# Samsung, Apple... and YOU



## Sasqui (Aug 22, 2012)

Drum roll... it's coming.

What do you think the verdict will be?  My guess is there will be something against Samsung, but it'll be a slap on the wrist.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-samsung-final-pitch-jury-002855075.html



> By Dan Levine and Poornima Gupta
> 
> SAN JOSE, California (Reuters) - Apple Inc's worldwide legal crusade against the Android mobile operating system drew toward a climax on Tuesday as the iPhone maker's attorneys accused Samsung of taking a shortcut by copying Apple's designs after realizing it could not keep up.
> 
> ...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2012)

Apple is essentially demanding a monopoly, the court should realize that, and rule in favor of Samsung.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Apple is essentially demanding a monopoly, the court should realize that, and rule in favor of Samsung.



Man I hope so... but you never know what'll happen between lawyers and a jury.

I recall hearing that Samsung had a counter-suit, but no mention of that in the article that I saw.


----------



## Frick (Aug 22, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I recall hearing that Samsung had a counter-suit, but no mention of that in the article that I saw.



It's this bit:



> Samsung, which is trying to expand in the United States, says Apple infringed several patents, including some for its key wireless technology.



And I'm not sure about this one. Some of Samsungs stuff did look a lot like Apples stuff (as opposed to say Sony or Nokia), but it'd be bad if everything Apple asked for came through. Pretty exciting anyway.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 22, 2012)

Frick said:


> It's this bit: And I'm not sure about this one. Some of Samsungs stuff did look a lot like Apples stuff (as opposed to say Sony or Nokia), but it'd be bad if everything Apple asked for came through. Pretty exciting anyway.



LOL, I did see that.


----------



## Munki (Aug 22, 2012)

Gettem' Sammy!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 22, 2012)

Go samsung!

If the court calls in favor of Apple im moving to Mars. Ill make that rover a manned space craft.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 22, 2012)

I hope they both get fined a massive amount of money for wasting the courts time.


----------



## techtard (Aug 22, 2012)

My money is on Apple paying off the jury and maybe even the judge. Good old fashioned bribery.


----------



## erocker (Aug 22, 2012)

I fail to care about large corporations bitching at each other over money. I hope they both lose in some way or another.


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 22, 2012)

The only thing I want out of this is to be able to keep my Galaxy S III. I guess if Samsung takes it in the dumper here, I lose my kick ass phone/tablet


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 22, 2012)

Samsung isn't what Apple has to worry about right now, Google owned Motorola is attacking Apple for infringements on intellectual property. IIRC, it's on several non-standard patents. Not that halting all iPhone, iPad, and iPod sales will succeed, but it is an aggressive stance that Google and the rest of the Android market needs to take. Apple will grind the competition down with lawsuits until Apple can convince the court that they own everything. I like Apple and the products that they produce, but they deserve a big, nasty, backlash from all of this.


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 22, 2012)

I was thinking, if Apple were to win this (square devices with rectangular HD screens) battle, not even getting into the icons and software, doesn't that mean Apple could then go after TV makers if they are awarded the win on this one?


----------



## Super XP (Aug 22, 2012)

Samsung better win this one. I am getting sick of Apple this and Apple that. If and when Samsung wins this one, they should go after Apple for wasting there time.

Now all we have to do is StOp BuYiNg aPpLe JuNk...


----------



## GSquadron (Aug 23, 2012)

Wasn't Steve Jobs who kept Apple alive?


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 23, 2012)

sneekypeet said:


> I was thinking, if Apple were to win this (square devices with rectangular HD screens) battle, not even getting into the icons and software, doesn't that mean Apple could then go after TV makers if they are awarded the win on this one?



I have no doubt that Samsung has pointed that out!

Apple cobbled together existing technologies to form the majority of thier products, ergo the iPhone.  I think that's another argument to make... it really wasn't anything new.


----------



## dark2099 (Aug 23, 2012)

Not to condone what Samsung is being accused of, and bringing in a little bit of what I've been learning at work, but copying (or copyright infringement as is the case here) is almost necessary to keeping up with the demands of a market.  For me, I am learning to create a menu, but don't have lots of experience in a kitchen, so many people have told me just to recreate items from other places I have seen, which seems odd, but is a great way to nurture my own ability in seeing what works.  If Samsung didn't possibly do what they did, then would any/all other smart phones be able to compete with the iPhone in the way they do now?  And then look at cars, one day one man or company made one, since then, everything essentially is a partial copy of that.  Competition is great for every business because it pushes them to new heights and keeps things fresh, and yes unfortunately sometimes deceitful tactics have to be used to stay in competition.

EDIT:  Look at Blackberries, they jump started the smartphone revolution, gained a large foothold in the corporate world, but now are about even with Apple.  I've only had one chance to use one of the first touch screen phones Blackberry did, and the screen actually functioned as a button like a mouse button to select something, but otherwise worked like my iPhone for just basic touches, to me for the time it came out and with all the other available Android based touchscreen phones, it just seemed antiquated, and almost stupid.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 23, 2012)

Exactly.  Patents exist to recoup research costs and looking at Apple's profits says loud and clear that they are way beyond recouping costs.  I wish the judge would redirect the case to FTC for an anti-trust hearing instead.  This goes so far beyond Apple vs Samsung.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 23, 2012)

I've been involved in patents, and have my name on a few through the company I used to work for.  They pointed out that, for the most part, their patents are typically not an OFFENSIVE tool, but rather a DEFENSIVE tool should someone come along claiming infringement.  

And look at this analysis (go Samsung, go Google!):



> Day 18: Wednesday 22 August
> The nine-person California jury are now set to began their deliberations, but according to Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry, whatever that verdict turns out to be, the ultimate resolution of the conflicts between the companies will be a cross-licensing agreement with a negligible exchange of cash. Analyst: Cross-Licensing Will Be the Conclusion to Apple v. Samsung Trial.
> 
> *If the jury finds in favor of Apple, he reasoned, Samsung will use its 64,976 mobile patents to force Apple to settle the case as it winds its way through the appeals process.*
> ...


