Samsung loses US patent trial to Apple

Then she shouldn't have been on the case. They couldn't have found someone non-biased? Does our justice system have no concept of conflict of interest?

This makes about as much sense as having a murder trial where the victim's father is the judge.

 

So what case did she work on as an attorney for Apple? Can you cite one?

And there's also this:

"BTW, in case anyway accuses Koh of bias, this from CNET (the first link):

In 2006, Koh was part of a team of McDermott lawyers that represented Creative Technology in a patent dispute against Apple, according to The Washington Post. The case was settled with Apple agreeing to pay Creative $100 million. Some Apple fans accused her of favoring South-Korea-based Samsung because she’s Korean.

But earlier this year after she hit Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 with a preliminary injunction, fans of that company said her background as a Silicon Valley lawyer meant she was in league with Apple.

Nonsense, said Brian Love, a law professor at Santa Clara University who has followed the case. He points out that if Koh “were biased or had it in for one of the companies, she could have ruled against whichever one it was on summary judgment. Instead, she is sending the case to the jury."

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266571/apple-decisively-wins-samsung-trial-what-it-means

Somebody who gets it. This isn't a decision that hurts the consumer. Apple sued over their own unique patents that aren't critical to producing smartphones, and forcing other companies to create their own solutions in those non-FRAND areas expands consumer choice.

 

Anything that leads to less competition will hurt consumers. This is going to lead to Apple having a monopoly in the US. Samsung is a big company that's loaded with money. Many others don't have the money or legal means to defend against Apple's legal bullying. We may see companies pull out of the US market entirely because of this. Apple sent a clear message: don't compete or we'll sue you into non-existence.

And differentiation is not necessarily innovation. Windows Phone and the Metro UI are good examples of what you get when you intentionally design something to avoid patent lawsuits. And Metro is a colossal turd that no one wants.

Also, the patents basically amounted to a rectangle phone with rounded edges. I guess phone makers are supposed to make triangle or circle phones now. This was patent trolling at its finest.

 

I'll repeat this so perhaps it will sink in the second time around: FRAND patents cover essential technology that would make/break a companies ability to offer a competing product. FRAND is used to prevent the stifling of competition by requiring "fair and reasonable" licensing fees for core technology. None of the patents that Apple sued Samsung in court over were FRAND patents, so the idea that Samsung won't be able to come up with software alternatives, design alternatives, or trade dress alternatives is simply untrue. Samsung already proved they could do those things prior to 2010, as their products didn't transform into "me too" versions of the iPhone until that time.

 

"me too" means competitive yes?

 

I think the jury got it right: Samsung took a calculated risk by knowingly violating Apple's patents and trade dress in order to see if it would improve their own sales. There was a chance Apple could beat them in court and they were willing to risk the penalties. They had internal advisors that said the products were too close, and they had external partners like Google telling them the same thing.

 

lol I'm sure they did this to 'see if apples way would work for them' just like apple patterned it's os just to 'see if unix' way would work for them' or MS 'just to see if xerox' way would work for them'. It's called competition there is nothing more vile or more innocent about it. Samsung was beating Apple in it's own game and Apple fibbed. Apple thinks it's got a patent on success now? lol

That's right guys if you do it "Apple's way" you better watch your back (or pay big brother off) just look at the mp3 space, it's like Intel's hold on x86. There's that one big company.... and than there's the also ran that the big company keeps around purely because it'd cost them more (and posibly everything in a DEA shutdown) if they squashed them (AMD or Zune). Apple wants that in phones as well, it's disgusting if you ask me.

It's a pity Apple got like this... lessons are better off learned not repeated.

 

So, I'm sure you'll be outraged, OUTRAGED, to learn that Google owned Motorola has been trying to use FRAND patents to block competitors products?

*crickets chirping*

 

Those are technological patents (3G, wifi, h.264) that probably cost Motorola billions on R&D. They should get licensing fees. I don't think Apples technological patent suits are out of scope. BUT, trying to sue over exterior design of a phone is pretty ridiculous. They are all a screen inside a rectangular outer shell. The fact that the screen size was different, should be enough of a differentiation. The icon suit is equally stupid, only the green phone one was a close copy. The other looked different enough.

 

Yes, Apple and Microsoft would be required to pay licensing to Motorola for FRAND patents. But Motorola is not allowed to try and block competing products using FRAND patents and is supposed to offer licensing terms that are consistent with other FRAND patents. That's what both Microsoft and Apple were suing Motorola over. Motorola has been in hot water over this type of behavior in Europe as well.

