WSJ: Verdict: Samsung Violated Apple Patents

[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:

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_3-5...esigner-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/

And this article has the slides at the bottom.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/compan...o-tell-the-jury-the-full-story-in-apple-case/

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

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

Slide to unlock feature

 

[theogt]

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

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...esigner-barred-from-testifying-in-apple-case/

And this article has the slides at the bottom.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/compan...o-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.

 

[DasTex]

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/