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Aug 23, 2012)

Well, everyone has copied IBM in one way or another...


----------



## CJCerny (Aug 23, 2012)

I suspect that Apple will win a sizeable settlement in this one. What the jury is attempting to decide is whether or not Samsung infringed upon some of the patents that Apple was granted. If you look at the patents, there isn't any question that Samsung infringed on them. The patents that Apple was granted were probably way too general in nature. The American patent system needs to be revamped so that patents can only be granted to very specific ideas or designs. Unfortunately for Samsung, they are probably very screwed in this particular case.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Aug 23, 2012)

CJCerny said:


> I suspect that Apple will win a sizeable settlement in this one. What the jury is attempting to decide is whether or not Samsung infringed upon some of the patents that Apple was granted. If you look at the patents, there isn't any question that Samsung infringed on them. The patents that Apple was granted were probably way too general in nature. The American patent system needs to be revamped so that patents can only be granted to very specific ideas or designs. Unfortunately for Samsung, they are probably very screwed in this particular case.



Well what needs to happen at the patent office is to get rid of the people who work there because they are all older and don't have a clue about technology. Most of the things Apple is patenting are either ideas not actual technology, and stealing tech from other companies and trying to get patents for it. Apple just wants a monoply at this point.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Droids love eating Apples


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Well, everyone has copied IBM in one way or another...



i agree. Ya back in day non Ibm pcs were called Ibm clones

I remember Macs having clones by Power Computing back in the day


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 24, 2012)

thats pretty sick that big company use court as battle ground to stop the other
why? coz they could stop them in the market so they bring it to the court to stop samsung
Apple is getting more and more annoying

Sorry Apple you just over the line, i hope someone gonna eat you soon!!! ALIVE


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 24, 2012)

Samsung has proven that they had designs for touchscreen phones with grid icon layouts before the iPhone was introduced.

If Apple wins, you can pretty much say goodbye to an affordable touchscreen smartphone or tablet.

Also, if they win, they'll be filing a lawsuit against Google for Android.


----------



## INSTG8R (Aug 24, 2012)

I mean I love my iPhone and all but Apple need to settle down. They certainly aren't losing any money over any of this supposed patent infringement.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 24, 2012)

Apple, Microsoft, Intel- 3 companies who cannot stand 1 bit of competition, Greedy at best


----------



## NC37 (Aug 24, 2012)

And to all the Mac users out there who profess Steve Jobs as the savior of Apple I give you...

The Jobs era we now live in and the company it has spawned...Applesoft. Its not the Apple you grew up loving or the Microsoft you grew up hating. But together it has spawned, the monopoly monstrosity of your worst nightmares. 

Thank Steve for the lovely decade this turned out to be...THANKS STEVE!

Sigh...the RISC era of Apple truly was the golden age. Think I'll go hug my iBook, Quicksilver, and Cube while oogling fondly my dead Beige G3.


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 24, 2012)

> Apple and Samsung get South Korea bans
> 
> The court imposed a limited ban on national sales of products by both companies covered by the ruling.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19364875

Money is the root of all evil.


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 24, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> Samsung has proven that they had designs for touchscreen phones with grid icon layouts before the iPhone was introduced.
> 
> If Apple wins, you can pretty much say goodbye to an affordable touchscreen smartphone or tablet.
> 
> Also, if they win, they'll be filing a lawsuit against Google for Android.


yeah, many people realize that samsung is just a start for apple to point android


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 24, 2012)

Apple vs. Samsung: Three possible outcomes


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 24, 2012)

The verdict is in.  Reading a live blog of it now.  Looks like the jury is coming back heavily in favor of Apple.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-apple-samsung-patent-trial

So far:

Guilty on bounceback patent
Guilty on pinch and zoom
Guilty on tap and zoom, some devices spared
Guilty on infringement of iPhone design contours
Guilty of infringement of graphical interface
Not guilty on infringment of Galaxy Tab design
Finds Samsung willful on most patent infringement.
Jury finds all Apple patents valid.

Jury rejects utility patent claims against Apple, awards Samsung nothing.  

I'm getting sick to my stomach reading this stuff.

Jury awards more than one billion to Apple.


----------



## manofthem (Aug 25, 2012)

Not good


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

Stupid, stupid, STUPID JURY! 


Samsung appeal in 3...2...1...


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 25, 2012)

Bam.  The jury made Apple a defacto monopoly.  Congratulations Apple, you are this century's Microsoft.

It's hard to get a jury of your peers when the case is being tried in the same place the complainant is headquartered.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Samsung appeal in 3...2...1...



I read this in GlaDOS's voice.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> Bam.  The jury made Apple a defacto monopoly.  Congratulations Apple, you are this century's Microsoft.


Oh no, they're worse than Microsoft.  Microsoft only had two monopolies (can't really count IE because it's free): Office productivity suite and Windows operating system.  Apple has a monopoly on:
-productivity software on their computers.
-iPhone
-iPad
-eBooks
-App Store
-Insane profit margins
-Corporate Customers
-iTunes

...and that doesn't even scratch the surface of technologies stolen, patented, and monopolizing.  What Apple wants to do is force everyone to do is license "their" technology.  This way, they can continue selling their producst for $600 while costing $400 to make and everyone that sells competing devices for $400 must now pay $200 to Apple making their products also $600.  Apple wins no matter what.  If that isn't the very definition of "monopoly" what is?  These patents need to be forced into early retirement because entire industries can't function without them.  Moreover, Apple needs to be examined for anti-trust and likely be broken into separate companies (e.g. iPhone a separate corp, App Store a separate cor, iPad a separate corp).

Everything about Apple in the 21st century smells of Standard Oil in the 20th century.  Instead of an oil bully, we got a tech bully.


