Apple vs. Samsung Trial

[Tribble puncher]

I used the search button to find an existing thread, I couldn't find one, which surprises me. I'm curious to know what some of my fellow posters might think of the trial in general.


Do you think Apple has a legitimate claim on a rectangular design with rounded corners as an exclusive patent? The use of Icons in the OS? I really feel like Apple is taking the "they copied our design to an extreme" and also insisting that a patent infringement trial be heard by a jury that isn't at all qualified to interpret patent law is crazy. I really feel like apple is sinking to a new low with this. This jury could base their whole decision on "Gee I really like apple, I don't want them to stop making Iphones, that would be terrible! Guilty samsung!" Should this case have been decided by a jury rather than a panel of judges and patent attourneys?

 

[Tribble puncher]

The previous post wasn't my best one. What I was trying to ask was if there are any who feel samsung copied apples patents, and what they felt about apples tactics in the courtroom vs samsungs tactics, the selection of a jury (that seems to be unqualified to decide patent law) to decide a case that could have huge huge ramifications on the types of phones we will be using a few years from now. My opinion is this:

Samsung did copy apples designs. But I feel like the designs were the next logical step in "smartphone evolution" and if apple hadn't designed it, someone else would have, I think apple laying claim to the rectangular shape and rounded corners is a bit extreme, we were already seeing things going in this direction with palm style pdas and pocket pc's so it would only have been natural that these designs would have been woven into smartphones. Apple did not invent the touch screen or the rectangle as much as they would like you to believe. Now, Apple did wage a smart court battle with the Before Iphone/After Iphone cards. They knew there audience (A jury unqualified for patient law) and played to it. If I had been on the samsung team, I would have made cards showing things like Before color tv/ after color tv, before the ps one controller/ after the psone controller, etc. to illustrate that "Yes, apple beat us all to the punch first, but this design was the next step in smartphone evolution, and we used basic aspects of it, without stealing technology, and put our own spin on it. The vast majority of people knew when they walked into an electronics store that they were buying a samsung tablet or phone." That was essentially the point I was trying to make with my previous (poorly worded) post.

 

[farmkid]

Throughout this whole thing I've been left wondering why Apple is going after Samsung only, and not Motorola, HTC, LG, Blackberry, and all the other smartphone manufacturers. EVERY tablet out there looks just like an iPad. Every smartphone and tablet out there has icons and a touchscreen. So why did they single out Samsung, especially considering that Apple depends on Samsung for several key components of their devices? That seems odd to me.

As to your question, I don't know. I agree that the average person, the kind who would be on a jury, does not have the background necessary to understand the issues enough to make a decision on the issue. However, I'm not sure I would be okay with patent attorneys making the decision either because they would have a conflict of interest. They would have a vested interest in siding with Apple because to do so would uphold and perhaps increase the complexities of patent law and make their profession more necessary and valuable. Also, considering how the mind of a lawyer works, seeing the world in a way in which there is always an aggrieved party and someone else at fault, I can see them going into it with a bias toward the plaintiff regardless of the issue.

 

[MacLeod]

Can't see them claiming copyright with a regtangulkar design with rounded corners working. (he PADDs in TNG had those) so it could be argued that Apple copied that design. But leaving that aside for one moment, a rounded corner is safer than a pointed one.

As for wanting it infront of a Jury, now depending on where the trial is held voir dire could play a part.


"Do you own an Ipad or Iphone?"
"Do you own a Samsung Mobile Phone or Tablet device?"

Also just as much as a jury could find in favour of Apple based on I really like Apple, the reverse is true. I really hate Apple so I'll find against them.

But Jury trials are much more complex than that. Plus even if the court ruled in favour of one side or another. The ruling would only apply to region the court has jurisdiction over. In the end it'll be the consumer that loses out.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Apple wins, Samsung ordered to pay over $1 billion.

 

[Tribble puncher]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19381096

Seems Samsung will appeal, so essentially this will be dragged out for a few years, and by the end when the verdict is ether upheld or all/partially thrown out, it won't matter anymore because things will have advanced. I do wonder how this verdict will play out over the next year for microsoft or perhaps even RIM.

