Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: HTexan on August 24, 2012, 04:37:10 PM
-
That is what those copy cats get. Discuss.
http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
-
Quote: and we have always have been shameless stealing great ideas ::)
Its okay for Apple to steal but not for anybody to steal from apple
-
(http://i.qkme.me/358yp4.jpg)
-
That is what those copy cats get. Discuss.
http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
Samsung didn't copy shit. The Samsung Galaxy uses the Android Operating system for their phones which is a Linux based...meaning a free operating system making their devices less expensive and more innovative since the world helps develop and maintain it. Apple sued over the look of the phone and its not innovative for a phone to have round corners. Given that the trial was in a courthouse 2 blocks away from Apple headquarters as well as the jury pool, its obvious that the result was bias and they will appeal.
The company btw makes about 250 billion a year in revenue and they have over400 billion in assets.....Its like having 400 dollars in your wallet and giving 1 dollar to a homeless man out in the street to buy some Old English 800 Malt Liquor. I hope Apple goes out of business because I'm tired of tree huggers and hippies cumming from the mouth about how wonderful Apple is and how they would give Steve Jobs a sloppy wet blowjob just to stand in line for 5 fucking days to get the latest Iphone..... ::)
I don't give it shit if its a Red Delicious or a god damn Granny Smith...fuck Apple.
-
That is what those copy cats get. Discuss.
http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
Talk about Bias, In Korea Samsung got a favourable judgement, but in Apple's home town of America they fucked Samsung up the arse - what a joke, Apple products suck huge donkeys balls, only homos and the technically challenged buy there crap. Apple sure know how to bite the hands that feed them considering a lot of their technological parts like microprocessors that are central to Apple’s devices are purchased from Samsung.
-
Quote: and we have always have been shameless stealing great ideas ::)
Its okay for Apple to steal but not for anybody to steal from apple
x2
-
Talk about Bias, In Korea Samsung got a favourable judgement, but in Apple's home town of America they fucked Samsung up the arse - what a joke, Apple products suck huge donkeys balls, only homos and the technically challenged buy there crap. Apple sure know how to bite the hands that feed them considering a lot of their technological parts like microprocessors that are central to Apple’s devices are purchased from Samsung.
Its always home court advantage---Problem is, Korea, China, Japan are known copiers, in many diff industries---particularly cars.
China s the biggest culprit. Ever see their BMW X5 clone? Well BMW sued in Chinese court, and they lost...
Look at the Hyundai Genesis coupe and sedan and the Hyundai Equus. And look at the Kia K9, and damn near the whole line up, blatant copying.
Some have said that it's engrained in Asian culture, and that copying is the sincerest form of flattery. But, when it's money out of your pocket, it's a different story.
-
Samsung didn't copy shit. The Samsung Galaxy uses the Android Operating system for their phones which is a Linux based...meaning a free operating system making their devices less expensive and more innovative since the world helps develop and maintain it. Apple sued over the look of the phone and its not innovative for a phone to have round corners. Given that the trial was in a courthouse 2 blocks away from Apple headquarters as well as the jury pool, its obvious that the result was bias and they will appeal.
The company btw makes about 250 billion a year in revenue and they have over400 billion in assets.....Its like having 400 dollars in your wallet and giving 1 dollar to a homeless man out in the street to buy some Old English 800 Malt Liquor. I hope Apple goes out of business because I'm tired of tree huggers and hippies cumming from the mouth about how wonderful Apple is and how they would give Steve Jobs a sloppy wet blowjob just to stand in line for 5 fucking days to get the latest Iphone..... ::)
I don't give it shit if its a Red Delicious or a god damn Granny Smith...fuck Apple.
-
Samsung didn't copy shit. The Samsung Galaxy uses the Android Operating system for their phones which is a Linux based...meaning a free operating system making their devices less expensive and more innovative since the world helps develop and maintain it. Apple sued over the look of the phone and its not innovative for a phone to have round corners. Given that the trial was in a courthouse 2 blocks away from Apple headquarters as well as the jury pool, its obvious that the result was bias and they will appeal.
The company btw makes about 250 billion a year in revenue and they have over400 billion in assets.....Its like having 400 dollars in your wallet and giving 1 dollar to a homeless man out in the street to buy some Old English 800 Malt Liquor. I hope Apple goes out of business because I'm tired of tree huggers and hippies cumming from the mouth about how wonderful Apple is and how they would give Steve Jobs a sloppy wet blowjob just to stand in line for 5 fucking days to get the latest Iphone..... ::)
I don't give it shit if its a Red Delicious or a god damn Granny Smith...fuck Apple.
First time i agree with Goodrum!
-
Apple is not just suing over the look of the phone(s)... many oems like Samsung actually modify the android operating system and run their own skin on top of it which also includes some software features unique to the oem , Samsung runs a skin called touch wiz and the patents in question are for somethings in the software too.