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 25, 2012)

Technically, with the verdict that came in they don't have a monopoly on the iPad.  The jury cited no infringement on that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

Their other rulings enforce a monopoly.


----------



## jrs3000 (Aug 25, 2012)

Sigh I doubt we'll see the gov. get involved and break apple up like they did microsoft.  Watch the next few years as tech grows stagnant and the I slaves roam about like zombies :shadedshu.  I should make a game called Day I.


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 25, 2012)

jrs3000 said:


> Sigh I doubt we'll see the gov. get involved and break apple up like they did microsoft.  Watch the next few years as tech grows stagnant and the I slaves roam about like zombies :shadedshu.  I should make a game called Day I.



iDay


----------



## jrs3000 (Aug 25, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> iDay



There you go.  Let me go patent that so I can claim royalties  Seriously I'm going to make a stracraft 2 custom map about this.  Shoot mindless i Slaves before they try to devour your mind and turn you into one lol.


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 25, 2012)

jrs3000 said:


> There you go.  Let me go patent that so I can claim royalties  Seriously I'm going to make a stracraft 2 custom map about this.  Shoot mindless i Slaves before they try to devour your mind and turn you into one lol.



Prior art.


----------



## Batou1986 (Aug 25, 2012)

To be fair what they where disputing, TouchWiz Samsungs own ui not AOSP touchwiz is a direct clone of the iphone.
Until today I wasn't even aware that was what they where suing over I thought it was the phone design.

When I first got my Samsung Captivate that was the first thing outa my mouth was man this looks just like iOS.
I mean it even had the little dots and shit for screen indicators, thats the main reason i started using cyaogen mod.


Case in point, Iphone or Samsung could your non techy friends answer this correctly ?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

That would be a Captivate.  One could argue that that layout is the nature of the device.  Buttons can only be so small because of the size of the finger.  Screens on smart phones are almost always rectangular so you get more buttons vertically than horizontally.  People need text to read because they otherwise won't be able to figure out what does what.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 25, 2012)

theres a championship match coming now google vs apple

who will win O.O

seriously though i never expected it to be so bad, was the whole jury deciding this on and ipad and sent the verdict on the iphone

wth

apple can sue pretty much every smartphone maker at this point.


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> The verdict is in.  Reading a live blog of it now.  Looks like the jury is coming back heavily in favor of Apple.
> 
> http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-apple-samsung-patent-trial
> 
> ...



Bounceback - This is not obvious tech and one could argue that it is infringing.
Pinch and zoom - Here i'm not sure. It's genius, and probably patentable. You can do it other ways, but probably not as good.
Tap and zoom - Same here. Not obvius.
Design contour - Yes and no. You can only make phones in so many ways, but some Samsungs are very much like iPhones, that is pretty hard to ignore. Also note that today it's pretty easy to spot an iPhone, showing that it's quite possible not make phones similiar.
Graphical Interface - It is similiar. Compare to the pictures below for something that isn't.






Willfull infringement - Well.. At some point Samsung did change directions, that too is hard to argue agains.






And then below:






Yeah something happened. It was good of them to do it, and sales increased afaik and so on, but an entire lineup that is quite different from what they did before and quite similiar to an already existing phone? I'm calling it willfull.

All in all, I kinda agree with the Apple laywer who said "make your own phones". It is quite possible to do so, but Samsung didn't. I also believe the verdict in the end is bad for customers.


----------



## v12dock (Aug 25, 2012)

Samsung will continue to sell phones and apple will find another company to sue for its 'loss of profits' from losing market share.


----------



## Frederik S (Aug 25, 2012)

Still mindboggling that a totally generic shape can be patented. Also the GUI infringements are obvious, but how the hell can any company claim that it is their look. I have seen plenty of websites using logos that look just like Apple's iOS ones way before Apple begun contemplating the iPhone design.


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> Still mindboggling that a totally generic shape can be patented. Also the GUI infringements are obvious, but how the hell can any company claim that it is their look. I have seen plenty of websites using logos that look just like Apple's iOS ones way before Apple begun contemplating the iPhone design.



Where?

And I'm still not sure about the "generic look". There are many phones out there that somehow manage to not look like iPhones.


----------



## DannibusX (Aug 25, 2012)

Frick said:


> Bounceback - This is not obvious tech and one could argue that it is infringing.
> Pinch and zoom - Here i'm not sure. It's genius, and probably patentable. You can do it other ways, but probably not as good.
> Tap and zoom - Same here. Not obvius.
> Design contour - Yes and no. You can only make phones in so many ways, but some Samsungs are very much like iPhones, that is pretty hard to ignore. Also note that today it's pretty easy to spot an iPhone, showing that it's quite possible not make phones similiar.
> ...



Do those phones look similar to the iPhone?  Yes, but there are enough differences to set them apart.


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 25, 2012)

I find it quite weird though that the Holy Apple insists that they are being copied, and brings up all these lawsuits. 

But true enlightenment cannot be copied! The magic of iProducts can never be duplicated by heretics! All Hail the Holy Apple! Glory be to the Sacred Company!


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 25, 2012)

All phones were pretty much rounded rectangles prior to apples entry to the phone market.  Apple simply took the existing designs and made them cleaner.

The fault here entirely lies with a patents system that is completely inept and quite possibly corrupt.  Oh, and Lucy Koh.

Apple has lost a patent trial in the UK with the judge famously saying the ipad is essentially cool and the galaxy tabs are not.

Likewise there is a senior American patents judge that has ruled against Apple quite recently (threw the case out).  He's a federal circuit judge too so if an appeal comes his way, I think Samsung will win the appeal.

It should not be permissible to patent a design that is logical to the evolution of the device.  Rounded edges prevent user discomfort, the same way automobiles have rounded designs for aerodynamics.

A rectangular display device cannot be patented (it already exists).  Having rounded edges and few buttons on a touchscreen device are all logical steps in the evolution of the tablet.

Apple have been allowed, quite unbelievably, to patent anything they want.

