the page. This is just plain wrong IMO and does nothing that benefits once again, the life and blood of a technology company......us.

[theogt]

Boing. 1bn smacks. They should hit up Mayor Bloomberg for a loan. He has around a 22 Billion net worth. I wonder if in cases like these, do the companies actual pay that penalty?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61866000/gif/_61866917_appledes.gifYou can show that to a juror, then read to them an e-mail where Samsung says "our products are crap compared to the iPhone ... stop trying to come up with a new idea and copy them instead."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/08/samsung-document

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Shooting fish in a barrel.

[vta]

You can show that to a juror, then read to them an e-mail where Samsung says "our products are crap compared to the iPhone ... stop trying to come up with a new idea and copy them instead."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/08/samsung-document

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Is there really any difference between what Apple is doing and what Gibson did in suing Ibanez for coping it's designs back in the 70's? It seems pretty much the same to me and standard business practice.

[a_minimalist]

You can show that to a juror, then read to them an e-mail where Samsung says "our products are crap compared to the iPhone ... stop trying to come up with a new idea and copy them instead."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/08/samsung-document

http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

Shooting fish in a barrel.

The only weird thing about this is how frequently Apple takes ideas from other people, and that it does business with Samsung all of the time. I'm a big Apple supporter, have been for a long time, but even this is a little odd to me.

It's like suing your wife and then going home to live with her the same day the decision is made by the judge.

[vta]

The only weird thing about this is how frequently Apple takes ideas from other people, and that it does business with Samsung all of the time. I'm a big Apple supporter, have been for a long time, but even this is a little odd to me.

It's like suing your wife and then going home to live with her the same day the decision is made by the judge.

Idea is one thing, identity is another. Taking a concept and making it your own is pretty much legal; taking the look, feel and identifiable characters of a thing isn't.

[a_minimalist]

Idea is one thing, identity is another. Taking a concept and making it your own is pretty much legal; taking the look, feel and identifiable characters of a thing isn't.

Apple did that with the mouse, to IBM, and they admit it. It's just hypocritical. Trust me though, I hate saying things like this because for the past 6 or 7 years I've been preaching about buying Apple product.

[vta]

Apple did that with the mouse, to IBM, and they admit it. It's just hypocritical. Trust me though, I hate saying things like this because for the past 6 or 7 years I've been preaching about buying Apple product.

Not really, Xerox created the idea for the mouse and they as a company rejected it, saying no one would buy into it, so Apple took it.

Apple didn't invent the MP3, the smart phone, the all-in-one or the computer in general, but they've brought their own vision to those things and they've done a good job of branding. Nothing wrong with that and any company can make a smartphone - look at those Androids, they look nothing like the iPhone. Samsung took the cheap (or so they thought) way out and just carbon copied the design itself.

And I own a Samsung phone. :P
It sucks.

[Lodeus]

Not really, Xerox created the idea for the mouse and they as a company rejected it, saying no one would buy into it, so Apple took it.

Apple didn't invent the MP3, the smart phone, the all-in-one or the computer in general, but they've brought their own vision to those things and they've done a good job of branding. Nothing wrong with that and any company can make a smartphone - look at those Androids, they look nothing like the iPhone. Samsung took the cheap (or so they thought) way out and just carbon copied the design itself.

And I own a Samsung phone. :P
It sucks.

But if you square out the icons on a Android doesn't it look a lot more similar to an iPhone.

I mean what designs did they steal. A smartphone being the shape of a rectangle? The whole thing seems odd to me.

[theogt]

The only weird thing about this is how frequently Apple takes ideas from other people, and that it does business with Samsung all of the time. I'm a big Apple supporter, have been for a long time, but even this is a little odd to me.

It's like suing your wife and then going home to live with her the same day the decision is made by the judge.Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect. This means a couple things.

One, basically entire markets for all sorts of products rely in at least some capacity on their manufacuring ability. Apple doesn't manufacture. They design products and employ manufacturers to make their products. They're not a vertically integrated company in that sense. They have massive, massive manufacturing needs. There is a limited number of manufacturers in the world. When Apple launches a new product they literally cannot employ enough manufacturers to churn out enough products to meet their sales demands. When the tsunami hit Japan, manufacturers in Japan shut down. This meant Apple couldn't make enough products quickly enough to meet demand. Long story short -- Samsung is a huge manufacturer and it's basically impossible for Apple to meet its demand without employing every possible manufacturer, particularly one with the manufacuring capacity of Samsung.

