I do not blame anyone, nor do I support anyone. My fair view is that Samsung DID cross the border by making their phones look too similar to the iPhone..BUT Apple shouldn't have won either, because what they have is a bunch of Bullshit patents just to hinder their competitors' success. (Rounded rectangles, Slide to unlock, Elastic bounce, seriously?)
One thing I can conclude honestly (also from my own personal experience) is that we live in a very unfair world, being ruled by an unfair system, where someone who has the highest amount money will always WIN and RULE the system. Our governments are in bed with the entertainment industries for a reason. Think about it (ACTA, SOPA..etc). I was expecting the result to be something like what happened in Korea, where Samsung And Apple were found guilty and BOTH had to pay for damages. But this is a ridiculous - Apple has been sued by numerous competitors and yet it didn't infringe even a single patent? Come on...clearly this system is biased.
For those who think Apple deserved to win, Apple did not do this to protect their IP, they are just suppressing their competitors by suing them. Why is Apple going after HTC and Motorola? I personally own a HTC and it looks and feels nothing like an iPhone. Apple might have 'innovated' as many claim it to have, but it has hindered more innovation than it has ever contributed. The case for HTC, Samsung and others today might be the case for you and me tomorrow as well, considering we start a phone company tomorrow. We are as vulnerable as they are. And Apple is the most innovative company in the world? Come on..innovation by litigation??
Well Apple, your end is very near, which is reflected by your panic, suing your competitors. This won't last very long and there will be someone to say 'Fuck you' to you very soon. Till then, enjoy your happiness while it lasts.
Edit: And this original article saying 'We wanted to send a message' is plain BS. I find nothing wrong in Samsung's designer talking about the iPhone in his e-mails or comparing Samsung's phones with it. If Apple would have done it, it would have been 'taking inspiration', now since Samsung has done it, it is a 'copycat'. What an unfair system..If the guy wanted to send a message it clearly should have been 'Fuck patents and litigation, focus on innovation'.
Instead, the message I see from this guy is 'Apple will pretend to innovate, whoever innovates beyond them will be sued and will never WIN'
Agree. This post of yours sums it up nice and impartial. I have a hard time trying to convince myself the jury wasn't prejudiced in a way or other.
But at the same time Samsung still ventured bit too far into the imitation land. They should have got fined just enough to act as a deterrent but this verdict enables more than that - it virtually guarantees Apple a monopoly over selling touchscreen devices by asserting their patents' validity to the extent that they will have little trouble shutting off competition from anyone other than Microsoft. That's the _real_ bad news here.
"In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation.""
The link also provides a nice overview of the history of touch.
>> we wanted something more than a slap on the wrist."
Wasn't the jury under instructions not to dole out punitive damages? That's left to the judge, the amount of which has yet to be decided.
Maximum punitive damages are limited to 3x the original amount [1 billion], so the fact that this number was apparently inflated is non-trivial. [1]
>> "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?'" Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things."
This juror clearly skirted the line of impartiality. I will have to read the whole interview. The notion of vigilante jurors doling out punishment based on their own bias is unsettling.
As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place.
All the parties involved are aware what a risk jury trials can be. It's why many companies settle, and Lucy Koh specifically warned them about this before the jury began to deliberate. They made their bed as far as I'm concerned. I do have a problem with the jury being criticized though. This happens in all high-profile cases where some group of people dislike the decision. Judges are very protective of juries for this reason.
It's amazing that no matter how much you pay lawyers, they can be this incompetent.
First they somehow never managed to get the patent review process going that Google proved could wipe out bogus trivial patents. Then Samsung's legal team missed deadlines to produce their prior art research. Then they stuffed the arguments about tablet computer trade dress into the largest part of their time and won that but failed to save time to make a case about smart phones.
And most importantly, they let an obviously biased holder of silly patents who feels great pride in them get on the jury and lead it straight to this conclusion as foreman. Did they sleep through voir dire?
Did the Samsung lawyers deliberately throw the case for some reason? Maybe the Korean corporate culture rubbed them the wrong way and they simply couldn't communicate effectively or they were hit with an epidemic of contagious chronic fatigue or something.
I believe they used this trial to buy some time. They have many grounds to file an appeal now (think of the evidence they introduced too late, which was rejected). Until then, the verdict will not be final. Meanwhile, their old products which infringe can be phased out of the market without much cost. The newer products have their own style (Galaxy S III for example).
The biggest danger they face now is the potential blocking of their most profitable products from the US market. But they likely can fix this all in software in the time until this ban can come into effect.
In my experience, this is fairly standard for lawyers. Sometimes they are all too human. The problem is the consequences of their occasional (YMMV) incompetence can be so huge and far-reaching, as with this case.
It looks like they felt the most damning evidence were emails where Samsung was told to back off from copying Apple but did not heed their partners advice.
The process goes like this: each party, taking turns, gets to ask a question about potential jurors background or their current situation. Jurors that show potential bias or inability to deliver an independent ruling are thrown out (either by the judge's decision or by using a limited amount of discretionary vetoes that each party has).
It's a major failure for Samsung's legal team to allow Hogan to stand, considering his background. I doubt these lawyers to be ever able to represent again a tech company in a court of law.
As Groklaw pointed out, the jury was specifically instructed that the damages awarded should reflect the amount of money lost, not punish or "send a message" to Samsung. It's also pretty clear that the jury rushed through things, even if they say they didn't. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430341 Samsung will probably use the jurors' statements in their appeal.