We know they also recently received a patent for a wedge shape laptop device - which is insane as Sony had one out first (one of their early Viao's).

Apple use and buy other peoples technology and sue on design basis as that is what they are good at but designs are always fluid and evolutionary (not revolutionary).  Apple's patent stand is backed up by a law which is simply broken.

And for those that say Samsung could just stop making the internals for the 'i'devices, that is probably a long legal tie in and also a massive earner for Samsung.

I have a feeling however that Apple will not win in the long term.  LG, Samsung and other firms are creating new technology for use in mobile devices.  What they will be learning from all of this is to patent it all early on.  I think Apple will be left out in the cold in the future.


----------



## Frederik S (Aug 25, 2012)

Frick said:


> Where?
> 
> And I'm still not sure about the "generic look". There are many phones out there that somehow manage to not look like iPhones.



That is correct but look at the amount of phones prior to the iPhone that look seemingly similar, all Apple did was to remove a few buttons which does not make them entitled to a patent on the shape which carries their features like fewer buttons, big screen etc..


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2012)

DannibusX said:


> Do those phones look similar to the iPhone?  Yes, but there are enough differences to set them apart.
> 
> http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsung-before-iphone-640x452.png



It's interesting how they didn't make that kind of phone until after Apple did.

@ the shape again. Look at the HTC One X.






Rounded and smooth and it doesn't look like an iPhone.



the54thvoid said:


> Oh, and Lucy Koh.
> 
> Apple has lost a patent trial in the UK with the judge famously saying the ipad is essentially cool and the galaxy tabs are not.
> 
> Likewise there is a senior American patents judge that has ruled against Apple quite recently (threw the case out).  He's a federal circuit judge too so if an appeal comes his way, I think Samsung will win the appeal.



What was that about?



> I have a feeling however that Apple will not win in the long term.  LG, Samsung and other firms are creating new technology for use in mobile devices.  What they will be learning from all of this is to patent it all early on.  I think Apple will be left out in the cold in the future.



On short term I think creativity and design will get a boost, as manufacturers will fear the Apple look and there might be designs that will look original (look at Samsung phones up to 2010 for instance). In the long run it'll be bad as companies will patent everything.


----------



## CJCerny (Aug 25, 2012)

I must admit that I don't understand all the Apple hate going on in this thread. If you went through the time and expense that it takes to be granted a patent on an idea and you felt that someone else went and infringed on your patent, you would sue them too. That's why patents exist--to safeguard your intellectual property. There isn't any corruption with the jury or the judge--an 8 year old could see that the patents were clearly infringed upon and all the judge did was keep the case all orderly. I'm not saying that Apple should have been granted the somewhat vague patents that they were granted in this case, but they are just doing what anyone else would do if they felt that they patents were stepped on. It isn't the end of the world or the start of a monopoly--it is just the beginning of Samsung (and everyone else too) having to work a little harder at their cell phone design because Apple has a few patents that are now at the core (pun intended) of what we now consider to be defacto smartphone design.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 25, 2012)

Frick said:


> What was that about?



It was Judge Richard Posner.  He actually threw out the entire Motorola & Apple case:



> Judge Richard Posner previously canceled a jury trial in Chicago in the case, and then castigated both Apple and Motorola while calling the entire US patent system "chaos."



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-judge-throws-out-entire-applemotorola-case/


----------



## Frederik S (Aug 25, 2012)

CJCerny said:


> I must admit that I don't understand all the Apple hate going on in this thread. If you went through the time and expense that it takes to be granted a patent on an idea and you felt that someone else went and infringed on your patent, you would sue them too. That's why patents exist--to safeguard your intellectual property. There isn't any corruption with the jury or the judge--an 8 year old could see that the patents were clearly infringed upon and all the judge did was keep the case all orderly. I'm not saying that Apple should have been granted the somewhat vague patents that they were granted in this case, but they are just doing what anyone else would do if they felt that they patents were stepped on. It isn't the end of the world or the start of a monopoly--it is just the beginning of Samsung (and everyone else too) having to work a little harder at their cell phone design because Apple has a few patents that are now at the core (pun intended) of what we now consider to be defacto smartphone design.



The issue at hand is that Apple has been granted patents to something that is very generic and where there are superseeding designs that are very close to it. These cases just prove that it does not matter who had the original idea, but who has the patents. It is not Apple who is at fault here it is the patent system in the US.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 25, 2012)

Frederik S said:


> It is not Apple who is at fault here it is the patent system in the US.



I'm not going to dispute this, however it is Apple who has been using these generic patents to attack other companies. Apple is taking full advantage of it, and that is believe is what is pissing people off. I'm not going to lie though, Apple can sue others for patent infringement but when someone goes to sue Apple the judge throws it out? WTF? If it is such chaos, why don't cases where Apple is suing get thrown out as well. Hardly seems fair or balanced.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 25, 2012)

Ugn , I am disappoint.

+ 1 to the US Patent system being a joke.


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I'm not going to dispute this, however it is Apple who has been using these generic patents to attack other companies. Apple is taking full advantage of it, and that is believe is what is pissing people off.





> Update: A presentation made public Friday evening revealed that Apple offered to license some of its portfolio of patents to Samsung in October 2010 for $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet. When Samsung refused and made its own license-free devices, Apple gave Samsung a presentation, noting that "*ecause Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing license for this category of device."
> 
> Apple also offered a 20 percent discount on the royalties if Samsung would cross-license its patents with Apple.*


*

From here.

It's not much of that here, but some people around the web seem to think that Apple just jumped on them, but they didn't. They talked to them first when the phones arrived. Samsung knew what they were heading for.*


----------



## KainXS (Aug 25, 2012)

yeah, we kinda know that already, that was announced pretty much from the start of this


----------



## GSquadron (Aug 25, 2012)

Apple accuses samsung for the design???
All tablets and cell phones are nearly equal how comes samsung has stolen the design?