Second, few companies are good at both being a manufacturer and a designer. Samsung is a hugely diversified company in terms of what they manufacture. There's almost literally not a single electronic or major equipment product that Samsung doesn't manufacture. I think this diversity has led to Samsung having an unparalleled grasp on the ability to manufacture basically anything. It's just what they do. Design is an entirely different animal. The vast majority of things that Samsung builds it does not design. It's primary business is taking designers' plans and charging designers a fee for making their product. So the question for Samsung seems to often be, if we have this incredible manufacturing advantage, why spend the money on design and engineering? The answer to this question usually is easily answered. Samsung copies all sorts of "competitors". Not just in cell phones, but in refrigerators, TVs, microwaves. Everything. They are constantly sued for this. Constantly. I'd venture they're the most sued company in the world in terms of IP litigation. They have a reputation as a company that just copies, makes a massive amount of products, and sits and waits to be sued, knowing its just part of the cost of doing business. Its a very prevalent and bad reputation. But given their manufacuring network and ability, designers simply can't live without them. So they sue them, then turn around and ask them to build their products. Samsung doesn't care. They're making money on both ends.

[vta]

But if you square out the icons on a Android doesn't it look a lot more similar to an iPhone.

I mean what designs did they steal. A smartphone being the shape of a rectangle? The whole thing seems odd to me.

Look at the pic above, that's pretty much using tracing paper on a Michelangelo and calling yourself an artist. In general it doesn't bother me - I don't own a smartphone and wouldn't care if I did, as long as mine works.

But I don't see why many are mad at Apple. It's not unprecedented or unreasonable, especially when you attach a great part of your business on the look as well as the performance. Like Gibson's Les Paul that Ibanez copped and got successfully sued over. That body shape is signature.

[kmp77]

This one still kills me...it's like Samsung didn't even try :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://www.digitalfilmtree.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/samsung.jpg

[arglebargle]

Yes, not being able to buy illegally produced products increases customer costs. That's an awfully myopic view of what is "good" or "bad" for customers, however.

Patent system is irretrievable broken. Lots of people making money while producing squat.

[SaltwaterServr]

Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect. This means a couple things.

One, basically entire markets for all sorts of products rely in at least some capacity on their manufacuring ability. Apple doesn't manufacture. They design products and employ manufacturers to make their products. They're not a vertically integrated company in that sense. They have massive, massive manufacturing needs. There is a limited number of manufacturers in the world. When Apple launches a new product they literally cannot employ enough manufacturers to churn out enough products to meet their sales demands. When the tsunami hit Japan, manufacturers in Japan shut down. This meant Apple couldn't make enough products quickly enough to meet demand. Long story short -- Samsung is a huge manufacturer and it's basically impossible for Apple to meet its demand without employing every possible manufacturer, particularly one with the manufacuring capacity of Samsung.

Second, few companies are good at both being a manufacturer and a designer. Samsung is a hugely diversified company in terms of what they manufacture. There's almost literally not a single electronic or major equipment product that Samsung doesn't manufacture. I think this diversity has led to Samsung having an unparalleled grasp on the ability to manufacture basically anything. It's just what they do. Design is an entirely different animal. The vast majority of things that Samsung builds it does not design. It's primary business is taking designers' plans and charging designers a fee for making their product. So the question for Samsung seems to often be, if we have this incredible manufacturing advantage, why spend the money on design and engineering? The answer to this question usually is easily answered. Samsung copies all sorts of "competitors". Not just in cell phones, but in refrigerators, TVs, microwaves. Everything. They are constantly sued for this. Constantly. I'd venture they're the most sued company in the world in terms of IP litigation. They have a reputation as a company that just copies, makes a massive amount of products, and sits and waits to be sued, knowing its just part of the cost of doing business. Its a very prevalent and bad reputation. But given their manufacuring network and ability, designers simply can't live without them. So they sue them, then turn around and ask them to build their products. Samsung doesn't care. They're making money on both ends.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Not posted from my ripped off (samsung)iPhone. ;)

[a_minimalist]

Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect. This means a couple things.

