Apple wins Billion dollar lawsuit vs Samsung

[Daran]

LOL @ Apple being a fad.

Apple approached technology differently to every other company before (and still most after).......how the user wants it to work.

They have spent billions on research to figure out the most initiutive way for us to use technology.

That is in no way a fad.

Look at the much maligned Macbook Pro.......yes these machines have windows equivilents selling for almost half the price.

However, do you know hard it was finding a machine that was fast, light, stylish, great screen and long battery life.

Hard enough to eliminate all except apple.

And that's just the start, when you get used to Mac OS 10.6+, you realize how much thought was put into doing things as quick and painlessly as possible.

Yes, everything can be done on Windows (and probably more), but I bet I can do most tasks a lot faster and with a lot less issues on my macbook.

Same goes for Android.....at this very moment my S2 is re-starting by itself again.....I love the S2 honestly, it's a great phone. But it's very unpolished compared to my Apple Iphone 4s.

[ZeroOne]

^^^^LOL that is the epitome of fanboyism "S2 is re-starting by itself again" ROFL.

Breds of all the s2 posts in the android thread your s2 seems to be the only one that "restarts by itself" you *seem to be* stereotyping android based on the problems of your s2.

Anyway, so now that Apple is saying that Samsung and Apple is the same thing, why pay double the price for an Apple product?

Enrique GutierrezAug 25, 2012 (edited) - Public
I can't make this stuff up

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"
Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"
Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

I put my Samsung QX410 on my table, and started to plug in, when he leans over to me, "Sorry, you don't mind if I ask, how much did you pay for your Samsung laptop?"

"Oh, no worries, it was $700." I replied.

I watched shock overcome his face, like actual shock. He looked at me, blankly, for an awkward amount of time, "Mind if I have a look?" he asked.

So, I obliged, and showed him a few things. He commented on Windows 7, so I opened up my virtual machine of OS/X... By the time the conversation was over, he was ready to kick Cupertino in the nuts, I think.

... Now, the punchline:

I'm writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons have made the connection that Samsung is now the same as Apple. They don't know the details, they don't really care, what they know is Apple is saying that Samsung is the same as Apple ... and with one simple Google Search, you get prices that are basically half for what seems to be the same products -- for nearly everything.

Two of these groups (including the husband/wife) asked me about my Samsung laptop, the second group noticed my Galaxy phone (also by Samsung)... Best billion dollar ad-campaign Samsung ever had.

https://plus.google.com/114476892281222 ... qg6G?hl=en

[Strauss]

Strauss, what copy paste from what thread? I speaking my mind yuh hear. Anyways to paraphrase an old saying I can't remember verbatim, "what the chef takes hours to cook, the apprentice swallows in short time". It is inevitable that the R&D costs drop off once a feature is adopted into a new item, and who is to say Samsung hasn't spent a ton on R&D on followup models?

Didn't mean to offend you buddy. Was just wondering if I saw it before.

And yes Samsung did spend a lot on R&D... to make it look and feel more like an iPhone.. from UI to packaging to ads (evidence in court case and a simple look around you).

Now we can see that Apple's model works, since Microsoft, Google, Samsung et al are adopting Apple's marketing and sales outlets (brick&mortar + online store). This is great stuff for anyone who can pull it off, however so far, only Apple seems to have some invisible secret ingredient everyone else is missing.

Certain things eventually become industry standards e.g.
* Firewire (IEEE 1394)
* Quicktime (ISO/IEC 14496-14:2003)
* TrueType fonts
Some are licensed while others are 'given away'.

Apple is a business. If they just let everyone copy the trade dress, what advantage then does Apple have? They certainly can't compete on prices since that's the strength of the Koreans. So they have to block others to protect their own interest. Even Microsoft eventually settled in the late 90's and paid Apple for Windows infringing on MacOS (bet you didn't know that).

You don't become the world's largest from letting everyone copy what makes you, YOU.

[Strauss]

Also Android is such a free open kernel... why try to make it look like Apple when it can be make to do anything?