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 25, 2012)

I wonder if anyone has patents on generic designs like " silver box with dials and a glass screen with mesh inlay" Apple could patent loads of things that already exist! ( that's a microwave by the way folks!)


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 25, 2012)

Good Job Apple


----------



## techtard (Aug 25, 2012)

Was there honestly any doubt that Apple would win? 2 days of 'deliberation'. Corruption at its finest.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 25, 2012)

I think this is good, not because apple deserves a billion dollars, but because samsung is a phenomenal tech company, and they could do better than iPhone clones, as they have proven with the galaxy S3.

Hopefully this is the kick in the ass they need to get out of their iBox, because they DID copy apple's design, and start coming out with better phone designs than the rectangle with a screen on it.  We might see some pretty neat products come out of this.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 25, 2012)

Tim Cook said:
			
		

> Today was an important day for Apple and for *innovators* everywhere.
> *We value originality and innovation* and pour our lives into making the best products on earth.


Innovation by seizing a monopoly...yeah, that's the way to do it... :shadedshu
Not to mention their crap is worth 2x less (at least) when it comes out of Foxconn's lines.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 25, 2012)

Samsung statement:

"Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer."


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Aug 25, 2012)

Win for walled garden, loss for Sammy, loss of personal choice?
Im still waiting for you People, come one, get out, light up your torches, get your hayforks


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

Frick said:


> It's interesting how they didn't make that kind of phone until after Apple did.
> 
> @ the shape again. Look at the HTC One X.
> 
> ...


Hey, look!  The IBM Simon has "rounded and smooth" corners and buttons laid out in a square grid too.  It came out in 1992:





Compaq iPAQ H3100...if this doesn't look like Apple stole most of its design cues, I don't know what to tell you:





There's also the HTC Wallaby that came out in 2002:






There was a whole generation of "smartphones" that existed before the iPhone called the "Pocket PC."  Apple cloned them, made a few tweaks so it was palletable to Steve Jobs, then sold them as "the world's first smartphone" (inventing new words that mean nothing).

Apple doesn't invent anything.  They outsource ideas to companies that do, patent the hell out of it, and sue anyone that tries to compete.


----------



## mandis (Aug 25, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Hey, look!  The IBM Simon has "rounded and smooth" corners and buttons laid out in a square grid too.  It came out in 1992:
> http://www.trendingaddict.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ibm-simon_w5002.jpg
> 
> Compaq iPAQ H3100...if this doesn't look like Apple stole most of its design cues, I don't know what to tell you:
> ...




The pocket pc was a BLATANT copy of the Palm. The Palm stems from the Apple Newton which was introduced a decade earlier. All these systems run on ARM, the CPU Apple created in order make the Newton. The Newton was not a phone but it supported FAX and Email capabilities back in 1993...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

IBM Simon was to market first (1992).  MessagePad came out in 1993.  Palm/PDA doesn't have phone.

Motorola designed all the hardware for it.


Pocket PC was the evolution of the PDA which was an evolution of the cellphone.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 25, 2012)

mandis said:


> The pocket pc was a BLATANT copy of the Palm. The Palm stems from the Apple Newton which was introduced a decade earlier. All these systems run on ARM, the CPU Apple created in order make the Newton. The Newton was not a phone but it supported FAX and Email capabilities back in 1993...
> 
> http://www8.pcmag.com/media/images/266029-apple-newton.jpg



The Arm CPU was created by Acorn Computers.

An English company ... (Nothing to do with Apple is what I'm saying)

As far as I'm aware Apple have never produced their own processors, they've always been produced by other companies, sure they had some tweaked versions of CPUS but ultimately the designs were produced by others.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

Samsung to fight court ruling in Apple patent dispute


----------



## mandis (Aug 25, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> The Arm CPU was created by Acorn Computers.
> 
> An English company ... (Nothing to do with Apple is what I'm saying)
> 
> As far as I'm aware Apple have never produced their own processors, they've always been produced by other companies, sure they had some tweaked versions of CPUS but ultimately the designs were produced by others.



I hope this helps...

*ARM architecture:*

*In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core.* The work was so important that Acorn spun off the design team in 1990 into a new company called *Advanced RISC Machines Ltd*. *Advanced RISC Machines became ARM Ltd* when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[11]
*The new Apple-ARM work would eventually turn into the ARM6, first released in early 1992.* *Apple used the ARM6-based ARM 610 as the basis for their Apple Newton PDA.* In 1994, Acorn used the ARM 610 as the main central processing unit (CPU) in their Risc PC computers. DEC licensed the ARM6 architecture and produced the StrongARM. At 233 MHz this CPU drew only one watt (more recent versions draw far less). This work was later passed to Intel as a part of a lawsuit settlement, and Intel took the opportunity to supplement their ageing i960 line with the StrongARM. Intel later developed its own high performance implementation named XScale which it has since sold to Marvell.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture


*ARM Holdings:*

*The company was founded as Advanced RISC Machines, ARM, a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology.* The new company intended to further the development of the Acorn RISC Machine's RISC chip, which was originally used in the Acorn Archimedes and had been selected by Apple for their Newton project. The design was flexible and is now the processing core for many custom application-specific integrated circuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Holdings


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Hey, look!  The IBM Simon has "rounded and smooth" corners and buttons laid out in a square grid too.  It came out in 1992:
> http://www.trendingaddict.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ibm-simon_w5002.jpg
> 
> Compaq iPAQ H3100...if this doesn't look like Apple stole most of its design cues, I don't know what to tell you:
> ...



I have no idea what you're on about, as it doesn't relate to what I said. Of course there were smartphones before the iPhone, I've owned several Qtek phones that I loved (I'm one of the few persons on earth who liked Windows Mobile). The point is Samsung had tons of phones of various shapes and sizes. Then in 2010 some of them for some bizarre reason started to look like iPhones. Why did Apple choose Samsung? HTC have phones with rounded corners too, all phones have rounded corners, yet Samsung are the ones that look like iPhones.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2012)

That is subjective.  All "smartphones" look alike to me.  They are functionally the same.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 25, 2012)

mandis said:


> I hope this helps...
> 
> ARM architecture:
> 
> In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on *newer versions* of the ARM core. The work was so important that Acorn spun off the design team in 1990 into a new .......