This is a huge win for Apple, Sammy has to pay up 1.05 billion. Some still say though that the patent system in itself is fucked up!
In my opinion Samsung copied and improved upon what apple put out, and that should not be punished by patent laws or else we will not see as much innovation.
-
Samsung didn't copy shit. The Samsung Galaxy uses the Android Operating system for their phones which is a Linux based...meaning a free operating system making their devices less expensive and more innovative since the world helps develop and maintain it. Apple sued over the look of the phone and its not innovative for a phone to have round corners. Given that the trial was in a courthouse 2 blocks away from Apple headquarters as well as the jury pool, its obvious that the result was bias and they will appeal.
The company btw makes about 250 billion a year in revenue and they have over400 billion in assets.....Its like having 400 dollars in your wallet and giving 1 dollar to a homeless man out in the street to buy some Old English 800 Malt Liquor. I hope Apple goes out of business because I'm tired of tree huggers and hippies cumming from the mouth about how wonderful Apple is and how they would give Steve Jobs a sloppy wet blowjob just to stand in line for 5 fucking days to get the latest Iphone..... ::)
I don't give it shit if its a Red Delicious or a god damn Granny Smith...fuck Apple.
dont you live in a fucking trailer? so why are you trying to pose as a tech expert?
-
The company btw makes about 250 billion a year in revenue and they have over400 billion in assets.....Its like having 400 dollars in your wallet and giving 1 dollar to a homeless man out in the street to buy some Old English 800 Malt Liquor. I hope Apple goes out of business because I'm tired of tree huggers and hippies cumming from the mouth about how wonderful Apple is and how they would give Steve Jobs a sloppy wet blowjob just to stand in line for 5 fucking days to get the latest Iphone..... ::)
Exactly
Samsung assets: $384.3 billion
Apple assets: $116.4 billion
Articles make it sound like big bad Apple is giving the final blow to tiny little company called Samsung which will go out of business as a result ::)
-
hahah
i guess mevin didnt seen the court documents were samsung's fucking CEO tells his design team to copy apple.
-
I use Apple products and am decisively heterosexual.
-
I use Apple products and am decisively heterosexual.
Impossible, it's been long established that the two are mutually contradictory. Chances are you are also using something not from Apple in your daily life and you haven't realised yet ;D
-
Apple is not just suing over the look of the phone(s)... many oems like Samsung actually modify the android operating system and run their own skin on top of it which also includes some software features unique to the oem , Samsung runs a skin called touch wiz and the patents in question are for somethings in the software too.
This is a huge win for Apple, Sammy has to pay up 1.05 billion. Some still say though that the patent system in itself is fucked up!
In my opinion Samsung copied and improved upon what apple put out, and that should not be punished by patent laws or else we will not see as much innovation.
Its not a win for Apple and the judgement isn't going to stick. Apple stole its Windows technology from Xerox...so did Microsoft but you don't see them suing anyone else.
The reason that Apple was so crooked was because the founder of the company Steve Jobs was a crooked piece of shit who was a scam artist from the beginning...he even scammed his first partner in business Steve Wozniak....read below
Jobs then returned to Atari, and was assigned to create a circuit board for the arcade video game Breakout. According to Atari co-founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari offered $100 for each chip that was eliminated in the machine. Jobs had little specialized knowledge of circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the fee evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari engineers, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line.[further explanation needed] According to Wozniak, Jobs told him that Atari gave them only $700 (instead of the offered $5,000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $350.[55] Wozniak did not learn about the actual bonus until ten years later, but said that if Jobs had told him about it and had said he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.[
FACT: The first Apple computer was designed and built by Steve Wozniak as well as the most famous computer of all time, the Apple II....not Steve Jobs. Because the Apple I is Wozniak's design, you can go build one and sell it without being sued by Apple because Wozniak wasn't a dick and let people use his designs for free.
FACT: The Mouse was invented by Xerox....not Apple
FACT: Wozniak did all the work while Jobs was doing LSD and being a Hari Krishna
FACT: Jobs could not code, never was an engineer...all he did was think up ideas....which he likely got from listening to other engineers and technicans. He was just a good businessman...not much more
CONCLUSION: Wozniak was the real man behind Apple. This fat, cold cut samich eating dude right here.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Steve_Wozniak.jpg/488px-Steve_Wozniak.jpg)
The only thing Apple did was be the first person at the patent office and the only company that could get more people to drink their Kool Aid than Jim Jones ever could do.
-
Apple is a company. The man behind the company was Jobs. Woz was the man behind some of their early computers. That's it.
-
Apple is a company. The man behind the company was Jobs. Woz was the man behind some of their early computers. That's it.