One, basically entire markets for all sorts of products rely in at least some capacity on their manufacuring ability. Apple doesn't manufacture. They design products and employ manufacturers to make their products. They're not a vertically integrated company in that sense. They have massive, massive manufacturing needs. There is a limited number of manufacturers in the world. When Apple launches a new product they literally cannot employ enough manufacturers to churn out enough products to meet their sales demands. When the tsunami hit Japan, manufacturers in Japan shut down. This meant Apple couldn't make enough products quickly enough to meet demand. Long story short -- Samsung is a huge manufacturer and it's basically impossible for Apple to meet its demand without employing every possible manufacturer, particularly one with the manufacuring capacity of Samsung.

Second, few companies are good at both being a manufacturer and a designer. Samsung is a hugely diversified company in terms of what they manufacture. There's almost literally not a single electronic or major equipment product that Samsung doesn't manufacture. I think this diversity has led to Samsung having an unparalleled grasp on the ability to manufacture basically anything. It's just what they do. Design is an entirely different animal. The vast majority of things that Samsung builds it does not design. It's primary business is taking designers' plans and charging designers a fee for making their product. So the question for Samsung seems to often be, if we have this incredible manufacturing advantage, why spend the money on design and engineering? The answer to this question usually is easily answered. Samsung copies all sorts of "competitors". Not just in cell phones, but in refrigerators, TVs, microwaves. Everything. They are constantly sued for this. Constantly. I'd venture they're the most sued company in the world in terms of IP litigation. They have a reputation as a company that just copies, makes a massive amount of products, and sits and waits to be sued, knowing its just part of the cost of doing business. Its a very prevalent and bad reputation. But given their manufacuring network and ability, designers simply can't live without them. So they sue them, then turn around and ask them to build their products. Samsung doesn't care. They're making money on both ends.

Thanks for this. You broke it down really well and made it really easy to understand. I wonder if this will prevent the two from working with each other.

[theogt]

Patent system is irretrievable broken. Lots of people making money while producing squat.The intellectual property system could be completely re-written and redesigned in one congressional session. The question is whether it needs to be.

[Meat-O-Rama]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/us-apple-samsung-trial-idUSBRE87N13V20120824


(Reuters) - Apple Inc. scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung on Friday as a U.S. jury found the Korean company had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad (http://www.reuters.com/subjects/ipad) and awarded the U.S. company $1.051 billion in damages.

[kmd24]

Samsung is basically a giant manufacturing company. They make everything. From dishwashers to drilling rigs. They're excellent at it. They can do it better than anyone else and have massive resources in that respect.

This is a really good description of part of the problem. I saw a tweet that said $1B is a pretty good price to get the best designers in the world to design your mobile devices. I agree with that sentiment.

OTOH, this wasn't just an attack on Samsung, it was also an attack on Google/Android.

And that's where it gets a little dicey in my mind. I haven't followed the case that closely, but from what I understand, some of the patents violated were pinch-to-zoom, swipe-to-open, the "bounce back" effect on UITableView widgets and other UI metaphors. Some of those items were prior art, and some might argue that they are obvious. I for one hoped that those patents would be invalidated by the jury. It basically amounts to patenting right click on a mouse. As a developer who develops on both iOS and Android, I am afraid that this ruling is going to make a mess of the landscape.

I have less of a problem with the ruling on the trade dress patents. It's abundantly clear that Samsung was blatantly stealing the entire look and feel of Apple devices.

Court is the wrong place to decide these things, IMO. It should be done at the patent office, but it seems like they are overwhelmed with applications and likely lack the technical savvy to decide whether things like touch gestures on a touch device ought to be patentable, and they're just passing the buck.

[theogt]

This is a really good description of part of the problem. I saw a tweet that said $1B is a pretty good price to get the best designers in the world to design your mobile devices. I agree with that sentiment.

OTOH, this wasn't just an attack on Samsung, it was also an attack on Google/Android.

