Anyone know of a good source for ​Apple/​Samsung court case (1 ​bababaillio​n)?

@Ray7: Can't disagree with too much of what you said, but I think you're missing something in your evaluation. Apple may not have won where it matters:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G#114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

Apple did such a good job of showing how Samsung's devices were identical to their own that that's the only message laymen have heard. Now they question why the Apple devices cost so much.

This prolonged legal battle was a mistake by both sides. They should have settled before so much behind the scenes information was revealed and before the court of public opinion could crucify either or both regardless of the legal outcome.

@Maddus Mattus: You are suggesting taking the monetary incentive out of innovation and invention.

Patent laws are a lynchpin of Capitalism, why throw them out? You only enable the wealthy to pirate the inventor's product, which is plain theft. This is ok with you. Wow. You are no inventor.

EDIT: Now that Apple is the biggest corporation, isn't it time for them to be the oppressor and no longer the 'cool' underdog?

@Ray7: Wow! I didn't read your whole post, but the few sentences I did read were worthy of  "Post of the Year" honors on TUAW.

@JohnAskew: Under the existing system, do you really think the wealthy are blocked from crushing the little guy? Reality is that patents are used to keep the little guy from being able to get into the game in the first place.

12 seconds ago, wkempf wrote

@JohnAskew: Under the existing system, do you really think the wealthy are blocked from crushing the little guy? Reality is that patents are used to keep the little guy from being able to get into the game in the first place.

The patent system wasn't designed that way, but it ended up that way simply because of the explosion of patents being award for the most ridiculous things (e.g. rectangular devices with rounded corners) warrants hiring of patent attorneys to do research. You can file a patent application as a small entity for $190. The fact that there's even a tiered schedule based on your entity size is proof that the system was intended to favor small business.

Small companies and individuals only think of filing for patents on inventions that they truly believe are novel, but they have to sift through hundreds of thousands of bullshit filed by huge corporations like Apple, IBM, and, yes, Microsoft to find out if their invention has already been patented and that costs money.

@wkempf: You have this absolutely correct. 

There is a reality here that takes over when you have a patent and want to take on a GE or Microsoft etc.   These big corporations will flood you with legal paper and counterclaims.  Their whole purpose is to drain you financially so you have no money left after paying legal fees.   It takes so long to sue someone that time is not on your side either.     The only hope for the little guy is to be ignored or get bought out.    The patent system does NOT work for the guy with an idea anymore. 

@TexasToast: On the other hand, for the "guy with an idea", there is no way on Earth to raise the capital often needed other than to go to a VC and ask for some. And doing that without patent protection of your idea is not only foolish, but unlikely to turn out successfully.

34 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

The patent system wasn't designed that way, but it ended up that way simply because of the explosion of patents being award for the most ridiculous things (e.g. rectangular devices with rounded corners) warrants hiring of patent attorneys to do research. You can file a patent application as a small entity for $190. The fact that there's even a tiered schedule based on your entity size is proof that the system was intended to favor small business.

Small companies and individuals only think of filing for patents on inventions that they truly believe are novel, but they have to sift through hundreds of thousands of bullshit filed by huge corporations like Apple, IBM, and, yes, Microsoft to find out if their invention has already been patented and that costs money.

+1

@TexasToast: I agree that monied interests will sabotage and steal any profitability whereever it can prevail. I believe that our Government is supposed to level the playing field, and, in the span of my life, has gone the opposite direction. Ours is the Corporate nation that President Eisenhower warned us against. Sad. Wall Street owns the USA.

13 hours ago, wkempf wrote

@Ray7: Can't disagree with too much of what you said, but I think you're missing something in your evaluation. Apple may not have won where it matters:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G#114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

Apple did such a good job of showing how Samsung's devices were identical to their own that that's the only message laymen have heard. Now they question why the Apple devices cost so much.

This prolonged legal battle was a mistake by both sides. They should have settled before so much behind the scenes information was revealed and before the court of public opinion could crucify either or both regardless of the legal outcome.

Mmm. Dunno. I think it's a stretch to point to one anecdote on Google+ and claim that Apple may not of won where it matters. It kind of depends on what matters to Apple: that no one copies their look and feel or uses their IP without paying for it. As long as the cheaper option doesn't look like their stuff, they're not really that fussed. Remember that they sell far few devices and make far more money than anyone else. This has little to do with the higher price, and a lot to do with the lock on the supply chain they've had for the past four years.

I think it's too early to tell what damage has been done to either side. You have to bear in mind that surprisingly few people know this is happening. So far the outcome has increased Apple's share price up to $675 and wiped about $12billion off the value of Samsung. How it further affects both companies remains to be seen. Since the theft was wilful, Koh has the option of raising the award to $3billion. No one expects her to do that. 

Next up: Apple will apply for a sales injunction; Samsung will lodge an appeal.