The Apple II is what made the company....it was the most successful computer....EVER. The computer was made for 16 fucking years...from 1977 to 1993. The only reason why Wozniak wasn't running the show was because he was in an airplane accident in 1981 and had amnesia for many years.
-
The Apple II is what made the company....it was the most successful computer....EVER. The computer was made for 16 fucking years...from 1977 to 1993. The only reason why Wozniak wasn't running the show was because he was in an airplane accident in 1981 and had amnesia for many years.
And that didn't save them from falling- which they did all through the 90s.
-
And that didn't save them from falling- which they did all through the 90s.
Like I said, Jobs was a good businessman....and he wasn't there which is why they failed all through the 90's.
-
Like I said, Jobs was a good businessman....and he wasn't there which is why they failed all through the 90's.
How active is your forum Vince ? Actually I'll just go look lol :D
-
How active is your forum Vince ? Actually I'll just go look lol :D
Anabolic Mayhem is doing better than I expected. Its very difficult to get a forum off the ground and it takes time for it to grow. However, I built the site so me and others could speak our opinions without being censored so its fulfilling its purpose
-
Anabolic Mayhem is doing better than I expected. Its very difficult to get a forum off the ground and it takes time for it to grow. However, I built the site so me and others could speak our opinions without being censored so its fulfilling its purpose
Good stuff - I will join and have a look :)
-
vince, what the hell is your point regarding what woz did and what jobs did? we are not talking about that. you are going off on a tangent.
i really hope the charges dont stick because im not a fan of apple products and am team android, but i think they will this time.
this is a major problem for oems all over the world now and its cases like this that will hinder innovation in the long run.
regardless if this is chump change for samsung or not its a big win for apple because it will cause other manufacturers to think twice before releasing a new product that may upset cry baby apple. i believe some of the charges may be valid, but some are ridiculous and cant believe patents will protect that shit!
- Sent from my Motorola Droid Xyboard 10.1 running Android 4.0 and not an apple product hence confirming my heterosexuality!
-
dont you live in a fucking trailer? so why are you trying to pose as a tech expert?
vince is pissed cause he waited 5 days in line for a phone and he didnt have enough on his debit card to buy one
-
Apple is amazingly overated. People are sheep plain and simple.
Samsung makes great quality products in my opinion.
-
(http://goran.mobile9.com/download/media/449/apple_v4a5wudm.gif)
-
I don't give it shit if its a Red Delicious or a god damn Granny Smith...fuck Apple.
This ^^^
-
vince is pissed cause he waited 5 days in line for a phone and he didnt have enough on his debit card to buy one
I use a prepaid ZTE Merit with Android that I bought from Family Dollar for 80 bucks, my Android tablet was 84 dollars and I can do everything that someone with an Iphone and Ipad can do plus I can do the one thing they can't do and that's shut the fuck up about it. I'm not going to sleep on the pavement outside of Apple just to spend 900 bucks on some lousy gadget when I can pull some change from my couch cushions and get something else that works better.
Most Apple users are sheeple, they'll believe anything the company shovels out......I had a friend of mine tell me that he was proud to be part of the Apple community......I mean....its a computer not a fucking social movement. They also get mad and confrontational if they see you using something else because they know you didn't spend an entire months paycheck on your stuff or they always want to talk to you about the wonders of Apple so they can get you to suck on Steve Job's throbbing dong. I was at a bookstore reading a book on my tablet and this bulldyke was eyeing me like I did something so I politely asked "Bitch, what's your problem??". She comes over and ask if I knew that I was using a pirated computer and that I needed to throw it out and get a real computer like this I Pad she uses. I told her that if she felt that way, then she shouldn't use Google since they created Android....I also told her she would have a better chance getting some vagina if she didn't walk the street around wearing combat boots and having half of your head shaved with a nose ring. She just snarled at me and marched off like a wounded dog.
Steve Jobs could have said he was Jesus and Hitler and Apple users would have still slept on the pavement for him. He obviously fixed the best pitcher of Kool Aid ever.
But getting back to this lawsuit....I don't see why Apple users are so passionate about them winning a lawsuit?? Who gives a fuck?? The Apple sheeple will still not be able to shut the fuck up and still camp outside the stores for 5 days. I'm sorry but I got other important shit to do in life than to wait for the new flavor of Kool Aid Apple has whipped up.
-
"Pride comes before the fall"
It's stupid how a company can patent and copyright basic ideas, making fair competition impossible, slowing development and technological advancements to reach deeper into your pockets. It's just super greed and megalomania, Jobs forté, what a joke of a company.
-
$1 billion is a drop in the ocean for Samsung. They are already handing Apple their asses at the moment. The lawsuits were also defeated in the UK and the Netherlands. Even if they "stole" they've certainly made more than the cost of compensation.
-
lots of melting in this thread.
-
lol at that retard having multiple meltdowns because he can't afford Apple products.
