In a laughable post over at LawPundit, Andis Kaulins makes an argument that Apple’s landmark $1 billion win against Samsung for patent infringement is at least partially bogus.
Why? Because Apple’s patent for bounce-back scrolling isn’t an original idea, but was, in fact, stolen from Pong, a game first released back in 1972. There are just a few problems with this idea…
Read more
The Apple Lawsuit Thread
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 4754
- Joined: 06 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: PHENOM II 945
- Motherboard: Asus M4A78
- Graphics card: HIS ICEQ 4850 1GB
- Memory: 4GB CORSAIR XMS II 1066
- Location: , location, location!
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Of course I can, because the foundation of those rights is total BS! If something is built on a lie, then everything that comes after is a a lie too!Stuart wrote: You cannot seriously complain about someone seeking to protect rights granted to him by law.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist that black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- H. L. Mancken
- H. L. Mancken
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Then the foundation needs to be rectified. You can't start give the walls a facelift if the foundation needs to be repaired.GreyWolf wrote:Of course I can, because the foundation of those rights is total BS! If something is built on a lie, then everything that comes after is a a lie too!Stuart wrote: You cannot seriously complain about someone seeking to protect rights granted to him by law.
I would think that, if only for the benefit of its shareholders, a company is almost obligated to protect its patents.
I'm not disputing that there were a wide range of problems with this case from the outset, but Apple's intention to protect what had been legally granted it was not one of those problems.
-
- Forum Administrator
- Posts: 22136
- Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 02:00
- Processor: Ryzen 1700K
- Motherboard: Asus X370
- Graphics card: Asus 1060 Strix
- Memory: 16GB RAM
- Location: Where Google says
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19433019
Its only the US that is insane in the membrane...Tokyo court gives win to Samsung after US loss
A court in Tokyo has ruled that Samsung Electronics did not infringe on patents held by Apple, a victory for the South Korean company.
The patent was related to transferring media content between devices.
It comes after Samsung lost a key patent case in the US last week and was ordered to pay more than $1bn (£664m) in damages.
This is one of many cases brought to courts around the world by the two smartphone market leaders.
"We welcome the court's decision, which confirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe Apple's intellectual property," said Samsung in a statement to the BBC.
Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji dismissed the case filed by Apple in August, finding that Samsung was not in violation of Apple patents related to synchronising music and video data between devices and servers.
Sales ban
On 24 August, a US court ruled Samsung had infringed Apple patents for mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad.
The company has vowed to continue to fight against Apple saying it will appeal against the US ruling.
Apple is now seeking a ban on sales of eight Samsung phones in the US market.
On 6 December, US District Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the initial trial, will hear Apple's plea for an injunction against the Samsung phones, although it does not include the most recent Samsung phone to hit the market, the Galaxy S3.
JUSTICE, n A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
-
- Forum Administrator
- Posts: 22136
- Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 02:00
- Processor: Ryzen 1700K
- Motherboard: Asus X370
- Graphics card: Asus 1060 Strix
- Memory: 16GB RAM
- Location: Where Google says
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
And the jury foreman goes even further out of his way to show just how ignorant he was as to what role was...
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 4190933195
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 4190933195
Something tells me he just woke up and realized how badly he stuffed up...
Apple v Samsung Foreman Gets More Things Wrong ~pj
Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 07:29 PM EDT
This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict.
Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it. And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn't their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.
That is so wrong it's not even just wrong. The verdict form [PDF] and the jury instructions [PDF] specifically asked them to address that very question.
Here's what he said, starting with the question from Demon-Xanth:The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed.Demon-Xanth:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?
Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.
And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.
He goes on to say that he understands prior art, but I think not. When asked, "Do you honestly believe that companies should be allowed to patent basic geometric forms?" he answers, Yes. He repeats the false claim that the prior art didn't count because it was not "interchangeable":Back at you, Mr. Hogan. Back at you. But someone calling himself Firewheels responded much more effectively:Wanhang:
Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?
Velvin Hogan @Wanhang
I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art.
Mr. Hogan has not replied, and it's been 4 hours. As another questioner, Bazzatoyou, phrased it after waiting an hour for a response that never came, "Looks like The Hogan has left the room ...!"Firewheels @Velvin Hogan
You're suggesting, then, that the patent is on the particular implementation, not the overall concept? In that case, isn't it clear that in many of the patents no infringement is possible, as clearly an implementation in Java (Android) is distinct from an implementation in Objective-C (iOS)?
If, however, you're suggesting the patent is on the concept, then clearly there IS prior art, and therefore the patents are invalid.
Either way, Samsung should not have been charged the exorbitant punitive damages you clearly believed were due.