In essence what you've quoted is in fact what everyone says about Apple and ironically what Samsung say Apple do.  The ARM core *already* existed prior to Apple getting involved.  It was a hugely important chip. ARM made it independently of Apple.  Apple saw how good the original design was and like all good business ideas, worked with ARM and its spin off to develop it further to best suit it's own business interests.  They didn't do anything wrong but what they did is what they sue everyone else for doing (simply because Apple use the patent office as a dead end to other companies improving upon their designs.

The above serves to illustrate exactly what Apple often do - they evolve prior function and/or design.  They did not innovate.


----------



## kid41212003 (Aug 25, 2012)

Samsung deserves this.

I wish they ban the S3 and its "iButton" from existent.

All hail HTC!


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That is subjective.  All "smartphones" look alike to me.  They are functionally the same.

































Honestly I don't know why you're in this thread if that is how you see things.


----------



## mandis (Aug 25, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> In essence what you've quoted is in fact what everyone says about Apple and ironically what Samsung say Apple do.  The ARM core *already* existed prior to Apple getting involved.  It was a hugely important chip. ARM made it independently of Apple.  Apple saw how good the original design was and like all good business ideas, worked with ARM and its spin off to develop it further to best suit it's own business interests.  They didn't do anything wrong but what they did is what they sue everyone else for doing (simply because Apple use the patent office as a dead end to other companies improving upon their designs.
> 
> The above serves to illustrate exactly what Apple often do - they evolve prior function and/or design.  They did not innovate.



*Spoken like a true Hater*

The ARM6 (ARMv3/4) was as close to the original Acorn Archimedes as the 8086 is to the core i7 ivy bridge. The APPLE - ACORN partnership led to the creation of ARM. The company that designs the new post-ARMv3 CPUs.

Hopefully Samsung owns a licence to manufacture their ARM-based cpus or they could be facing even worse legal consequences...


*ps: you really should read the links I sent you. No point in twisting the facts in order to back your argument. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions. Right now you seem like you hate a company based on a bunch of lies and misconceptions which are not even your own. All droid fanboys repeat the same foul nonsense. *


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 25, 2012)

mandis said:


> The ARM6 (ARMv3/4) was as close to the original Acorn Archimedes as the 8086 is to the core i7 ivy bridge.[/B]



Same for current ARM CPUs, they have nothing to do with the ARM6. And in fact many of the tech in the ARM Cortex family has been developed in conjuntion with Samsung and many other companies and/or using their IP. Apple is not one of those from what I've seen.

ARM is not Apple.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 25, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Samsung to fight court ruling in Apple patent dispute



that won't change anything, based on the current decisions so far samsung is only going downhill in this trial

good ol american(paytowin) justice


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 25, 2012)

mandis said:


> *Spoken like a true Hater*



These few words betray your sentiments and loyalties. 

I like Apple products, they're pleasant to look at (the iPad is a bit slippy to hold mind) and function very well.  Many Android products suck (but not my HTC One S).

Your vehemence towards my post is noted. Please accept my indifference.

My point stands.  Apple got involved with ARM* because they liked what another company did.  That much is true.  They evolved a product someone else designed.

*The official *A*corn *R*ISC *M*achine project started in October 1983.  The fundamental ARM core was pre-Apple.  ARM holdings involved Apple.


----------



## mandis (Aug 25, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> These few words betray your sentiments and loyalties. Your vehemence towards my post is noted. Please accept my indifference.



So why did you bother to reply?? Please spare me the pedantry... 



the54thvoid said:


> I like Apple products, they're pleasant to look at



Only a hater would say that...




the54thvoid said:


> My point stands.  Apple got involved with ARM* because they liked what another company did.  That much is true.  They evolved a product someone else designed. The official *A*corn *R*ISC *M*achine project started in October 1983.  The fundamental ARM core was pre-Apple.  ARM holdings involved Apple.



Apple got involved with *ACORN* because they were interested in acquiring certain hardware patents related to the *ARM architecture*. They Bought the company together with *VLSI* and renamed *ACORN* to *ARM inc.* which stands for *Advanced RISC Machines*. The technology relevant to the Acorn computer is now known as *ANCIENT ARM* and it is unrelated and incomatible to what Apple and VLSI created after their joint partnership.

http://www.heyrick.co.uk/armwiki/The_ARM_family#Ancient_ARM

*PS.: Unlike you I actually try to reference my claims. You should try it too! *


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 26, 2012)

mandis said:


> Only a hater would say that...



To be fair, they are nice products to look at 

Hell if it wasn't for not being able to piss around ( and the price) i'd probably have an Iphone ( I dislike all other Apple products though, since they changed to intel CPUs there's beeen no advantage to owning an actual Apple PC IMO)

Fortunately I got a Desire Z for £160 when they were still retailing for around £300 : ]


----------



## Tartaros (Aug 26, 2012)

But Mandis, even what is said in those articles you posted stat what Pantherx12 said first, apple never produced a cpu architecture on it's own, the newer versions of arm processors were the fruit of a partnership between 3 companies. 

I don't pretend to throw aside the importance of apple in the creation of these processors, but saying apple created the arm processor for the newton like you did is not true. It's like saying apple created all the cpus they used in their computers because they used them to make those computers xD


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 26, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> To be fair, they are nice products to look at
> 
> Hell if it wasn't for not being able to piss around ( and the price) i'd probably have an Iphone ( I dislike all other Apple products though, since they changed to intel CPUs there's beeen no advantage to owning an actual Apple PC IMO)
> 
> Fortunately I got a Desire Z for £160 when they were still retailing for around £300 : ]



yep their stuff is cool 
but i cant stand their attitude  too bad


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 26, 2012)

*Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced *

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 26, 2012)

mandis said:


> So why did you bother to reply?? Please spare me the pedantry...
> Only a hater would say that...