Non-FRAND patents are different. Companies can choose not to license those at all if they wish, because they're not considered standards essential.

 

If I don't reply it's simply because I have no friggen idea what the heck your talking about... or cuz I couldn't sign on last night.

 

The "infringing" devices Apple wants banned are all out of date by a year or two and mostly no longer being produced or sold. $1B is chump change for Samsung, so this verdict may not have all that much impact.

If Apple were talking about banning the Galaxy S3 or the Galaxy Nexus, then I'd be worried. But I don't think you can make a compelling case that those devices are anything like the iPhone in terms of their design. Android has also diverged wildly from being anything like iOS since ICS was released.

You'd have to be on drugs to say this:


...looks like this:


And you'd have to be blind to say these two phones look anything alike:

 

Also, massive hypocrisy if Samsung really did "steal."

I guess he should have said "great artists steal, just not from me."

The reality is that nothing is created in a vacuum. Ideas are built on existing ideas. Patent law in its current form is retarded beyond comprehension. When you can patent a rectangle with rounded edges, the whole system is broken. Is Apple going to patent air next and charge us all to breath?

Even the glorious iPhone was built on a bunch of existing ideas. Look at phones and MP3 players from 2005 and 2006 and the DS and PSP, and it was pretty clear to anyone something like the iPhone was the next step. Nothing about it was magical or radical or anything. It was a bunch of existing ideas from handheld devices merged into one device and marketed really well. That's it.

 

Baloney. You want to know what Apple blindsided the cell phone industry with? A computer style OS for mobile. That's why iOS and Android currently dominate. If the rest of the industry really had seen it as a clear "next step", then they wouldn't have been as dependent on Google. Heck, it's taken Microsoft until 2012 to really try and release a real mobile OS, and they were an OS oriented company. Now companies like Samsung are in the extremely awkward position of having to use the OS of a company that is now competing with them in hardware sales.

And consider the fact that it even took Google until the 4.0 version of Android for their OS to run on both phones and tablets concurrently. They weren't even really thinking far enough ahead.

 

Computer style OS's for mobile had already been done. Literally the only thing Apple did differently was take the OS as seriously as a desktop OS in terms of the support and updates. That's it. And you know why they did that? Because they had failed in the laptop/desktop market. Mobile devices were all Apple had so of course they were going to take them seriously.

The iPhone was not magical. It was not sprinkled with stardust and ground up unicorn horns. Tech saavy, non dudbro people knew something like the iPhone was coming. The iPhone was just a convergence of existing devices. Take the motion sensor and touchscreen stuff from the DS. Take the media features from the iPod and other MP3 players. Take a grid of icons from palm. Take a touchscreen candy bar style design from some Sony, Samsung and Nokia phones. And put it all together in one phone. But you don't see all the companies Apple ripped off suing them. And that's because those companies aren't huge dickheads.

If you really believe the iPhone was created in a vacuum with no outside influence, you are a fucking moron.

 

Windows Phones outright had a desktop OS before iPhone. The innovation of the iPhone was having one of the most successful marketing campaigns ever.

 

This is how it all went down.

Five of the jurors had iPhones. They proudly sided with Apple, a smirk of patriotic ignorance on each of their faces.

Six had Samsung phones but thought they had iPhones. They realized that they'd been fooled by Samsung, and they were furious. "You mean this is not a real iPhone?!" They wanted revenge. They wanted their money refunded. They voted guilty.

One was scared of getting cancer from phones and just wanted to get away from all those killing machines.

 

??? A computer style OS? Really? How is iOS a "computer style OS"? I'd say they succeeded because of exactly the opposite reason. They saw that you couldn't emulate a desktop/laptop experience on a mobile device by using buttons, so they went straight to a fully touch orientated device and built the OS in a way that reflects the strengths and limitations of touch screen technology. If they'd just put a touch version of OS X on there it would have sucked and no one would have found it easy to use except OS X geeks.

Every competitor had success with existing devices, so wanted to make the move as a an evolution with hybrid devices filling the gap for a few years. Apples commitment to going only touch as well as making a new OS designed for it as well as being properly designed for web and media use made it a huge success. Everyone else was held back because they were trying to transform their legacy phone into a computing device. If putting a "computer style OS" on a phone was all they needed to do don't you think they would have done that?