[achillies]

I don't get why people think Android products are cheaper than Apple products, Android products cater to different markets, High end, mid range and low end

Remember Apple does not make hardware, they buy it, and they buy some of it from Samsung, I think it only stands to reason that if Samsung makes hardware, they can then offer hardware at a cheaper price, the notion that Android products are cheaper is a fallacy

The high end Android devices are of equivalent price to what Apple offers and I just did a search
The Samsung Galaxy S 2 costs £429.95 pay as you go which is there way of saying unlocked
The Apple iPhone costs £499 on pay as you go also, that's a difference of 70 pounds, which can be accounted for when you consider that the 4S is Apple's latest offering and the S2 is NOT
The price of the S3 on that site is £519.95

Can those that argue that Apple's products are more expensive than Android products please state why

The products that are cheaper are the phones that are not high end, and there are compromises to in those devices, slower processor, smaller screen, less memory etc, and if you read Effectic's post, you would see very well that he describes the power of catering for other markets other than the highend

Furthermore the price of the 4S 16GB when first launched on At&T was $199.99 with a contract
The price of the Samsung Galaxy S2 16 GB when first launched on AT&T was $199.99 with a contract.

I can go on and on and on, but first I would like people that claim the iPhone is more expensive to please provide their source for such claims, posts should be based on facts, not illusions of grandeur

[achillies]

Now back to the case at hand, and its judgement and its Jury

The Jury is now ruining this judgement for Apple, and the more they talk, the worse it gets for Apple, or maybe not, as just noted by Groklaw, one of the jury members (the guy with the revealation) in talking to the media said "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."

And as clearly stated in the Jury Instructions, a 109 page document, the instructions that the jury said they did not need, and and the jury foreman (the guy with the revelation) was quoted as saying to the press "The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions" oh really

So the jury would not have read the following:
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.

I believe that this Quinn Emmanuel Law Firm is not as good as their reputation says they are, but there is a lot in the aftermath of this case that points to Protectionism and home court advantage, especially from the Jury Foreman

Now again I make this clear, I am presenting facts with a little bit of my opinion, I hope people who read are able to discern the difference , I am not saying that Samsung is innocent or should have been found innocent and I believe they did copy, according to the patents that Apple own, I would also go on to say that Apple should not have been granted some of those patents especially since they did not do the R+D (a term that is thrown around a lot in here, but only to Apple's defence, not to those that Apple were inspired by), but there is a lot of inconsistencies in this judgement

[Strauss]

Now again I make this clear, I am presenting facts with a little bit of my opinion, I hope people who read are able to discern the difference , I am not saying that Samsung is innocent or should have been found innocent and I believe they did copy, according to the patents that Apple own, I would also go on to say that Apple should not have been granted some of those patents especially since they did not do the R+D (a term that is thrown around a lot in here, but only to Apple's defence, not to those that Apple were inspired by), but there is a lot of inconsistencies in this judgement

A few were clear-cut, but the majority of it was just sticky.

Apple see it as 'art' and apply that thinking to protect what they design, even when inspired by others. How do draw the line where art ends and engineering starts.. and how do you patent a 'look and feel' ? This is the same problem Apple had with Windows. After Xerox gave Apple the GUI basics and invested money in Apple I'm referring to.

[achillies]

Max Huijgen
Jury in Apple vs Samsung considers this a rip-off: spot the differences!

What is the opinion of those in this thread, is this device a Copy of the iPhone, does it look like that which was patented??? (phones were scaled to the same size to make an easier comparison)

EDIT: And I don't think this theread should be merged with any other threads, this should stand on its own, because it's going to be an ongoing matter and would only dilute the Apple thread or the Google thread

[Strauss]

EDIT: And I don't think this theread should be merged with any other threads, this should stand on its own, because it's going to be an ongoing matter and would only dilute the Apple thread or the Google thread

Fully agreed and supported !

Plus we can post the evidence, patents, diagrams and keep it factual. The other threads are too filled with emotion on both sides.

