Apple vs Samsung trial nearing an end

"Picasso said 'good artists copy, great artists steal.' We have always been shameless in stealing great ideas."
Steve Jobs, 1996

"I'm going to destroy Android because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
Steve Jobs, 2010
 
For anyone who thinks the US justice system is beyond reproach, I have just one thing to say: O. J. Simpson

What this case proves more than anything is how broken the US patent system is.
How any company can patent a rectangle with rounded corners is just ludicrous.
 
Brogan
Name ANY justice system that IS beyond reproach.

The U.S. system, while far from perfect, is better than most.
 
kHLka.jpg
 
If you had said better than some then I would agree.
Better than most? I'm not so sure.

This trial was weighted in Apple's favour from the start.
The US patent system favours US companies - it's harder for foreign companies to file patents there.
It was on US soil with a US jury in the heart of the US tech zone, where there are a lot of Apple fans.

Taking into account all of those factors, an unbiased and impartial jury was never going to figure in the case.

Still, at least Apple now gets to be the only company which can have rounded corners, touch zoom, etc.
What a great day for development, consumers and choice.

Perhaps Xerox should sue Apple for stealing the GUI concept?
Or any of the other companies Apple have stolen from over the years, as admitted to by Steve Jobs.
 
Brogan
So are you saying that Apple should have requested the trial be held on foreign soil, to ensure an "impartial" jury?
Name any company or country that would follow that advice.

I sued the US govt for patent theft and, admittedly after many years, won. Where else could such an occurrence take place?

While I have no love for Apple, or indeed, any corporation, this argument seems more America-bashing than anything else.
 
I'm assuming Apple have a global patent so in which case why was it settled in an American court and not an international one? and why wasn't WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization.) consulted...
 
Hmmm, Korean trial ends in a tie, the British courts throw the case out and the US court finds in favour of Apple. Make of that what you will. I just can't get that excited about a silly squabble between two multi-billion pound firms. Things will even out eventually and at the end of the day, nobody is forcing anyone to buy these products.
 
The thing is that now Apple have won the Android os based phone companies will probably have to pay Apple a licence fee which in turn will make android phones and tablets more expensive, Apple would not want to take on google directly but they are picking away at them from below, and at the end of the day it will be the consumer that pays the price....
 
cider_and_toast said:
I just can't get that excited about a silly squabble between two multi-billion pound firms.
Click to expand
It will affect you in more ways than you may think, even if you don't currently own any Apple, Samsung or HTC products, as I don't.

What is an obvious replacement for a mouse click on a touch screen - touch to zoom, is now restricted to Apply products only, unless other companies pay a royalty to use it.
So you will either pay more for your non-Apple product or have to simultaneously press three different buttons, whilst standing on one leg and baring your right nipple to the sun to zoom, to differentiate it from all other zoom functions employed by other manufacturers.

On a sort of related note, one US company has patented part of the human DNA genome, simply because they were the first to decode it. That's how ridiculous it's getting.
 
Google seems to be ramping up the fight... http://www.xda-developers.com/android/the-sleeping-giant-may-have-awoken/

On Friday Google did just that, filing a patent-infringement lawsuit against Apple for the following seven patents: 5,883,580, 5,922,047, 6,425,002, 6,983,370, 6,493,673,7,007,064 and 7,383,983. The products they are seeking an import ban on are the Appleā€™s iPod Touch, the iPhone 3GS, 4 and 4S, the iPad 2 and the ā€œnewā€ iPad, as well as the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air and all other Apple devices ā€œwhich utilize wireless communication technologies to manage various messages and content.ā€ Motorola also argues Apple was fully aware of the patents in question.

The obvious worst-case scenario for Apple would be that all of their products would be banned in the U.S. until they resolve the issue. I donā€™t believe anyone sees the worst-case scenario happening, but it would not be surprising to see some sort of preliminary injunction until the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a ruling which is scheduled for August 24.

What is obviously interesting in this case, is that Apple would seem to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Concerning the filing, Motorola states:

ā€œWe would like to settle these patent matters, but Appleā€™s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineersā€™ innovations.ā€​

It is common practice for a manufacturer to negotiate a license with a patent holder so that they can use the invention or innovation in their products, but Apple seems unwilling to do that with anyone. Samsung also stated almost the same thing in a filing in their current court battle with Apple, that they offered in 2011 a ā€œfair and reasonableā€ royalty rate for using their standards-essential mobile technology that ā€is consistent with the royalty rates other companies charge.ā€ The filing stated that Apple never made a counter-offer, but ā€œInstead, it simply rejected Samsungā€™s opening offer, refused to negotiate further and to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Appleā€™s use of Samsungā€™s standards-essential technology.ā€ Apple replied that ā€Samsungā€™s royalty demands are multiple times more than Apple has paid any other patentees for licenses to their declared-essential patent portfolios.ā€ That all sounds well and good, but the percentage Samsung was asking for was 2.4% of the entire selling price of Appleā€™s mobile products that utilized Samsungā€™s technology, amounting to roughly $16 per iPhone (and roughly $350 million dollars according to court records). Apple on the other hand tried to license to Samsung back in 2010 patents that it felt were being infringed upon, with a royalty fee of $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.
Click to expand
So to sum up the last part, Apple is bound by law to pay Samsung royalties for certain patents they hold, yet have refused to as they believe Samsung are asking too much at around $16 per device.
Apple on the other hand want $30-$40 per device from Samsung for their royalties.
 
As far as I am aware and I'm no lawyer so I'm probably wrong Android was developed by google as an open source OS for the purpose of communication and file sharing between small portable devices specifically in the area of video and tv wireless connections, so are they now saying yes it is open source but at the exclusion of Apple, because Apple are unwilling to share and have not developed their own soft and hardware in this area...

I don't think Apple has a chance of winning against the might of google, Android based system own 68% of the market and if they all gang together they can crush Apple..
 
Back
Top Bottom