And that's where it gets a little dicey in my mind. I haven't followed the case that closely, but from what I understand, some of the patents violated were pinch-to-zoom, swipe-to-open, the "bounce back" effect on UITableView widgets and other UI metaphors. Some of those items were prior art, and some might argue that they are obvious. I for one hoped that those patents would be invalidated by the jury. It basically amounts to patenting right click on a mouse. As a developer who develops on both iOS and Android, I am afraid that this ruling is going to make a mess of the landscape.

I have less of a problem with the ruling on the trade dress patents. It's abundantly clear that Samsung was blatantly stealing the entire look and feel of Apple devices.

Court is the wrong place to decide these things, IMO. It should be done at the patent office, but it seems like they are overwhelmed with applications and likely lack the technical savvy to decide whether things like touch gestures on a touch device ought to be patentable, and they're just passing the buck.I haven't really studied each of the patents in this case in terms of the legal arguments about validity. But I disagree with the argument that the court is the wrong place to decide these things. The patent application process isn't an adversarial proceeding, so it's impossible to get proper vetting (and you're right that they're understaffed and couldn't possibly ever have enough staff to review in depth the mountain of patent applications, which is why they send disputes to the court system).

[ajk23az]

Steve Jobs didn't say that, Picasso did.

On another note, something tells me Sam isn't going to be very happy about this.

Picasso might have originally said it, but Jobs definitely SAID it, believed it, and followed it as well.

CW0DUg63lqU

[a_minimalist]

Picasso might have originally said it, but Jobs definitely SAID it, believed it, and followed it as well.

CW0DUg63lqU

I thought you were talking about who coined the phrase. My bad

[kmd24]

But I disagree with the argument that the court is the wrong place to decide these things. The patent application process isn't an adversarial proceeding, so it's impossible to get proper vetting (and you're right that they're understaffed and couldn't possibly ever have enough staff to review in depth the mountain of patent applications, which is why they send disputes to the court system).

The patent office is supposed to do a substantive review of applications to determine whether inventions are novel and inventive whether the invention is in an excluded area, and whether the application complies with patent law.

Things that are obvious and non-inventive shouldn't be granted patents. That is basically the charter of the USPTO.

To force these things to be decided in court turns patents into weapons that can be used to extort those who can't afford to defend themselves (e.g., the many Lodsys suits from about a year ago).

[theogt]

The patent office is supposed to do a substantive review of applications to determine whether inventions are novel and inventive whether the invention is in an excluded area, and whether the application complies with patent law.

Things that are obvious and non-inventive shouldn't be granted patents. That is basically the charter of the USPTO.

To force these things to be decided in court turns patents into weapons that can be used to extort those who can't afford to defend themselves (e.g., the many Lodsys suits from about a year ago).They do a substantive review, yes. And it can be contentious, requiring significant back and forth between the investors' counsel and the gov't. My point was that there can never be a full vetting without truly adversarial posturing, however.

With any system there are going to be potential abuses. The goal is not to find the perfect system, but the best system.

[masomenos]

The damages award could conceivably go north of $3 billion, once Judge Koh takes willfulness into account.

Taking injunction-fueled losses and brand damage into account, the results of this trial could cost Samaung $5 billion or more in penalties and lost profits.

[kmd24]

They do a substantive review, yes.

My point is that the patent office is not doing a substantive review if they are awarding patents to obvious implementations of prior art. Then you get results like this case, where a jury of laymen rush through deliberations.

groklaw doesn't think the ruling will stand based on the fact that the jury apparently didn't even read the instructions that were presented to them.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

[theogt]

My point is that the patent office is not doing a substantive review if they are awarding patents to obvious implementations of prior art. Then you get results like this case, where a jury of laymen rush through deliberations.

groklaw doesn't think the ruling will stand based on the fact that the jury apparently didn't even read the instructions that were presented to them.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390It won't get overturned for the inconsistencies referenced in that link. They were very minor and obviously clerical mistakes (that were fixed prior to the verdict being entered).

[Sam I Am]

Samsung obviously did some copying, but what went down here from both the judge and the jury is almost unbelievable. Judge Lucy Koh has put herself in a precarious situation in how she handled this trial. Basically tying Samsungs hands early on while not doing the same to Apple when Apple was clearly in more error. To her credit, she did start trying to rectify the situation towards the end, but the damage was already done.