[crazybalhead]

*Looks sadly at company blackberry and feels inadequate*


*throws frame*

[W2J]

*Looks sadly at company blackberry and feels inadequate*


*throws frame*

if I owned a blackberry I would too

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

EDIT: And I don't think this theread should be merged with any other threads, this should stand on its own, because it's going to be an ongoing matter and would only dilute the Apple thread or the Google thread

Fully agreed and supported !

Plus we can post the evidence, patents, diagrams and keep it factual. The other threads are too filled with emotion on both sides.

cosign

[stev]

seriously IMO:



Notepad++

Rectangles are copyrighted by Apple.

[Strauss]

Perhaps we are missing the real winners in this case: Microsoft.

MS's designs are legit. What they didn't innovate they made sure to license from Apple and others.

[16 cycles]

apple had little choice but to take Samsung to court -

it was a blatant case of copying the majority of aspects off apple's products and was gaining tremendous market share in apple's playgrounds...

That coupled with the politics of a Korean company becoming as large as a multi-national (apple) + increasing their foreign reserves tremendously meant that someone had to slow their momentum.....and show other aspiring tech companies the penalties for 'copying'.

that said....thank you samsung for offering another alternative to apple and keeping your platform 'open source'.

waits to see if Jelly Bean will have the pinch + other patented functions....

expecting summons in mail for pinching SO....

[Strauss]

Rectangular shape with rounded corners

Sound ridiculous at first, until you understand it in context to how the UI interacts via Apple's code with the hardware via finger gestures.

[Strauss]

waits to see if Jelly Bean will have the pinch + other patented functions....

Yea other companies have pinch to zoom, tap to zoom, kinetic scroll, rubber band bounce back, multi-finger swipe etc. Because they probably paid Apple small money to use it.

But Samsung flat out refused to pay for it.

Sure those gestures seem common-sense now, but only in hindsight because we become used to it.

[stev]

wasnt apple the first to include multi-touch technology in a phone? how come this was never made an issue?

edit: saw this on Google+

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaugh ... g-mistake/

[noshownogo]

Still think their are pros and cons to this ruling. It may help encourage thinking outside the rectangular rounded edge box, so to speak. In actuality, variants of what we all percieve to be the ideal form factor of a phone could put all other hardware designs in the near future in contempt of the current ruling.

Mind you, I've seen a wicked wrap around screen on a RIM prototype where you flick the screen to have the primary image shift around to the back of the phone as it wraps around the side.

[Strauss]

wasnt apple the first to include multi-touch technology in a phone? how come this was never made an issue?

edit: saw this on Google+

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaugh ... g-mistake/

Here's what caught my attention.

Apple deserves no kudos for taking the trade dress fight to the courts. Maybe if they were a bunch of losers whose design advantage had been unfairly appropriated and now they had no cash for the kids’ school fees, then there would be a cause for sympathy. But this is is the most valuable company in history. Mr Cook. Move on. Create.

But isn't that what Apple's doing/was doing? Creating new designs and new ways of doing the same old things? And ways of doing new things?

How does a company that is art-centered, keep on creating and staying competitive if anyone can just use their designs for free, as soon as Apple brings out something 'new' ? Shed some light here for me.

[achillies]

Rectangular shape with rounded corners

Sound ridiculous at first, until you understand it in context to how the UI interacts via Apple's code with the hardware via finger gestures.

But this is not what is on trial, what is on trial are design patents, and according to the lead juror, anything that has a bezel How what interacts with it or the otheris irrelevant.

Look at the very first pic I posted in this thread, a phone that actually looks like the patented design is deemed to not infringe whereas phones that are clearly different is deemed to have infringed, I have been reading all over the interwebz and I am sure you have been too, this judgement is very inconsistent on many fronts, some people are totally confused when they look at their infringing device and can't see the similarity.