I hope Mr. Hogan's thinking deep thoughts about Firewheels' question.
One thing is for sure, this is going to be one fascinating appeal.
JUSTICE, n A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
I never initially realised that they were supposed to consider prior art. That should have been the clincher in this case.
The Foreman claims that the judge instructed them to ignore prior art. I would be very interested to know the truth behind that claim.
This just goes to show once again how outdated the jury system is. Particularly in this type of case.
The Foreman claims that the judge instructed them to ignore prior art. I would be very interested to know the truth behind that claim.
This just goes to show once again how outdated the jury system is. Particularly in this type of case.
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 26022
- Joined: 13 May 2004, 02:00
- Location: Getting there...
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Agreed Ratso - and I really think most (UIS) court cases are becoming so technical (both in points of law and and 'factually') that a layman or the general man on the street isn't able to properly make a call on guilt.
Although this foreman does seem to be particularly clueless. Wonder if they're paying him to do the speaking circuit thing?
*edit
If I was a Samsung exec I'd pay for him to do the speaking circuit thing!
Although this foreman does seem to be particularly clueless. Wonder if they're paying him to do the speaking circuit thing?
*edit
If I was a Samsung exec I'd pay for him to do the speaking circuit thing!
MOOD - Thirsty
A surprising amount of modern pseudoscience is coming out of the environmental sector. Perhaps it should not be so surprising given that environmentalism is political rather than scientific.
Timothy Casey
A surprising amount of modern pseudoscience is coming out of the environmental sector. Perhaps it should not be so surprising given that environmentalism is political rather than scientific.
Timothy Casey
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
He probably kept his Galaxy SIII well-hidden throughout the trial.doo_much wrote:If I was a Samsung exec I'd pay for him to do the speaking circuit thing!
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
In the end, the court saw Samsung throwing a pity-party, claiming their multitouch is just terrible, and then Apple coming over trying to boost them up and tell them how awesome their multitouch is, just so they can turn around and slam them with the ban-hammer. Killing ‘em with kindness. What a beautiful way to win a patent case.
Read more
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
In "Things that make you go hmmm?", an analysis of Apple's Facebook page suggests that even its own fans were critical of the company after the court case. Or were they?
Read more
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Edit: Somewhat OT, but has anyone else noticed how News24 frequently adds these little complete-out-of-context final sentences to so many of their articles? I mean, Apple's pre-orders for the iPhone 5 hardly has anything to do with this particular legal battle.In a preliminary move, a judge at the International Trade Commission has ruled that Apple doesn't violate four Samsung patents.
It's another setback for the South Korean company in a globe-spanning legal battle where Apple and Samsung accuse each other of violating patents.
The ITC judge in Washington also ruled on Friday that the patents don't apply to any domestic industry.
That will make it harder for Samsung to press its case before the full trade commission, says patent litigation expert Florian Mueller.
A jury in California last month ruled that Samsung owes Apple $1.05bn for violating patents on features of the iPhone and iPad.
Apple started taking orders for its new iPhone on Friday.
Source
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Apple Inc. (AAPL) asked a judge to award the company an extra $535 million in its U.S. patent case with Samsung Electronics Co., in addition to its requested permanent injunction against sales of Samsung’s infringing products.
“The harm to Apple was deliberate, not accidental,” Apple attorneys said in court papers filed Sept. 21 in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. Samsung “willfully diluted its trade dress, taking billions in sales in the fast- growing U.S. smartphone market at a key moment in the transition between feature phones and smartphones,” attorneys said.
Read more
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 31 Aug 2012, 18:29
- Location: Klerksdorp
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
If Apple keeps pushing Samsung, Samsung is gonna push back and then Apple is gonna k@k
- hamin_aus
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18363
- Joined: 28 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: Intel i7 3770K
- Motherboard: GA-Z77X-UP4 TH
- Graphics card: Galax GTX1080
- Memory: 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws
- Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Oh snap dawg!petrivanzyl wrote:If Apple keeps pushing Samsung, Samsung is gonna push back and then Apple is gonna k@k
For real
Samsung is gonna get served.
No need to qualify the statement or back it up with any reasons why or how... true dat!
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 31 Aug 2012, 18:29
- Location: Klerksdorp
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
We shall see....
What will Apple do if Samsung stop supplying to them.
What will Apple do if they can sell only in the US? And Samsung/HTC/Android the rest of the world?
What will Apple do if Samsung stop supplying to them.
What will Apple do if they can sell only in the US? And Samsung/HTC/Android the rest of the world?