 

[arch101]

The lesson here: if you're going to copy someone's patented designs, make sure they're different enough. A blatant knock-off will cost you.
If only western companies could sue the Chinese en masse. I watched a hilarious Top Gear where they compared all the awful Chinese knock-off cars.

 

[Yminale]

First this was a JURY verdict and it wouldn't surprise me that jingoism and racism had something to do with Apple's victory.

Second most of the "issues" were due to Android OS. It's funny that Samsung got rid of the lockbar because of user complaints.

Third Apple just opened themselves to an anti-trust investigation. Good Job Apple, way to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

So, from what I gather:

1. The jury finished their deliberations in 21 hours.
2. They had to answer 700 questions, leaving them with 2 minutes per question.
3. The jury foreman was a patent holder who heavily influenced their decisions on some of the questions. There are some indications of heavy biases, but they appear to be exaggerated.
4. Some have speculated that the jury were biased because Samsung is a foreign company, Apple is an American company, and their headquarters was in close proximity. I don't buy this myself. Though it probably had some effect, I believe the problem lied elsewhere.
5. Groklaw has now posted an article that lists some inconsistencies in the answers as well as the comments of one juror. Keep in mind that Groklaw are heavily biased towards free and open source software, just like I am.

 

[Tribble puncher]

So, from what I gather:

1. The jury finished their deliberations in 21 hours.
2. They had to answer 700 questions, leaving them with 2 minutes per question.
3. The jury foreman was a patent holder who heavily influenced their decisions on some of the questions. There are some indications of heavy biases, but they appear to be exaggerated.
4. Some have speculated that the jury were biased because Samsung is a foreign company, Apple is an American company, and their headquarters was in close proximity. I don't buy this myself. Though it probably had some effect, I believe the problem lied elsewhere.
5. Groklaw has now posted an article that lists some inconsistencies in the answers as well as the comments of one juror. Keep in mind that Groklaw are heavily biased towards free and open source software, just like I am.

That was an interesting article, It kinda reiterates what I was saying before, Apple has a very positive public Image, and are seen as "The good guys" the fact that the company is American helps as well. Alot of people think Apple is some kind of utopiac corporation, I think some of these jurors didn't want to "hurt" Apple. Plus the Juror stating that they wanted to deliver more than a slap on the wrist but not be "too unreasonable" is in direct conflict with what the instructions on the jury form stated. It can only help samsung for the jury to keep talking. I really think this is going to blow up in apples face as more things come to light in how the jury reached their decision. I think there was some bias. I think they should have asked "what kind of cellphone do you have?" in the prescreening. If a Juror said "Iphone" or "Android" then they should have had to answer a question of "what led you to purchase this particular phone?"

 

[MacLeod]

Well it depends on how extenisve the voir dire process was and how many challanges each side had if any.

 

[JarodRussell]

This whole thing is extremely ridiculous. My kitchen table is rectangular with rounded corners. I guess it has been designed by Apple.

Several Samsung devices incorporated Apple's facility allowing users to zoom into text with a tap of a finger

Does anyone have the patent on the right click context menu or the mouse wheel scroll?

 

[Tribble puncher]

This whole thing is extremely ridiculous. My kitchen table is rectangular with rounded corners. I guess it has been designed by Apple.

Several Samsung devices incorporated Apple's facility allowing users to zoom into text with a tap of a finger

Does anyone have the patent on the right click context menu or the mouse wheel scroll?

Yeah, I'm kinda afraid apple will come take mine away now because they will claim that someone visiting might confuse it for an Ipad.

 

[MacLeod]

Regtangles with rounded edges existsted long before the Ipad, so that should easily be overturned.

One of the main reasons things have rounded edges is because pointed edges are more likely to cause injury.

 

[Tribble puncher]

Does anyone know why Judge Koh would not allow Samsung to show the Sony Evidence?