Judge Lucy Koh has basically gave her very young career a black eye. Not only that, it gets worse when the trial was handed over to the jurors. The jurors return a verdict in three days on a trial so complicated that lawyers have said that it would take them more than three days to comprehend the rules they were given. That should have immediately sounded an alarm for the judge. That doesn't even touch on the fact that the verdict was so inconsistent that they awarded Apple damages to things they said Samsung didn't infringe on. This screams that the jurors were just rushing to get through this.

Then we have the jury foreman who basically tainted the jury all by himself. He told the jury that they didn't need to read these rules, that he would explain to them what they needed to do. (wow) Then went on to tell them that "prior art" was basically meaningless and they discarded the entire notion when in fact prior art weights heavily on the validity of the case!

The jury foreman then goes on to hang himself by making a public statement saying he wanted to punish Samsung when the rules they were to follow strictly state they are not to punish the infringer, but to compensate the patent holder.

Judge Lucy Koh would be smart to throw the entire verdict out in light of not only her error, but what has occurred with the jury. If she doesn't, there is almost no doubt that an appeals court will. If that happens, Judge Lucy Koh will then have two black eyes on her career.

[theogt]

Yay for amateur lawyering. Did you stay at a holiday inn express last night top?

[CowboysFan02]

Samsung obviously did some copying, but what went down here from both the judge and the jury is almost unbelievable. Judge Lucy Koh has put herself in a precarious situation in how she handled this trial. Basically tying Samsungs hands early on while not doing the same to Apple when Apple was clearly in more error. To her credit, she did start trying to rectify the situation towards the end, but the damage was already done.

Judge Lucy Koh has basically gave her very young career a black eye. Not only that, it gets worse when the trial was handed over to the jurors. The jurors return a verdict in three days on a trial so complicated that lawyers have said that it would take them more than three days to comprehend the rules they were given. That should have immediately sounded an alarm for the judge. That doesn't even touch on the fact that the verdict was so inconsistent that they awarded Apple damages to things they said Samsung didn't infringe on. This screams that the jurors were just rushing to get through this.

Then we have the jury foreman who basically tainted the jury all by himself. He told the jury that they didn't need to read these rules, that he would explain to them what they needed to do. (wow) Then went on to tell them that "prior art" was basically meaningless and they discarded the entire notion when in fact prior art weights heavily on the validity of the case!

The jury foreman then goes on to hang himself by making a public statement saying he wanted to punish Samsung when the rules they were to follow strictly state they are not to punish the infringer, but to compensate the patent holder.

Judge Lucy Koh would be smart to throw the entire verdict out in light of not only her error, but what has occurred with the jury. If she doesn't, there is almost no doubt that an appeals court will. If that happens, Judge Lucy Koh will then have two black eyes on her career.

I agree, and to me trials such as this should NEVER be in the hands of a jury. Everything about this trial is much to complicated for a layperson to understand. IF it must be a jury, the jury should consist of people who have a strong technical and/or legal background such as programmers, computer engineers and lawyers.

[theogt]

Then we have the jury foreman who basically tainted the jury all by himself. He told the jury that they didn't need to read these rules, that he would explain to them what they needed to do. (wow) Then went on to tell them that "prior art" was basically meaningless and they discarded the entire notion when in fact prior art weights heavily on the validity of the case!

The jury foreman then goes on to hang himself by making a public statement saying he wanted to punish Samsung when the rules they were to follow strictly state they are not to punish the infringer, but to compensate the patent holder.None of this is true, by the way.

[Sam I Am]

I agree, and to me trials such as this should NEVER be in the hands of a jury. Everything about this trial is much to complicated for a layperson to understand. IF it must be a jury, the jury should consist of people who have a strong technical and/or legal background such as programmers, computer engineers and lawyers.

I and it seems several intellectual property law professors agree with you.

The following is a quote from a Paul Elias AP article (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/08/26/2268937/apple-jurors-grappled-with-complex.html).

==============================

Increasingly these highly complex disputes are being decided by juries, rather than judges, and the juries tend to issue more generous awards for patent violations.

That has companies on the receiving end of successful patent infringement lawsuits crying foul and calling for reform in the patent system, but it also has some legal experts questioning whether ordinary citizens should be rendering verdicts and fixing damages in such high stakes, highly technical cases.

