Author Topic: Apple v Samsung Verdict is in (Read 60588 times)

Mark0 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 26, 2012, 05:04 AM »

That's an interesting angle!

Jibz · « **Reply #26 on:** August 26, 2012, 05:33 AM »

Probably made up, but still an interesting angle I agree

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #27 on:** August 26, 2012, 06:15 AM »

It's all happening now, isn't it? My hope is that these are just the part of the growing pains of a transition into a freer and nicer society. The information/computer age seems to have matured and we are now dealing with what that means for us.

Optimism: a world with free access to education and information and implementation of your good ideas.
Pessimism: a world where we spend all our lives looking for the next stupid thing to copyright to make enough money where life is enjoyable.
-superboyac (August 25, 2012, 11:25 PM)

It's like one of those twisty racetrack courses, I think we're in for a lot of grief from the combined forces of the iProperty brigade and Big Brother, plus attached advertising barnacles along for the ride.

So I think *eventually* it will shake out, but it's gonna be a curvy ride.

daddydave · « **Reply #28 on:** August 26, 2012, 06:34 AM »

An INFINITE number of sides! I will patent the CIRCLE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS~!
-Renegade (August 25, 2012, 09:51 AM)

I wonder who owns the "patents" to Palm OS these days:

http://redwan.poster...ology-through-my-eye

tomos · « **Reply #29 on:** August 26, 2012, 06:45 AM »

I will patent the CIRCLE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS~!
-Renegade (August 25, 2012, 09:51 AM)

Where's your point?
[...]
-cranioscopical (August 25, 2012, 02:46 PM)

My point? ...
-Renegade (August 26, 2012, 01:57 AM)

did he mean the corner on the circle $:-\$ (but that was rounded, so now I'm confussed...)

Renegade · « **Reply #30 on:** August 26, 2012, 07:22 AM »

I will patent the CIRCLE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS~!
-Renegade (August 25, 2012, 09:51 AM)

Where's your point?
[...]
-cranioscopical (August 25, 2012, 02:46 PM)

My point? ...
-Renegade (August 26, 2012, 01:57 AM)

did he mean the corner on the circle $:-\$ (but that was rounded, so now I'm confussed...)
-tomos (August 26, 2012, 06:45 AM)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED~!

Well, an equilateral polygon with an infinite number of sides is a circle (where the angle between points approaches 180 degrees), however, the circle is the only geometric shape that requires only 1 point - the center - and a length - the radius. So, the point of the circle is the center as it's pretty much useless to consider any other point(s). So, drawing a circle, you go round the "point", but never get to it.

40hz · « **Reply #31 on:** August 26, 2012, 12:13 PM »

Too late. I just patented the point.
Please contact me to arrange licensing before creating any geometric constructs.

Renegade · « **Reply #32 on:** August 26, 2012, 12:15 PM »

Too late. I just patented the point.
Please contact me to arrange licensing before creating any geometric constructs.

-40hz (August 26, 2012, 12:13 PM)

You bastard! I bet you even killed Kenny~!

Jibz · « **Reply #33 on:** August 26, 2012, 12:18 PM »

Too late. I just patented the point.
Please contact me to arrange licensing before creating any geometric constructs.

-40hz (August 26, 2012, 12:13 PM)

Since geometry is pointless, that will never hold up in court

.

40hz · « **Reply #34 on:** August 26, 2012, 01:40 PM »

^ "To the vector belong the spoils."

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #35 on:** August 26, 2012, 09:12 PM »

Slashdot nailed the headline for the followup:
"Apple v. Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art For "Bogging Us Down""
http://apple.slashdo...-for-bogging-us-down

"Bleh, you mean we have to look at that pesky prior art stuff when we already know we're going to vote for Apple?"

rxantos · « **Reply #36 on:** August 26, 2012, 09:59 PM »

My intermediate thought was:
"Of that billion, How much was the judge paid?" There are MANY ways in which you can buy a judge. Some with money, some without. Some indirect, some direct.

Then I remembered: "Never blame evil that with stupidity can explain."

So instead of thinking that the judge was corrupt, I ended up thinking that the judge was just a useful moron.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #37 on:** August 26, 2012, 11:48 PM »

My intermediate thought was:
"Of that billion, How much was the judge paid?" There are MANY ways in which you can buy a judge. Some with money, some without. Some indirect, some direct.

Then I remembered: "Never blame evil that with stupidity can explain."

So instead of thinking that the judge was corrupt, I ended up thinking that the judge was just a useful moron.
-rxantos (August 26, 2012, 09:59 PM)

Lately, I've been reversing that axiom. Even if a judge is not totally bought, *someone* is playing an evil angle. "How much was the judge paid" is a fun sarcasm-venting question, but nothing is ever innocent mistakes anymore, not in the age of the net. So maybe the judge thought she was "doing right" but what is "doing right"? "Maintaining the primacy of intellectual property"?