And the biggest and most glaring way in which this jury exposed themselves to second guessing is by finding that the Galaxy Tab DOES NOT infringe on the iPads design, when Google's first email was about the Tabs and subsequent emails were about the phones asking Samsung to change the design vis-a-vis the Tabs, the Galaxy Tab has brought more victories and Injunctions across planet earth than any or all of the phones put together for Apple, Judge Lucy Koh who presided over this trial granted Apple an Injunction against the same Tab recently, now she has been put into a awkward position since Samsung would ask for the injunction to be lifted, and Apple would probably ask that it is not, and the jury did not find that the patents were invalid, just that the Tab does not infringe on them.

Samsung would ask for the ban to be lifted, Apple may argue that it should not be lifted, Judge Koh's decision is going to be precedent setting, should she overturn the Jury's decision in just this one instance, and not cast doubt of the entire judgement, as we Trinis say "How it go look." Should Apple argue against it, this jury has put Apple and the judge in a bind with regards to this part of the case, I await the result, it should be very very interesting

Also, the Jury did not find Apple guilty of any of Samsung's patents, and they also found that the patents were valid the functionality is clearly in Apple's devices, so why was Apple found to not have infringed, but that is not all, they also ruled that Samsung has exhausted there patents, so they are not allowed to use them to sue Apple again, another slap on the wrist it seems like

Stay Tuned

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

LEt the APP wars BEGIN.

lets start with No MORE UTUBE app on the ipad, and then all handheld apple devices will have no access to Google, GOOGLE maps will also be removed on apple devices.

Lets see who really ends up losing this battle

[r3iXmann]

^it's apple vs. samsung..not apple vs. google.

google already stated they're not getting involved

[Coppershot]

Best review of case, imo apple is killing innovation and the us patent authority is awarding patents "to previous works of art, which would make the patent invalid", e.g. icons in a grid. Thus allowing companies like apple to stiffle the competition. Sad day for consumers everywhere.

Editorial: Engadget on the Apple vs. Samsung ruling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DCZ3WfWNFWI

Darren Murph
I've been told that this trial isn't about tech editors and avid followers of technology -- these folks can clearly see that a Samsung product and an Apple product are not the same. But let's be honest: the notion that consumers could have been willfully deceived that an Android-based Samsung phone was an iPhone is pathetic. There's a giant "Samsung" logo on it. It's about as absurd as suggesting that someone could be duped into buying a Honda Odyssey instead of a Dodge Grand Caravan. They're both minivans after all, right?

And let's not even start on iOS 5's pull-down Notification Center, which was unquestionably spotted in other mobile operating systems. Oh, and iMessage? Nah -- I've never seen that idea implemented anywhere prior. The reality is that Android has made iOS better, and iOS has made Android better. The competition has led to stronger offerings on both sides for consumers of all ages, and if you want my honest opinion, Apple succeeded in derailing Samsung long before this trial ended. Just look at the Galaxy Note 10.1. It's a truly disappointing piece, largely because it was intentionally designed to not be as awesome as the iPad. And make no mistake -- it's a far cry from being an iPad.

In the end, consumers will lose. Companies high and low are scrapping potentially amazing product ideas right now for fear of legal retaliation. Not just from Apple -- this ruling is way, way bigger than that -- but from any company with a patent on [insert obscure shape here]. I hope we're happy.

James Trew

During the '90s, and into the next decade, many considered Microsoft the enemy, the malevolent gate keeper to their technological world. Forums would be littered with references to "MicroShaft," or "M$," so strong was the resentment from certain quarters. At this same time, Apple was something of the plucky, hipster upstart. Having a Mac was cool, it also meant -- albeit in a small way -- you were sticking it to the man. You were free from the "Mon$ter's" grip.

Fast-forward to the present day, and it almost feels like those two roles are reversing. While Microsoft has (quite literally) undergone a dramatic change of image, Apple is fast becoming the unnerving ubiquitous force in consumer technology. This couldn't be demonstrated any more eloquently than by the events of the last few weeks. Let's get things straight. Do I think Samsung copied Apple? Yes, it probably did. But then has everything Apple has created been entirely original? Of course not.