"That's a great question ... and it's the subject of a fair amount of current debate," said Notre Dame University law professor Mark McKenna....

"This case is unmanageable for a jury," Robin Feldman, an intellectual property professor at the University of California Hastings Law School, said before the verdict. "There are more than 100 pages of jury instructions. I don't give that much reading to my law students. They can't possible digest it."

"The trial is evidence of a patent system that is out of control," Feldman said. "No matter what happens in this trial, I think people will need to step back and ask whether we've gone too far in the intellectual property system."

[ethiostar]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/apple-patent-win-good-apple-bad-samsung-lousy-124403804.html

The monetary damages here, though large, are almost irrelevant....More important is the precedent that this case sets, which is that gadget companies can successfully bring and win cases based on what might be described as "feature patents." One of the claims Apple made, for example, was that Samsung had infringed on an Apple patent that covered a "rectangular" phone. Given that all smartphones are rectangular, this patent and others like it could have a far-reaching impact.

Are you kidding me?

Does this mean everybody else is going to have to start manufacturing phones in the shape of a stop sign?

[Sam I Am]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/apple-patent-win-good-apple-bad-samsung-lousy-124403804.html



Are you kidding me?

Does this mean everybody else is going to have to start manufacturing phones in the shape of a stop sign?

Haven't you seen Apple's original rectangle iBrick phone? :muttley:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-p4JgMEAz-K0/UDurBwJoPQI/AAAAAAAACmw/UBBzNebog9o/s400/applesquare.png

[trickblue]

Haven't you seen Apple's original rectangle iBrick phone? :muttley:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-p4JgMEAz-K0/UDurBwJoPQI/AAAAAAAACmw/UBBzNebog9o/s400/applesquare.png

What an awful photoshop...

Obviously done on a pc... :D

[Sam I Am]

What an awful photoshop...

Obviously done on a pc... :D

It was Gimp you fool! :mad:

btw, I was lucky I figured out how to alter the Apple logo to look like it was laying down. When I opened Gimp I had no idea. :laugh2:

The only thing obvious about it is that I'm an unskilled graphical artist. :)

[trickblue]

It was Gimp you fool! :mad:

btw, I was lucky I figured out how to alter the Apple logo to look like it was laying down. When I opened Gimp I had no idea. :laugh2:

The only thing obvious about it is that I'm an unskilled graphical artist. :)

I just started using Gimp, so I woulda had trouble on that one too...

I've used Photoshop/Paintshop Pro for over 15 years...

[kmd24]

LOL. The jury foreman convinced the other jurors none of the patents were prior art because

The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.

As the link states,
Basically, he's admitting that he doesn't understand how prior art works. The fact that the software wouldn't run on the same processor is meaningless. In fact, as Groklaw notes, the jury instructions (which Hogan again insists the jury read) note that to find prior art, you just have to show that the invention has already been done or even explained somewhere else. That's got nothing to do with whether or not it can run on the same processor.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

In a Japanese court, Samsung was found not to have copied anything.

[SaltwaterServr]

In a Japanese court, Samsung was found not to have copied anything.

IIRC, in the UK as well.

I found it perplexing that the US judge wouldn't allow Samsung to admit into evidence prior designs from other manufacturer's the exhibited Apple's supposed original design features years before the iPhone and iPad ever existed.

Hell, NYC has shown that image somewhere on here before, and it's been noted online as well.

[Lodeus]

Too late to patent a triangle shaped tablet or phone?

http://thecoolgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Office-Pyramid-tablet.jpg

[kmd24]

LOL. The jury foreman convinced the other jurors none of the patents were prior art because



As the link states,

Whoops, forgot the link http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02063020214/samsungapple-jury-foremans-explanation-verdict-shows-he-doesnt-understand-prior-art.shtml

[theogt]

LOL. The jury foreman convinced the other jurors none of the patents were prior art because



As the link states,Can you explain what he was talking about? Was there a device that existed before the Apple patent that did the same thing?

[theogt]

IIRC, in the UK as well.

I found it perplexing that the US judge wouldn't allow Samsung to admit into evidence prior designs from other manufacturer's the exhibited Apple's supposed original design features years before the iPhone and iPad ever existed.