-
I hope Apple goes out of business because I'm tired of tree huggers and hippies cumming from the mouth about how wonderful Apple is and how they would give Steve Jobs a sloppy wet blowjob just to stand in line for 5 fucking days to get the latest Iphone
Well put. 8)
-
Notice: In American court.
American system is infamous to epic proportions for trying to put competition down as much as possible, banning foreign companies, giving unfair advantage to domestic producers etc.
In nutshell: Americans are very communistic.
Years ago there was a Finnish company with first ever cholesterol fighting 'spread' (you put it on bread, dunno the right term).
Naturally they wanted to get in US markets as there are more unhealthy and fat people than anywhere else.
well, they didn't get a permission to sell it... it was investigated for times... Until - surprise - some American company came up with similar product !!
American fascist/communist government held down international competition (which is part of market economy Americans claim they support) until their producers had copied the product.
-
the USA are numero uno so they make the rules. Like other countries did in the past as they were numero uno too. In 20 or 50 years, china will make the rules. "Communistic" or "Capitalistic" or whatever is just the packaging used by the first country to pierce your anus and maintain its pole position, the "condom" so to say. Deal with it.
-
Vince is just pissed because the Geek Squad won't go to trailers
-
I love apple and all my apple products. Will never go back to other shit.
-
lots of melting in this thread.
yup yup, i done getbig proud making this thread. :)
-
lol at that retard having multiple meltdowns because he can't afford Apple products.
WTF, isn't an iphn like $1000 in Brasil? Gracie and you are out of your minds. Then again, you run around with a paper bag full of cash. ::) Life as a playboy outside the favelas must be good. ::)
-
I am going to buy a laptop and am interested in this retina macbook pro but it doesn't have an optical drive. I am leaning toward a Sony.
-
I am going to buy a laptop and am interested in this retina macbook pro but it doesn't have an optical drive. I am leaning toward a Sony.
Sony doesnt have retina display tho. so you could get a macbook pro 15 with an optical drive. Sony are great laptops tho.
anyway, back on topic.
Apple won Jury: Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion!!!1
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/tech/mobile/apple-samsung-verdict/index.html
-
Sony doesnt have retina display tho. so you could get a macbook pro 15 with an optical drive. Sony are great laptops tho.
anyway, back on topic.
Apple won Jury: Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion!!!1
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/tech/mobile/apple-samsung-verdict/index.html
I know, HT. It comes down to getting the retina and putting up with an external drive or having a 15 inch sony with blu-ray built in. Being a consumer is difficult shit!
-
I know, HT. It comes down to getting the retina and putting up with an external drive or having a 15 inch sony with blu-ray built in. Being a consumer is difficult shit!
LOL i guess the real question is how bad do you want OSX? Because blu-ray backing up is the shit. Discs suck donkey dick.
It sucks having to backup my blu-rays on a PC, then convert them to an apple compatible format on a PC, save to USB drive an then stick them on my mac mini, that i use as a media server, so i can watch them on my apple tv and over devices.
-
Everything I have owned outside of Apple has turned into a giant piece of shit. My samsung droid phone literally is fucking awful after only a year it is close to being unusable. My battery lasts about 6 hours, the phone freezes, etc. I had a near major meltdown using a program that was only windows based. I used two different computers and was freaking the fuck out at how slow and shitty the windows computers are. I have thought the same thing with Apple before I ever owned them.. Now I will never go back, they have been worth EVERY penny and I never have any serious problems with them(not saying others dont though...)
-
Jelly bean is so fucking more advanced than the same ios shit that's its even close. Google now, which is an amazingly innovated feature, will be copied by apple I guarantee it. I can't wait for the galaxy note 2 to come out its gonna be an epic phone. The polls I've seen have it the number one anticipated phone coming out FAR surpassing iSameshit 5. Just watch the next few weeks...
-
WTF, isn't an iphn like $1000 in Brasil? Gracie and you are out of your minds. Then again, you run around with a paper bag full of cash. ::) Life as a playboy outside the favelas must be good. ::)
all imported techies are expensive in brazil, not just the iphone, so it doesnt make a difference
-
I love apple products.
-
Jelly bean is so fucking more advanced than the same ios shit that's its even close. Google now, which is an amazingly innovated feature, will be copied by apple I guarantee it. I can't wait for the galaxy note 2 to come out its gonna be an epic phone. The polls I've seen have it the number one anticipated phone coming out FAR surpassing iSameshit 5. Just watch the next few weeks...
I'm eyeing the Droid Razr HD rumored to be launching on September 5th! Can't use anything else after using Android and really enjoying all its features! Freaking syncing everything between, my android phone, android tablet, and PC is incredible with Google and so easy!