I'm allowed to firmly disapprove of any frighteningly wealthy corporation with a distinctly over bearing marketing and legal wing.  Your use of hater is the antithesis of that other word that starts with 'F'.  Using these terms doesn't help.



mandis said:


> Apple got involved with *ACORN* because they were interested in *acquiring certain hardware patents* related to the *ARM architecture*.



Yes.  Apple *wanted another companies tech*.  I'm now quoting you.  This is what I've been saying.  And you've just confirmed that.  

Which is what i said back here:



> they evolve prior function and/or design. They did not innovate.



This is what I have been arguing.  Apple got involved with someone elses design because they wanted it for their own device.  Why are you even arguing - you've said it yourself?  I appreciate you want to stick up for Apple here but really you're saying the same thing as me.

Acorn created ARM core of the back of the Berkeley project.  Apple wanted to use that tech and needed the patent.  Apple acquire a patent because they did not invent the initial core.  
You also said:



> They(Apple) Bought the company together with VLSI and renamed ACORN to ARM inc. which stands for Advanced RISC Machines.



which is not true.  Your wiki source says this:



> The work was so important that Acorn spun off the design team in 1990 into a new company called Advanced RISC Machines Ltd



If Acorn had not developed the ARM core, Apple wouldn't have got involved.  And I'm well aware that core from Acorn was developed by using another researcher groups work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_RISC)

I think we can both agree on these facts above (as quoted by you and as by me quoting you).

And please, if you want to reply again to my post, I'd appreciate it if you stop using the term 'Hater'.  Frankly i find it very insulting and if you're trying to insult me then that's just unpleasant.

And for the record, our family had an Acorn Electron back in the 1980's.  It was awesome (at the time).  Who knew blocks moving around other blocks could be so much fun?  I even remember one game - The Tomb of Drewen.


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> *Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced *
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390





> As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, down from $1,051,855,000.



Woo they saved $1.4M!


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2012)

Frick said:


> Woo they saved $1.4M!



Yea, 1% reduction.

I too about got sick to my stomache when I read the news.  Been offline most of the weekend.

From the article entropy quoted



entropy13 said:


> *Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced *
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390



And reading other articles, this isn't over.  There is so much money at stake that this will end up at the supreme court.

I wonder how many of these guys have an iPhone in thier pocket:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I wonder how many of these guys have an iPhone in thier pocket:
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx



Given how many phones Samsung sell chances are good they have a Samsung phone.


----------



## m1dg3t (Aug 26, 2012)

So Apple can claim rights to a rounded square & touch screens with tiles eh?

What about this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2684614&postcount=1

Oh thats right, i forgot! Apple can copy everyone else and it's OK! Pathetic.

Hey Sony why don't you go and fuck Apple for some cash like they do to everyone else? or are you waiting for them to implement it and make large $$$ first? 

And for the jury of that/this trial, some good reading material http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1

Only in US is corruption/greed celebrated :shadedshu


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> So Apple can claim rights to a rounded square & touch screens with tiles eh?
> 
> What about this:
> 
> ...



It was more than about the shape. But you don't care about that sort of thing I take it.


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 26, 2012)

So the jury foreman is a patent holder?

Does that sound strange to anyone else?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2012)

Sounds like he/she should have been recused.  Samsung is appealing the decision so it will go to a higher court that is likely less biased in favor of Apple.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 26, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> I have no doubt that Samsung has pointed that out!
> 
> Apple cobbled together existing technologies to form the majority of thier products, ergo the iPhone.  I think that's another argument to make... it really wasn't anything new.



samsung should just release a firmware update for their high defs and block the apple TV ID.



i really hope samsung socks apple in the face.

and then I hope googles lawsuit moves in and hits them again. I want apple to have the lowest grossing quarter in the companies history. Everyone attacks opensource no one thinks they can hold their own.

shit open group should sue apple for using a unix derivative.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 26, 2012)

Solaris17 said:


> and then I hope googles lawsuit moves in and hits them again. I want apple to have the lowest grossing quarter in the companies history. Everyone attacks opensource no one thinks they can hold their own.



Meanwhile, Google owned Motorola is attacking Apple. Apple has made its position very clear and how they're going to operate and at this point the only way to get Apple to play fair is to beat them into submission.


----------



## catnipkiller (Aug 26, 2012)

Apple is a joke of a company that only hipsters and children use. I hope they get sued by everyone.


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Meanwhile, Google owned Motorola is attacking Apple. Apple has made its position very clear and how they're going to operate and at this point the only way to get Apple to play fair is to beat them into submission.



yes and no imo. We wouldn't have the phones we have today if the iPhone never existed.  Apple haven't been that triggerhappy about things afaik, only about Samsung and alleged infringement (which i agree with in some ways). Is the system broken? Yes, but i dont want to hold apple guilty of using the system pretty much everyone uses.

And its interesting how apple gets more hate because of this than actual copyrirght trolls.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 26, 2012)

Frick said:


> yes and no imo. We wouldn't have the phones we have today if the iPhone never existed.  Apple haven't been that triggerhappy about things afaik, only about Samsung and alleged infringement (which i agree with in some ways). Is the system broken? Yes, but i dont want to hold apple guilty of using the system pretty much everyone uses.
> 
> And its interesting how apple gets more hate because of this than actual copyrirght trolls.



but apple is the copyright troll they have been systematically going after everyone.


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2012)

Solaris17 said:


> but apple is the copyright troll they have been systematically going after everyone.



You have more info?


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 26, 2012)

Frick said:


> You have more info?



everything including current vs samsung and then some iv never even heard of


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2012)

Solaris17 said:


> everything including current vs samsung and then some iv never even heard of
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation



The only ones about copyright they initiated are Samsung and HTC. Didn't happen anything in the HTC case. There are a few where Apple are being sued though.