Much more sinister is the whole "Nah we don't need an impartial jury, that's for mere murder cases. Let's hold this on Apple's Back Lawn after the picnic that the entire state was invited to. Okay Jury, so tell me more about the part where you "didn't bother with prior art because that would have bogged down sending those evil foreigners a message?!! Go USA!"

app103 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2012, 12:02 AM »

The irony in all of this is that Apple sued one of their major component suppliers for iPhones and iPads, then made this statement as their final rebuttal in court:

“No one is trying to stop them from selling smartphones,” he said. “All we’re saying is: make your own. Make your own designs, make your own phones, and compete on your own innovations.”
-http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/22/apple-v-samsung-closing-arguments-make-phones-v-apple-trying-mislead-you/?awesm=tnw.to_b3lw

Maybe Apple should do the same and start making their own iPhones and iPads from their own parts? Apple considers themselves both a software company and a hardware company, but they don't make any of their own hardware...their competitors do.

So guess who will pay for this lawsuit in the end? Apple's customers, of course. The natural course will result in the cost of goods produced by Samsung rising to cover the costs of this lawsuit and verdict, and Apple paying more for parts, and passing that on to their customers. Already, 26% of the cost of an iPhone or iPad goes right to Samsung to cover the costs of parts supplied by them.

So basically, Samsung has 2 years to suck as much money as it can from Apple, a company that is doing $11 billion in business with them this year alone, to cover the costs of this whole drama...which won't be difficult, considering the deals Apple is making with them, for all of Samsung's innovative new products that will end up in future iPhone, iPad, and Macbook models.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #39 on:** August 27, 2012, 12:43 AM »

did he mean the corner on the circle $:-\$ (but that was rounded, so now I'm confussed...)
-tomos (August 26, 2012, 06:45 AM)
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED~!
-Renegade (August 26, 2012, 07:22 AM)

That's what I call teamwork!

xtabber · « **Reply #40 on:** August 27, 2012, 11:21 AM »

From today's NY times:

Velvin Hogan, the foreman of the jury in the Apple-Samsung case, said in a phone interview on Saturday that the decision should send a “clear message” to the industry that companies that violate intellectual property will have to pay a penalty, like the one Samsung officials face. “They took the risk and it caught up with them,” said Mr. Hogan, 67, a retired electrical engineer who holds two issued patents himself and has a third pending.

I wouldn't venture a guess as to whether this verdict might be eventually overturned, but I'd say that Samsung's lawyers certainly have some pretty good grounds for their inevitable appeal.

Mark0 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 27, 2012, 11:36 AM »

Especially when, as also written in the Jury instructions, damages are not supposed to punish, but only to compensate for losses.

That strange thing is that all the discussions will end up arguing on this kind of details, only to go around the giant absurdity of the current american patent law.

wraith808 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2012, 01:35 PM »

^ Doesn't that also go towards conflict of interest? Why wouldn't the Samsung lawyers try to get rid of such a juror?

40hz · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2012, 01:36 PM »

Especially when, as also written in the Jury instructions, damages are not supposed to punish, but only to compensate for losses.
-Mark0 (August 27, 2012, 11:36 AM)

Actually, US patent law does allow for the awarding of punitive damages when it can be shown the infringement was significant and "willful." But in practice, the courts don't usually award them since most companies (or at least companies big enough to be able to pay punitive damages) can demonstrate the absence of willfulness by obtaining and following competent independent legal advice on issues relating to the possibility of patent infringement. In short, if your attorneys felt a patent in question was either invalid or not applicable to what you're doing, you're mostly off the hook for willfulness. (But not necessarily infringement.)

It's a not hard and fast rule how a court determines the degree of willfulness involved. But even where a court does find willfulness, it seldom awards the legal maximum of treble damages.

wraith808 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2012, 06:19 PM »

Relevant:

The frenemy companies try to limit fallout.

And though I don't defend the case, nor the outcome, I will say that Samsung isn't the innocent here.

rgdot · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2012, 06:59 PM »

There is no innocent multi-billion company, none. However there is doing business and then there is abusing the system (be it patents or whatever)

wraith808 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 27, 2012, 07:16 PM »

There is no innocent multi-billion company, none. However there is doing business and then there is abusing the system (be it patents or whatever)
-rgdot (August 27, 2012, 06:59 PM)

That's what that link is about... Samsung is an abuser also. Especially as even as much as we complain about the separation of corporate interests and politics in America, in South Korea, there is no separation.

rgdot · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2012, 07:32 PM »

There is no innocent multi-billion company, none. However there is doing business and then there is abusing the system (be it patents or whatever)
-rgdot (August 27, 2012, 06:59 PM)

That's what that link is about... Samsung is an abuser also. Especially as even as much as we complain about the separation of corporate interests and politics in America, in South Korea, there is no separation.
-wraith808 (August 27, 2012, 07:16 PM)

True, I agree.
I would say we live in a world where we always have to search for the lesser evil. There is little to no 'good' left.

barney · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2012, 09:50 PM »

I would say we live in a world where we always have to search for the lesser evil. There is little to no 'good' left.
-rgdot (August 27, 2012, 07:32 PM)

Considering the rather fine line between lesser and different, seems to me that it's damned difficult just to find lesser evil $:-\$

.

KynloStephen66515 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2012, 11:30 AM »

On a less 'funny' note...I am getting sick of this Apple vs Samsung shit...

Anybody else know that 26% of the price of any iPhone or iPad goes DIRECTLY to Samsung, duye to an $11BILLION dollar contract Apple have with them to produce all the hardware for iShit...

Perhaps Samsung should tell Apple where to stick their contract...Can't sue somebody for copying products you can't make ^_^

I know neither company is innocent in this...but Apple sure does get on my tits.