(http://www-bgr-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-20-at-9.28.14-AM.png)
-
Iphone is way overrated. My next phone will be Galaxy 3 or Note 2. I am currently using crackberry 9860 and 9800
-
Iphone is way overrated. My next phone will be Galaxy 3 or Note 2. I am currently using crackberry 9860 and 9800
hopefully the note 2 makes it on verizon
-
Yes I NEED to spend 1000$ on a facebook/getbig machine.
I NEED it, the company said so. I'm important like the commercial said and therefore NEED any and all apple products.
-
'nuff said. ::)
-
I know, HT. It comes down to getting the retina and putting up with an external drive or having a 15 inch sony with blu-ray built in. Being a consumer is difficult shit!
i already have 2 retinas in my eyes bro, why you want to go buy one a computer has?
-
Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed
Late in the process yesterday at the Apple v. Samsung trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury's verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here's the jury's Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here's the original [PDF]. Here's the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked? "Please let the jury know," they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, "of the inconsistencies we are supposed to deliberate on."
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million
Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.
Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
That's why I don't think this jury's ruling will stand, among other reasons.
I thought it wise to highlight this, because I saw this morning that some missed seeing it. For example, James Niccolai at PCWorld quotes a "legal expert" who clearly didn't:
"It's surprising they came back so quickly, given that it was a complicated case and very complicated verdict form, but that said, it looks like they were thoughtful about it and they did their job," said Roy Futterman, director at DOAR Litigation Consulting and a clinical psychologist who works on trial strategies and the mindset of jurors.
"One sign of that is that the verdicts were consistent, they held together -- they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity; it all tells the same big story," he said.
That's in an article titled "Quick Verdict in Apple Trial Doesn't Mean Jury Shirked Its Duty, Expert Says." If the jury instructions [PDF] are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?
Time will tell, but keep in mind that one of the plays you'll see next will likely be a Rule 50(b) motion by Samsung, and that's the one where you ask the judge for various relief on the basis that no reasonable jury could find what it did find on the evidence presented. Here's Google's still pending Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Oracle v. Google case, to give you an idea of what they look like. As you can see, you can ask for victory across the board or just on one part of what the jury decided.
This story is far from over, in other words, and while Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, waxed philosophical about the trial, and saying that it was about values, not money, one important US value is that the jury fulfill its responsibilities, one of which is to read and make sure they understand and follow the jury instructions they are given. I believe Cook would agree that trials are supposed to be fair, with everyone doing their part. If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it:
Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?
If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.
Come on. This is farce.
Professor Michael Risch points out an even worse inconsistency:
How did the Galaxy Tab escape design patent infringement? This was the only device to be preliminarily enjoined (on appeal no less), and yet it was the one of the few devices to be spared the sledgehammer. And, by the way, it looks an awful lot like an iPad. Yet the Epic 4G, a phone I own (uh oh, Apple’s coming after me) — which has a slide out keyboard, a curved top and bottom, 4 buttons on the bottom, the word Samsung printed across the top, buttons in different places (and I know this because I look in all the wrong places on my wife’s iTouch), a differently shaped speaker, a differently placed camera, etc. — that device infringes the iPhone design patents....
Relatedly, the ability to get a design patent on a user interface implies that design patent law is broken. This, to me, is the Supreme Court issue in this case. We can dicker about the “facts” of point 2, but whether you can stop all people from having square icons in rows of 4 with a dock is something that I thought we settled in Lotus v. Borland 15 years ago. I commend Apple for finding a way around basic UI law, but this type of ruling cannot stand.
This is the second lawyer I've seen predicting this case will go all the way to the US Supreme Court. He also compliments Groklaw for having "not only really detailed information, but really accurate information, and actual source documents. That combination is hard to find." Thank you.
Update: One of the jurors has now spoken, and CNET's Greg Sandoval has it, in his article, Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out:
Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple....
The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."
This gets worse and worse.
Update 2: Dan Levine of Reuters has some words from the foreman:
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
Hogan said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days -- much faster than legal experts had predicted -- because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apple's patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said.
Now the jurors are contradicting each other. Lordy, the more they talk, the worse it gets. I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages [as PDF], they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
The same instruction is repeated in Final Jury Instruction No. 53, in case they missed it the first time. Did they obey those instructions? Nay, did they even read them? The evidence, judging by the foreman's reported words, point the wrong way.
Update 3: Samsung lawyer John Quinn is quoted by USA Today saying they'll be asking the judge to toss this out and then appeal, if she does not:
Samsung, the global leader among smartphone makers, vowed to fight. Its lawyers told the judge it intended to ask her to toss out the verdict.
"This decision should not be allowed to stand because it would discourage innovation and limit the rights of consumers to make choices for themselves," Samsung lead lawyer John Quinn said. He argued that the judge or an appeals court should overturn the verdict.
Apple lawyers plan to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages from $1.05 billion to $3 billion.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues, along with Samsung's demand she overturn the jury's verdict, in several weeks. Quinn said Samsung would appeal if the judge refuses to toss out the decision....