 

[Stephen!]

They'll probably go after Microsoft next. Particularly if the Surface tablet or Windows Phone starts to gain significant market share.

Seems like it's not really a loss for Samsung at the moment, if the verdict is likely to be appealed.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-vs-samsung-verdict-it-doesnt-matter-7000003164/

This is not the end. This verdict doesn't even matter in the long run. This was just another clash.

This case was going to be appealed, no matter who won, the second it started. This is just one more encounter on the case's way to the Supreme Court. Samsung has lost this skirmish, but not the war.

 

[ALF]

This whole thing is extremely ridiculous. My kitchen table is rectangular with rounded corners. I guess it has been designed by Apple.

Nice one, JarodRussell. I lol'ed!

I can't imagine Apple continuing to be "the apple" of anyone's eye if they are out to sue the hell out of everyone else. That's not the dreamy-eyed underdog of yesteryear.

 

[Avon]

when are apple going to sue the makers of 2001 a space odyssey for having a scene of astronauts using black, rectangular ipad-like tablets in 1968?

 

[Tom Hendricks]

They'll probably go after Microsoft next. Particularly if the Surface tablet or Windows Phone starts to gain significant market share.

Seems like it's not really a loss for Samsung at the moment, if the verdict is likely to be appealed.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-vs-samsung-verdict-it-doesnt-matter-7000003164/

This is not the end. This verdict doesn't even matter in the long run. This was just another clash.

This case was going to be appealed, no matter who won, the second it started. This is just one more encounter on the case's way to the Supreme Court. Samsung has lost this skirmish, but not the war.

Microsoft actually has a license fom Apple
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2012/08/microsoft-surface-will-license-apple.html
Looks like Apple and Microsoft are not going to end up duking it out over the look and feel of Microsoft’s Surface tablet – which looks quite similar to Apple’s iPad – thanks to a cross-licensing deal between the two companies.

 

[mswood]

Throughout this whole thing I've been left wondering why Apple is going after Samsung only, and not Motorola, HTC, LG, Blackberry, and all the other smartphone manufacturers. EVERY tablet out there looks just like an iPad. Every smartphone and tablet out there has icons and a touchscreen. So why did they single out Samsung, especially considering that Apple depends on Samsung for several key components of their devices? That seems odd to me.

You need to pay a lot more attention. Apple is currently suing Samsung, and HTC, and is counter suing Motorola. Blackberry doesn't currently mimic the functionality or look of the iphone over the number of patents that Apple would currently worry about. Microsoft and its partners have licensed the technical patents from Apple (they are barred from trade dress, but most phones don't look like iphones).

Each case is limited on claims (this original claim started with something like 30 different patents, the courts will not allow you to sue for that many in one case.

In fact this case wasn't the first Apple suit brought to bear in the US, just the first to get to trail. In fact Motorola brought Apple to trial long after Apple started legal action versus Samsung and HTC, and that case got to trial first.

And just so you know Apple isn't suing because a company is using a flat screen, apple has never claimed ownership of flat screens, nor are the suing because a company is using icons, as they didn't first create icons.

Seriously how some people still use that as an argument baffles me with the huge amount of very specific data out there over this case, and the 40 plus around the world.

Icons can be all over the place, with each having unique designs to them. In this case Samsung was sued because some icons matched the icons used by apple. By Color, be design, by image angle. Same size, same number of rows, some number of icons in rows, and same placement on those said rows.


They could have had 4 rows with four icons each, and if the icons were designed significantly different there would be no case. Most phones they have enough unique factors where they wouldn't fall for Trade Dress, and of course some are truly different like Windows Phones, which look dramatically different from apple or android, or Blackberry.

No other major phone company matches the look of the iphone as close as early Samsung products did. Thats what got Samsung in the biggest trouble. Trade Dress.

I mean Google themselves warned Samsung to change their designs as they were to close to Apple's.

And on the issue of technical patents Samsung could have done the same thing they did with Microsoft and thats to license the technical patents apple has. That company choose not to.