For example, Windows users have had icons on their desktops arranged neatly in a grid, since long before iOS came around. I've owned several pre-iPhone mobiles that did the same. Nokia's Symbian s60 for example. It might not have been exactly the same, but a grid, with icons, nonetheless. In fact, pre-Android and iOS, most mobile phones often looked and operated in much the same way, the difference was mainly in the hardware itself. Apple (and to be fair, it's not alone) has ushered in a new era though, where minute details, that really aren't new innovations, are being patented. More frustratingly, the patents are being granted. And this is where I feel the real problem lies. Apple had the legal right to protect something, it did, and won. Fine. What is more galling is that the jurors seem to have missed an opportunity to question the validity (and by proxy, value) of these patents, and they didn't. They handed Apple the right to romp ever forward down this self-destructive path, the end of which is good for no one. Not even Apple. Don't let it become Appl€?

[Strauss]

^^^ quotes of people who don't understand what the lawsuit was about and just ranting about icons, features etc, totally in no reference to the main idea : Trade Dress.

[stev]

that amount of money would pinch Samsung but i doh think that would cripple them....might make even more in profit...yuh never know.

when iPhone 5 scheduled to release btw?

[Strauss]

that amount of money would pinch Samsung but i doh think that would cripple them....might make even more in profit...yuh never know.

when iPhone 5 scheduled to release btw?

The idea wasn't to hurt Samsung financially, but to make them pay for technologies used that in combination, give the advantage of the 'look and feel' of the iPhone.

Android by itself is good. Android + iOS features make it great. Samsung is the only make who flat out refused to pay Apple and a lot of companies for patents that don't fall under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory).

Samsung has been on a steady growth path even prior to Android because they make great phones. They have never been opposed like this before because no company has had the huge cash pile of Apple's legal department to follow up. Samsung (and most Korean and Chinese companies) has always had a history of 'borrowing' technologies from other leaders like Sony/Sharp, Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola etc and being able to produce devices for much cheaper, with a quick turn-around and dominating via marketing prowess.

Apple has licensed their patents to many Windows 8 and Android makers, while also paying for use of approved patents in iOS. Apple has even licensed technologies for use in MS Windows and vice versa for MacOS X.

The only confusion really is FRAND - what should be FRAND - and this applies to all companies.

But it still boils down to TRADE DRESS. Apple, from inception, have always considered themselves artists. While they hardly *invent* anything new, they are the most successful company in the history of the planet by provide a PACKAGE and Ecosystem that works for their consumers. This is what Samsung imitated too much without paying for it.

[Coppershot]

^^^ quotes of people who don't understand what the lawsuit was about and just ranting about icons, features etc, totally in no reference to the main idea : Trade Dress.

I have no problem that apple won. The physically look of the device, samsung basically copied and paste. However the issue is how they won. Some of the patents used to sue samsung are indeed invalid. The software patents in particular are very worrying since the technology used by apple has been implemented before in other devices such as motorola, nokia years before apple had applied and received patents for the same technology. Seems like the patent office researchers are not doing their jobs at all.

One must also remember that apple is a u.s company and samsung is from korea. The u.s. has their interest to protect as well. Other than Google, RIM is from Canada, Nokia from Finland, LG, Sony etc all non us companies and all are threats to apple (RIM not so much now,lol). The judge should have thrown out the irrelevant patents and claims by apple, but by granting the victory has left the door open to destroy the competition via lawsuits rather than innovation. Apple fan boys will say otherwise, but that's another discussion.

Samsung is also one of the major manufacturer of cellphone components, thus they can make a similar device for less that what it costs apple to make. Apple even orders parts from them in their current devices. Combined that with the fact that android has recently gained and bypassed as he leader in the mobile OS market share. IOS is no longer #1. A consumer can get a high end smartphone that is more affordable than an Iphone. Now consumers potentially have limited choices in the u.s. However the strong sales of the samsung SIII and other products may help bail out samsung, if the appeal fails too.

[Stephon.]

The embarrassment

[stev]

looks like a good wake up call in the end IMO. im sure samsung probably re-doing some designs they had scheduled to release later this year.