- Tribble
- Registered User
- Posts: 88465
- Joined: 08 Feb 2007, 02:00
- Processor: Intel Core i7-4770K CPU@3.50GHz
- Motherboard: ACPI x64-based PC
- Graphics card: GeForce GTX 780 Ti
- Memory: 16GB
- Location: Not here
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
I find this fight tiresome. I love my SII and can see why iPhone loves love theirs - I just cannot get how someone can patent a screen size, a way of accessing apps, how the phone operates. Yes it is fantastic that they can think of such things - but if others can mimic without stealing their technology - I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to - especially if they improve it.
Surely this is what competition is all about!
Surely this is what competition is all about!
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Yes, Samsung is just going to sommer cut off a revenue stream like that.petrivanzyl wrote:We shall see....
What will Apple do if Samsung stop supplying to them.
What will Apple do if they can sell only in the US? And Samsung/HTC/Android the rest of the world?
Sounds legit.
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
jamin_za wrote:Oh snap dawg!petrivanzyl wrote:If Apple keeps pushing Samsung, Samsung is gonna push back and then Apple is gonna k@k
For real
Samsung is gonna get served.
No need to qualify the statement or back it up with any reasons why or how... true dat!
keep it in the ghetto plzzzz
Kanete naki mi koso yasukere yuki no michi
- Spoiler (show)
- hamin_aus
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 18363
- Joined: 28 Aug 2003, 02:00
- Processor: Intel i7 3770K
- Motherboard: GA-Z77X-UP4 TH
- Graphics card: Galax GTX1080
- Memory: 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws
- Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Don't be a hater...
Also
Also
What planet are you fromTribble wrote:if others can mimic without stealing their technology - I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to - especially if they improve it.
Surely this is what competition is all about!
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 28520
- Joined: 06 Oct 2003, 02:00
- Processor: Intel i5 650
- Motherboard: Asus P7H55-M LX
- Graphics card: Gigabyte 7850 2GB OC
- Memory: 8GB Kingston DDR3
- Location: In my skin
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
Triblarziajamin_za wrote:Don't be a hater...
AlsoWhat planet are you fromTribble wrote:if others can mimic without stealing their technology - I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to - especially if they improve it.
Surely this is what competition is all about!
"Every thinking man is a drinking man."
Member of the Barberton Tigers
Member of the Barberton Tigers
- Tribble
- Registered User
- Posts: 88465
- Joined: 08 Feb 2007, 02:00
- Processor: Intel Core i7-4770K CPU@3.50GHz
- Motherboard: ACPI x64-based PC
- Graphics card: GeForce GTX 780 Ti
- Memory: 16GB
- Location: Not here
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
I may be alien - but I was born here
How else do you think competition works? Someone invents something - like the TV. Someone else makes it better and sells that one. Then the first people think "Hey that was smart - what if we tweaked this and that" and they do and sell that. Then someone else says I can do it better and cheaper and does it. So the other two have to make a plan and do it and something else too. So we went from black and white box sets to plasmas, widescreens, LEDs etc. Now even cellphones can control your TV. And TVs can show you the internet. Without competition we would not have what we currently have. Patents get in the way of progress. As a fan of Linux you actually have to agree with me - open source FTW
How else do you think competition works? Someone invents something - like the TV. Someone else makes it better and sells that one. Then the first people think "Hey that was smart - what if we tweaked this and that" and they do and sell that. Then someone else says I can do it better and cheaper and does it. So the other two have to make a plan and do it and something else too. So we went from black and white box sets to plasmas, widescreens, LEDs etc. Now even cellphones can control your TV. And TVs can show you the internet. Without competition we would not have what we currently have. Patents get in the way of progress. As a fan of Linux you actually have to agree with me - open source FTW
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
George Orwell once said something to the effect of, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." It has also, it seems, become the first duty of intelligent men to ask the obvious.
The fact of Apple’s having filed such a claim at all calls into question whether the company is becoming too litigious, making unreasonable claims to stir up negative press for competitors rather than because of real infringement issues.
Read more
-
- Registered User
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 02:00
- Location: hidden deep in the depths of the underworld is my home.
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
TL;DR anyone want to post on what points they filing for? I'd like to see Samsung win some back for the Android guys.
- Tribble
- Registered User
- Posts: 88465
- Joined: 08 Feb 2007, 02:00
- Processor: Intel Core i7-4770K CPU@3.50GHz
- Motherboard: ACPI x64-based PC
- Graphics card: GeForce GTX 780 Ti
- Memory: 16GB
- Location: Not here
- Contact:
Re: Samsung loses to Apple: Google next?
I read from one article to the next and cannot actually see what they are suing Apple for. Now following the writer of the article on Twitter. Perhaps that will shed more light. @FOSSpatents