----------



## KainXS (Sep 1, 2012)

let the good times roll
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_...-apple-if-lte-device-is-released-report-says/
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...y_note_to_amended_galaxy_nexus_complaint.html
expect more of this from now on.



> Judge: whats wrong honey
> Apple: Samsung copied my phone mommy
> Court: Good lord no:shadedshu, why do you say that honey
> Apple: My phones a rectangle(sniff) and so is theiiiiiiiirs(sniff)
> ...



samsung should not have threatened apple by saying they would block the LTE on the next iphone(which they can't do), now it seems apple is going to sue them again, it never ends:shadedshu


----------



## Drone (Sep 1, 2012)

Poor Samsung, $1.05 billion is a helluva big prize for that and even that didn't make Apple happy. They has filed a fresh patent infringement action  It's moronic. Apple products have Samsung parts. I bet if Samsung rebels Apple will fall.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 2, 2012)

Apple will find another supplier if Samsung cuts ties.  They maybe already did for the iPhone 5 which is launching soon.


----------



## entropy13 (Sep 2, 2012)

Copy-pasta from somewhere else:



> I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I was waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.
> 
> Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?" Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book" Guy: "Seriously"
> 
> ...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 2, 2012)

Yeah, it's disgusting that nothing "tech" matters unless it appears in the same sentence as "Apple."  People ought to know better.


----------



## Iceni (Sep 2, 2012)

what gets me is the patents infringed seem to be whimsical at best.

Had apple gone after samsung for manufacturing and assembly methods, then i could see that patent holding water.

Only apple use a milled housing with a glued on screen. It's an apple design feature, and it's also an ascetic one as well since it minimises lines on the rear of the device.

However all samsung devices are assembled in the normal fashion Screen first back last. Meaning more lines, removable back panels ect.


The USA courts have just proven what a mess their legal system is. Allowing a minimalist patent to hold water just sets the flood gates open for larger companies to patent a mish mash of concepts based on nothing other than ideas. What happens now when apple patents all rectangles of all sizes with a glass fronted screen and for multiple different tasks. 

Here's a minimalist infra red box. (all touch screen TV remote's are gone)
Here's a minimalist screen with a GPS capability. (all GPS/sat navs are gone)


What upsets me the most however is a lot of countries have thrown out the apple/samsung debate, The USA failing to do this has probably stunted the market. Now small companies are going to be wary of Android, and it's similarities to apple. And without the financial grunt of samsung those companies are left without a defence if apple wants to intervene.


Hopefully samsung has secured the patents on those fold-able amolded screens, and plans to implement them without allowing apple to benefit. But also licences the technology to everyone else. That would just be pudding ATM.

http://www.applebitch.com


----------



## micropage7 (Sep 2, 2012)

KainXS said:


> let the good times roll
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_...-apple-if-lte-device-is-released-report-says/
> http://www.appleinsider.com/article...y_note_to_amended_galaxy_nexus_complaint.html
> expect more of this from now on.
> ...


yeah, thats pretty sick. big company just sue other company again and again and again coz they say the other competitors copy their patent. why dont apple sue other company that make stuff like their product 100%? 
like this


----------



## KainXS (Sep 2, 2012)

suing those tiny chinese clone companies is much much harder than suing a larger company like samsung

why go through the trouble when you have patent mines everywhere.


----------



## KainXS (Oct 3, 2012)

You guys didn't think it was over did you . . . . . .

I like to keep up with the news and I must say . . . . . . If I saw the nonsense unfolding in a movie I would be like ". . . . . .  ummm . . . . . no." 

Hogan the foreman was sued by Seagate in 1993 but  The lawyer who sued Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung, this resulted in hogan becoming bankrupt and nearly ruined him.

So Either Samsungs lawyers did not do their job or they knew it
Or Apples lawyers are did not do their job

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013.pdf

The Preliminary Injunction on the Galaxy Tab has also now been dissolved by the judge


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, it's disgusting that nothing "tech" matters unless it appears in the same sentence as "Apple."  People ought to know better.



beyond that Samsung probably have made their displays incompatible with Apple computers too along with the no name parts they make under a different label (every company has one)

Honestly Apple can go fuck themselves with their own apple


----------



## Super XP (Oct 4, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> beyond that Samsung probably have made their displays incompatible with Apple computers too along with the no name parts they make under a different label (every company has one)
> 
> *Honestly Apple can go fuck themselves with their own apple*


AMEN to that.


----------



## HossHuge (Oct 4, 2012)

HossHuge said:


> So the jury foreman is a patent holder?
> 
> Does that sound strange to anyone else?




It seems I was on to something.....



> Samsung has called for a retrial of a recent patent dispute case, claiming the jury foreman had "failed to answer [questions] truthfully" and might have been biased.



So, I guess it sounded strange to Samsung as well.

source


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 4, 2012)

Didn't know this thread was still alive...



Frick said:


> There are a few where Apple are being sued though.



Most of them are retaliatory, like kids in a sandbox "He started it!"  And Apple did start it, they are pure evil incarnate.

Most often, large companies use patents as a defensive mechanism.  Apple obviously went on the offensive, and the rest are being both offensive and defensive in response.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Oct 31, 2012)

I can not for the life of me find the thread where it was discussed where Apple lost the litigation in the UK and was forced to post an apology.
This is the apology:


> Samsung / Apple UK judgment
> 
> On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
> 
> ...


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 1, 2012)

That's no apology.  It's a slap in the face.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 1, 2012)

yup and guess what happens to Apple, certain ICs etc being made by samsung will no longer be in apple products.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 1, 2012)

*Apple's Samsung statement reprimanded by court of appeal*


> The UK court of appeal has reprimanded Apple over the wording of the statement on its website acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe the iPad tablet's registered design, and ordered it to put an altered statement on its homepage – rather than tucked away in a linked page – until 14 December.
> 
> The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 1, 2012)

Nothing like a slap in the face to Apple.


----------