This prolonged legal battle was a mistake by both sides. They should have settled before so much behind the scenes information was revealed and before the court of public opinion could crucify either or both regardless of the legal outcome.

Well, yes, I'm sure they both tried, or so they both claim. I don't think public opinion will hurt either company; this is really just geek news.

I agree though: neither company has exactly covered themselves in glory.

13 hours ago, cbae wrote

@Ray7: Wow! I didn't read your whole post, but the few sentences I did read were worthy of  "Post of the Year" honors on TUAW.

Cheers!

13 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

@Maddus Mattus: You are suggesting taking the monetary incentive out of innovation and invention.

Patent laws are a lynchpin of Capitalism, why throw them out? You only enable the wealthy to pirate the inventor's product, which is plain theft. This is ok with you. Wow. You are no inventor.

EDIT: Now that Apple is the biggest corporation, isn't it time for them to be the oppressor and no longer the 'cool' underdog?

Whether the patent system changes or not will make no difference to Apple. Successful tech companies go through a similar lifecycle: exciting startup, dull corporation, cash-cow semi-retirement.

The only difference here is that Apple has been through it twice. Still, even if Jobs had lived, they would not be at top forever. Someone else (and we most probably haven't seen them yet) will come along and take the crown from them. It's inevitable.

12 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@TexasToast: On the other hand, for the "guy with an idea", there is no way on Earth to raise the capital often needed other than to go to a VC and ask for some. And doing that without patent protection of your idea is not only foolish, but unlikely to turn out successfully.

Yeah, but we still get a lot of these little guys sitting on a patent with no intention of developing it. They wait for a large corporation to develop the idea then turn up on their doorstep, waving the court order in their face. I really think you should at least have a working prototype before you submit. It doesn't have to be a finished, saleable product; just a working model that proves the principle.

The problem is that the folk who grant these patents don't appear to be reading them. Some of Apple's patents needed to have been bounced back with a note saying, "Be more specific" or "Show me this thing actually working."

Case in point.

If someone comes up with this then why should Apple get a penny for just 'thinking' of the idea?

49 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Next up: Apple will apply for a sales injunction; Samsung will lodge an appeal.

*snip*

Sure Samsung will appeal. They have strong prove of jury misconduct there.

The jury foreman is a patent holder who seek to punish the infringer, while the instruction given to jurors explicitly written they should not do that.

Also, the jury foreman succesfully persuaded them to rush it so they skipped the discussion on prior art altogether.

20 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Apple clearly nailed the hard part on the head with the iPhone and the iPad. To prolong it's succes, they're preventing others from doing the same thing. It's killing other peoples billion dollar investments, with just a couple of millions.

Well, they didn't stop Microsoft making the Surface. They just licensed the IP and asked them not to make a copy of the iPad. As a result, MS came up with a tablet that many people here think is better than the iPad. Likewise, they sought a licensing deal with Samsung, but they couldn't agree terms.

6 minutes ago, cheong wrote

*snip*

Sure Samsung will appeal. They have strong prove of jury misconduct there.

The jury foreman is a patent holder who seek to punish the infringer, while the instruction given to jurors explicitly written they should not do that.

Also, the jury foreman succesfully persuaded them to rush it so they skipped the discussion on prior art altogether.

Both Apple and Samsung knew he was a patent holder and were happy with that. Remember that Samsung was also suing Apple in the same case, so having a patent holder could have gone either way for both of them.

The prior art was not rushed; it was skipped because the jury had already decided to back Samsung on the devices it was being applied to. There was no need to discuss it because Samsung had already (quite rightly) won on that count.

The foreman said that he sought to punish the infringer, but here's the thing: 

Apple asked for $2.75billion, but the jury found that Samsung's theft was wilful (as more than proved by the emails). In these circumstances, the jury could have tripled their award to $3billion – a shade above Apple's ask. They wisely chose not to, possibly to kill the chances of an appeal on those grounds.

Seeking to punish the infringer and actually doing it are two different things.

It is unlikely that Samsung will be able to overturn the conviction (in the latter part of the case they were not even saying they were innocent; they just argued that Apple's demands for compensation were unreasonable, so in that sense they scored a big win).

But we shall see how the appeal plays out.

1 minute ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Both Apple and Samsung knew he was a patent holder and were happy with that. Remember that Samsung was also suing Apple in the same case, so having a patent holder could have gone either way for both of them.

The foolish part that on Reuter's interview at 25th Aug, he admitted that himself. So whether he really did that with this idea in mind, Samsung would use this written prove as evidence.

"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."

@cbae:

Intention doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.

What matters is the outcome and only the outcome.

You can talk all day about how things should have been, but the fact is, that some benefit at the expense of others. And that's wrong.

@JohnAskew:

Yeah, I'm saying exactly that.

Be gone protectionism! I loath the!

@Ray7: Isn't it weird that I as a consumer have to pay Apple when I buy a Microsoft product?