Samsung said after the verdict that it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."
"This is by no means the final word in this case," Quinn said in a statement. "Patent law should not be twisted so as to give one company a monopoly over the shape of smartphones."
___________
1 Is that math even correct, even after the fix? One reader did the math, and he or she thinks their math is off, and the right total, even if all else is accurate, should be $1,049,423,540. Here's the calculation, taken from the Amended Verdict Form [PDF], so you can do your own checking:
My math gives a different total
... in favor of Apple by a few 10,000's
Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162
Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117
Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869
Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894
Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820
Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179
Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383
Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668
Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356
Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558
Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146
Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691
Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076
Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0
Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585
Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184
Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974
Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612
Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297
Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256
Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060
Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957
TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1
-
Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed
Late in the process yesterday at the Apple v. Samsung trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury's verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here's the jury's Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here's the original [PDF]. Here's the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked? "Please let the jury know," they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, "of the inconsistencies we are supposed to deliberate on."
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million
Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.
Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
That's why I don't think this jury's ruling will stand, among other reasons.
I thought it wise to highlight this, because I saw this morning that some missed seeing it. For example, James Niccolai at PCWorld quotes a "legal expert" who clearly didn't:
"It's surprising they came back so quickly, given that it was a complicated case and very complicated verdict form, but that said, it looks like they were thoughtful about it and they did their job," said Roy Futterman, director at DOAR Litigation Consulting and a clinical psychologist who works on trial strategies and the mindset of jurors.
"One sign of that is that the verdicts were consistent, they held together -- they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity; it all tells the same big story," he said.
That's in an article titled "Quick Verdict in Apple Trial Doesn't Mean Jury Shirked Its Duty, Expert Says." If the jury instructions [PDF] are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?
Time will tell, but keep in mind that one of the plays you'll see next will likely be a Rule 50(b) motion by Samsung, and that's the one where you ask the judge for various relief on the basis that no reasonable jury could find what it did find on the evidence presented. Here's Google's still pending Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Oracle v. Google case, to give you an idea of what they look like. As you can see, you can ask for victory across the board or just on one part of what the jury decided.
This story is far from over, in other words, and while Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, waxed philosophical about the trial, and saying that it was about values, not money, one important US value is that the jury fulfill its responsibilities, one of which is to read and make sure they understand and follow the jury instructions they are given. I believe Cook would agree that trials are supposed to be fair, with everyone doing their part. If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. As the legal blog, Above the Law expressed it:
Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?
If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement.
Come on. This is farce.
Professor Michael Risch points out an even worse inconsistency:
How did the Galaxy Tab escape design patent infringement? This was the only device to be preliminarily enjoined (on appeal no less), and yet it was the one of the few devices to be spared the sledgehammer. And, by the way, it looks an awful lot like an iPad. Yet the Epic 4G, a phone I own (uh oh, Apple’s coming after me) — which has a slide out keyboard, a curved top and bottom, 4 buttons on the bottom, the word Samsung printed across the top, buttons in different places (and I know this because I look in all the wrong places on my wife’s iTouch), a differently shaped speaker, a differently placed camera, etc. — that device infringes the iPhone design patents....
Relatedly, the ability to get a design patent on a user interface implies that design patent law is broken. This, to me, is the Supreme Court issue in this case. We can dicker about the “facts” of point 2, but whether you can stop all people from having square icons in rows of 4 with a dock is something that I thought we settled in Lotus v. Borland 15 years ago. I commend Apple for finding a way around basic UI law, but this type of ruling cannot stand.
This is the second lawyer I've seen predicting this case will go all the way to the US Supreme Court. He also compliments Groklaw for having "not only really detailed information, but really accurate information, and actual source documents. That combination is hard to find." Thank you.
Update: One of the jurors has now spoken, and CNET's Greg Sandoval has it, in his article, Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out:
Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple....
The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."
This gets worse and worse.
Update 2: Dan Levine of Reuters has some words from the foreman:
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
Hogan said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days -- much faster than legal experts had predicted -- because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apple's patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said.
Now the jurors are contradicting each other. Lordy, the more they talk, the worse it gets. I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages [as PDF], they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
The same instruction is repeated in Final Jury Instruction No. 53, in case they missed it the first time. Did they obey those instructions? Nay, did they even read them? The evidence, judging by the foreman's reported words, point the wrong way.
Update 3: Samsung lawyer John Quinn is quoted by USA Today saying they'll be asking the judge to toss this out and then appeal, if she does not:
Samsung, the global leader among smartphone makers, vowed to fight. Its lawyers told the judge it intended to ask her to toss out the verdict.
"This decision should not be allowed to stand because it would discourage innovation and limit the rights of consumers to make choices for themselves," Samsung lead lawyer John Quinn said. He argued that the judge or an appeals court should overturn the verdict.