Hell, NYC has shown that image somewhere on here before, and it's been noted online as well.What did she not let in?

[kmd24]

Can you explain what he was talking about? Was there a device that existed before the Apple patent that did the same thing?

Yes. Quoting from groklaw.net (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828225612963):

the '381 patent [PDF], "List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display", or the bounce-back patent. (You can confirm that this is the patent they were arguing about by what another juror said earlier about the dispute. CNET's Greg Sandoval interviewed juror Manuel Ilagan, and he said the argument was over Apple's bounceback and pinch to zoom.) The prior art Samsung listed in its trial brief for bounceback included: the Tablecloth program installed on the DiamondTouch system developed by Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratory ("MERL"), the LaunchTile and XNav programs developed by Dr. Benjamin Bederson, and International Publication Number WO 03/081458.

So, it seems that the foreman decided that since you couldn't install Apple software on the DiamondTouch system (or vice versa), Tablecloth did not constitute prior art.

[SaltwaterServr]

What did she not let in?

This wasn't what I was thinking of, but still relevant.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491835-37/key-samsung-designer-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/

And this article has the slides at the bottom.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/samsung-says-it-was-not-allowed-to-tell-the-jury-the-full-story-in-apple-case/

Apple internal memo worried that they're copying the Sony design.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Apples-Sony-style-designs003-640x480.jpg

Apple designer noting designs he used for the iPhone were based on Sony designs.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Apples-Sony-style-designs002-640x480.jpg

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Samsungs-independent-640x480.jpg

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Samsungs-independent2-640x480.jpg

Slide to unlock feature

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Samsungs-independent3-640x480.jpg

[theogt]

This wasn't what I was thinking of, but still relevant.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57491835-37/key-samsung-designer-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/

And this article has the slides at the bottom.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/samsung-says-it-was-not-allowed-to-tell-the-jury-the-full-story-in-apple-case/But these relate to a phone that Apple wasn't suing Samsung over.

[SaltwaterServr]

But these relate to a phone that Apple wasn't suing Samsung over.

Samsung had already developed the design elements for other phones that were incorporated into the phones Apple did sue over. Barring this evidence showing how Samsung got to those final products and barring the designer of the basic model that led to a great number of Samsung designs later on reeks to high heaven.

The UK and Japanese courts got it right. Luckily Samsung has the appeals process to rectify the mistakes elaborated on by the jury foreman's interview as well as enter into consideration their design processes to get to their final market designs before Apple's products hit the market.

[CowboysFan02]

But these relate to a phone that Apple wasn't suing Samsung over.

I could be wrong, but I think they were trying to use those phones to show that they did not copy Apple, due to the fact that they had similar styling/designs on a phone that existed before the iphone.

[theogt]

Samsung had already developed the design elements for other phones that were incorporated into the phones Apple did sue over. Barring this evidence showing how Samsung got to those final products and barring the designer of the basic model that led to a great number of Samsung designs later on reeks to high heaven.

The UK and Japanese courts got it right. Luckily Samsung has the appeals process to rectify the mistakes elaborated on by the jury foreman's interview as well as enter into consideration their design processes to get to their final market designs before Apple's products hit the market.

I could be wrong, but I think they were trying to use those phones to show that they did not copy Apple, due to the fact that they had similar styling/designs on a phone that existed before the iphone.The judge ruled that they were not relevant evidence. If Samsumg was arguing thy these designs disproved an essential element in Apple's claims, they would have been relevant. I can understand how these might look relevant but Samsung would need to show that legally. I haven't seen the briefing to know what their legal argument was. Do you guys?

By the way, the UK and other courts are completely irrelevant. They're different laws with different rules deciding different questions. Whether they decided with Samsumg on a particular foreign law issue has zero to do with whether US courts and juries should side with Samsung on a US law issue.

[numnuts23]

Now HTC and Samsung are about to file suit on Apple and the iPhone 5 with the likley addition of 4gLTE. Appears they have many patents which cover this lovely technology. SUCH A WONDERFUL LEGAL SYSTEM. How anyone can defend these patent laws and what this portion of the courts has become blows me away.

Pandora's box is wide open.......lovely


http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-to-sue-apple-over-4g-lte-in-iphone-5-7000004015/