Apple lawyers plan to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages from $1.05 billion to $3 billion.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues, along with Samsung's demand she overturn the jury's verdict, in several weeks. Quinn said Samsung would appeal if the judge refuses to toss out the decision....
Samsung said after the verdict that it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."
"This is by no means the final word in this case," Quinn said in a statement. "Patent law should not be twisted so as to give one company a monopoly over the shape of smartphones."
___________
1 Is that math even correct, even after the fix? One reader did the math, and he or she thinks their math is off, and the right total, even if all else is accurate, should be $1,049,423,540. Here's the calculation, taken from the Amended Verdict Form [PDF], so you can do your own checking:
My math gives a different total
... in favor of Apple by a few 10,000's
Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162
Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117
Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869
Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894
Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820
Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179
Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383
Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668
Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356
Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558
Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146
Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691
Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076
Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0
Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585
Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184
Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974
Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612
Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297
Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256
Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060
Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957
TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1
Wtf dude? The link would have been enough.
-
'nuff said. ::)
So Samsung increased the screen size.
HOYL SHIETTT TIME TO START SUING THE FUCK OUT OF SAMMICHSUNG
-
On the opposite end of the spectrum, In Germany Apple has admitted to infringing on patents owned by Motorola, and and two have struck a deal where Motorola will license some of its standards-essential patents to Apple...
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/28/apple-strikes-licensing-deal-with-motorola-in-germany/
Motorola's war with Apple has certainly been overshadowed by the showdown with Samsung. But, with the latter melodrama shifting into quiet mode, focus is coming back to the battle with Moto. That ongoing story has taken a rather unexpected turn, however. A filing on Monday revealed that the Google subsidiary has agreed to license some (if not all) of its standards-essential patents to Cupertino... in Germany, at least. When exactly the deal was struck isn't clear, and neither side has announced a royalty rate as of yet. It could be that the German courts will decide what is appropriate according to FRAND rules, but the agreement also includes an admission by Apple that it is liable for past damages relating to these patents. The terms seem to include only "cellular standard-essential" patents, which means the company's claims regarding WiFi and video codecs could still be used as an avenue of attack. But, with at least one set of FRAND patents set aside, we wouldn't be surprised if the rest followed. It may be that Moto has simply decided to pick its fights more carefully, in light Apple's recent legal victory and growing pressure from the European Commission surrounding potential abuse of standards-essential patents. Or, it could be an olive branch and a sign that the patent wars are winding down -- a possibility we'd joyously embrace.
-
So Samsung increased the screen size.
HOYL SHIETTT TIME TO START SUING THE FUCK OUT OF SAMMICHSUNG
They didn’t just make the screen bigger. They produced a 132 page internal report discussing why early versions of the Galaxy were deficient and needed to be more like the iPhone. The internal Samsung report was authored in 2010 by the company's engineering team which meticulously compares and contrasts the usability and design of the Galaxy S against the iPhone.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102322739/Samsung-Comparison-Report
The methodical report first compares the two handsets, points out the differences and offers "Directions for improvement" which almost always take the form of Apple's already-instituted solution. Everything from home screen icons to phone apps were studied, bringing comments ranging from fixing screen overlapping to filling empty spaces with a "loading" sign as seen in the soon-to-be defunct iOS YouTube app.
::)
-
They didn’t just make the screen bigger. They produced a 132 page internal report discussing why early versions of the Galaxy were deficient and needed to be more like the iPhone. The internal Samsung report was authored in 2010 by the company's engineering team which meticulously compares and contrasts the usability and design of the Galaxy S against the iPhone.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102322739/Samsung-Comparison-Report
The methodical report first compares the two handsets, points out the differences and offers "Directions for improvement" which almost always take the form of Apple's already-instituted solution. Everything from home screen icons to phone apps were studied, bringing comments ranging from fixing screen overlapping to filling empty spaces with a "loading" sign as seen in the soon-to-be defunct iOS YouTube app.
::)
Whats your point here Bay?
Companies always intergrate more popular features from competitors into their own product. Thats how they create a competitive product that people want to buy. Apple, IMHO, is whining like a spoiled child.
-
Anyone who plays the stock market should seriously consider shorting AAPL.
-
Whats your point here Bay?
Companies always intergrate more popular features from competitors into their own product. Thats how they create a competitive product that people want to buy. Apple, IMHO, is whining like a spoiled child.
My point was made by the jury: Samsung violated the patents covering the look, feel, design, and functionality of the iPhone. One can argue (as the loser and their sympathizers in such cases often do) that those things should not be subject to patent protection, but that is a discussion for another court to decide. Good designers and engineers are paid very well for their efforts when their products and creations excel in the marketplace. Competitors cannot simply make a page for page copy (in this case 132 pages) of their work without paying licensing fees or being held accountable in court.
Buyers of the Samsung S phones should be happy; without the iPhone, Samsung would have nothing to copy and they would still be selling the Before models pictured above—which obviously were not selling very well. :-[
-
this will be appealed
-
BTW Fuck Apple.
-
only a matter of time before an open source hand held device comes a long, can't wait.
-
only a matter of time before an open source hand held device comes a long, can't wait.
Android is open source?
-
Buyers of the Samsung S phones should be happy; without the iPhone, Samsung would have nothing to copy and they would still be selling the Before models pictured above—which obviously were not selling very well. :-[
absolutely false speculation ::)
notice one of the "before" models even has no keyboard (unless it slides out), and cosmetic minutiae notwithstanding, looks very much like an iphone-style device already.
-
Bay melting all over in this thread. Can the cliches get any gayer?
-
bay has killed in the name of Apple.
-
They didn’t just make the screen bigger. They produced a 132 page internal report discussing why early versions of the Galaxy were deficient and needed to be more like the iPhone. The internal Samsung report was authored in 2010 by the company's engineering team which meticulously compares and contrasts the usability and design of the Galaxy S against the iPhone.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102322739/Samsung-Comparison-Report
The methodical report first compares the two handsets, points out the differences and offers "Directions for improvement" which almost always take the form of Apple's already-instituted solution. Everything from home screen icons to phone apps were studied, bringing comments ranging from fixing screen overlapping to filling empty spaces with a "loading" sign as seen in the soon-to-be defunct iOS YouTube app.
::)
So...incorporating a touch screen, wait....a BIGGER touchscreen is grounds for a lawsuit? Huh? Also since when is a companies internal report which details on how to improve a product in order to make it more competitive also basis for a patent infringement lawsuit?
Seriously, your and or Apple logic in this case is flawed.
-
I love you guys who are arguing for the side of Samsung.
Just imagine for a minute. For years phones had buttons and all they could do is dial a number and maybe text if you type 6-6-6-4-4-4-3-3-2-1-5-5-5-6 you might spell a word.
Then you spend millions to a billion in research and development in creating a touch screen that when you press it against your head it doesn't accidently press other buttons. You only put a single home button on it, you perfect the pinch and stretch zoom with two fingers. Years and years, thousands of engineers and a ton of money spent, then you go to market and some chinese company copies what you did and sells it as a competitor without doing any of the legwork or innovation.
Would you be happy?
You know how on an iphone when a phone number is in an email of webpage it is highlighted in blue and you can click it to auto-dial? That was patented by apple in the 90's well before any touch phone came to be.
-
My point was made by the jury: Samsung violated the patents covering the look, feel, design, and functionality of the iPhone. One can argue (as the loser and their sympathizers in such cases often do) that those things should not be subject to patent protection, but that is a discussion for another court to decide. Good designers and engineers are paid very well for their efforts when their products and creations excel in the marketplace. Competitors cannot simply make a page for page copy (in this case 132 pages) of their work without paying licensing fees or being held accountable in court.
Buyers of the Samsung S phones should be happy; without the iPhone, Samsung would have nothing to copy and they would still be selling the Before models pictured above—which obviously were not selling very well. :-[
Ah, ok, you're arguing the strict letter of the law. From your posts, I inferred that you were somehow upset at Samsung for doing what every company has done for decades.
-
Ah, ok, you're arguing the strict letter of the law. From your posts, I inferred that you were somehow upset at Samsung for doing what every company has done for decades.
I am not upset at Samsung or any other company, but I do agree with El Diablo Blanco. If I (as an individual or a company) invested the time and money to create the iPhone and someone else came along and aped it as obviously as Samsung did--as made clear in their internal report with pages and pages of how they could exactly copy the iPhone--I'd be in court as well.
It's easy to argue after the fact that X, Y, or Z feature is "obvious" and therefore should not have patent protection, but the before and after pix of Samsung phone and their reception in the marketplace after copying the iPhone is pretty obvious--at least it was to the jury. Why didn't Samsung offer these obvious features and designs before the iPhone? ::)
-
Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products
Stop litigating and start innovating.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-the-details/
-
Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products
Stop litigating and start innovating.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-the-details/
This is getting juicy
-
Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products
Stop litigating and start innovating.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-the-details/
This is EXACTLY why Google bought Motorola!
-
Google Has Had Enough: Files Lawsuit To Ban Multiple Apple Products
Stop litigating and start innovating.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/20/motorolas-new-patent-lawsuit-against-apple-the-details/
HA HA Google will eat APPLE for lunch!
-
Could Google become of an even more awesome company than it already is. I hope they fucking rape apple in the ass til it bleeds red. If there is one company that can throw blows to blows with apple it's Google
-
Also these patents are all very legit and they date back before the iPhone was even created. Crapples iPhone would be all but crippled without these innovations they've all so graciously "borrowed "