They spend 2 and 1/2 days talking about it. Don't forget they had plenty of time to consider the evidence while it was being presented so the only thing they need to talk about was what they disagreed on. Which probably was mostly about how willful Samsung's infringement was, because that's the hardest thing to determine in cases like this.
No. That is Groklaw's interpretation of what he said. He could have simply meant that by finding Samsung guilty of willful infringement that they were punishing them.
And I don't understand what you're implying by saying that they rushed through the case. Do you think they would have changed their mind or "woken up to the truth" if they were in the room longer ?
People hate on software patents like they were hating on the cellphone industry just 5 years ago.
One company doubled down on their innovation while disrupting their own major revenue channel. Meanwhile, the many stagnant phone manufactures continued copy/pasting crap because that's all they knew. BlackBerry executives went so far as to call Jobs' 2007 iPhone launch a "bluff" and an "impossible feat of engineering".
Maybe multi-touch is painfully obvious on the surface, but end-to-end execution and total consumer package made the iPhone what it is today -- and that wasn't obvious until you held it in your hand, and everything just clicked. So in that regard, I think it's fair for Apple to protect their entire pie by defending the slices/key ingredients.
PS. It took a few years before "pinch and zoom" was actually comparable to the fluidity of iOS. Some implementations on Android were a complete joke.
PPS. I don't disagree that the patent process could use some revisions, but to dismiss the process entirely is just silly -- including software.
The jurors blatantly disregarded the court's instructions. They were to be thorough, unbiased and apply the law, not send a message. Good chance for a mistrial.
...I still don't get it why corporations are STUPID enough not to implement a system where old emails get deleted (in an unrecoverable way) after something like a week (ok, maybe they would have to invent their own messaging protocol with DRM-like features baked in, but still, it would totally worth the effort considering the legal risk of emails) ...or for god's sake, do "important" communication by voice-calls if not just face-to-face private meetings, but just don't leave this electronic "paper trail" that can turn back to legally "blow you up" at any time!
It seems the whole jury quickly became biased towards the "patent holder" (whichever patent that may be) "thanks" to Hogan, not to mention they didn't even bother to consider prior art or to invalidate Apple's patents, which was a huge thing to consider, but they acted as if it wasn't. Just because a patent was afforded doesn't mean it was a good one. I'm not too familiar with how juries work in US, but the whole thing doesn't seem right to me. The jury should've been completely impartial.
"sending a message" and "being 100% fair" are mutually exclusive. "Sending a message" is explicitly overpunishing a transgression so that news gets around about the harshness of the penalty.
[+] [-] neya|13 years ago|reply
One thing I can conclude honestly (also from my own personal experience) is that we live in a very unfair world, being ruled by an unfair system, where someone who has the highest amount money will always WIN and RULE the system. Our governments are in bed with the entertainment industries for a reason. Think about it (ACTA, SOPA..etc). I was expecting the result to be something like what happened in Korea, where Samsung And Apple were found guilty and BOTH had to pay for damages. But this is a ridiculous - Apple has been sued by numerous competitors and yet it didn't infringe even a single patent? Come on...clearly this system is biased.
For those who think Apple deserved to win, Apple did not do this to protect their IP, they are just suppressing their competitors by suing them. Why is Apple going after HTC and Motorola? I personally own a HTC and it looks and feels nothing like an iPhone. Apple might have 'innovated' as many claim it to have, but it has hindered more innovation than it has ever contributed. The case for HTC, Samsung and others today might be the case for you and me tomorrow as well, considering we start a phone company tomorrow. We are as vulnerable as they are. And Apple is the most innovative company in the world? Come on..innovation by litigation??
Well Apple, your end is very near, which is reflected by your panic, suing your competitors. This won't last very long and there will be someone to say 'Fuck you' to you very soon. Till then, enjoy your happiness while it lasts.
[+] [-] neya|13 years ago|reply
Instead, the message I see from this guy is 'Apple will pretend to innovate, whoever innovates beyond them will be sued and will never WIN'
BONUS: Apple's 'innovation': http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10...
[+] [-] mrcharles|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blinkingled|13 years ago|reply
But at the same time Samsung still ventured bit too far into the imitation land. They should have got fined just enough to act as a deterrent but this verdict enables more than that - it virtually guarantees Apple a monopoly over selling touchscreen devices by asserting their patents' validity to the extent that they will have little trouble shutting off competition from anyone other than Microsoft. That's the _real_ bad news here.
[+] [-] printer|13 years ago|reply
"In making this statement about their awareness of past work, I am not criticizing Westerman, the iPhone, or Apple. It is simply good practice and good scholarship to know the literature and do one's homework when embarking on a new product. What I am pointing out, however, is that "new" technologies - like multi-touch - do not grow out of a vacuum. While marketing tends to like the "great invention" story, real innovation rarely works that way. In short, the evolution of multi-touch is a text-book example of what I call "the long-nose of innovation.""
The link also provides a nice overview of the history of touch.
[+] [-] doktrin|13 years ago|reply
Wasn't the jury under instructions not to dole out punitive damages? That's left to the judge, the amount of which has yet to be decided.
Maximum punitive damages are limited to 3x the original amount [1 billion], so the fact that this number was apparently inflated is non-trivial. [1]
>> "I was thinking about the patents, and thought, 'If this were my patent, could I defend it?'" Hogan recalled. "Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things."
This juror clearly skirted the line of impartiality. I will have to read the whole interview. The notion of vigilante jurors doling out punishment based on their own bias is unsettling.
As an aside, it's not clear how Samsung's legal team let this guy onto the jury in the first place.
[1]http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/apple-wins-105-billi...
[+] [-] mrich|13 years ago|reply
I think it has become clear now :)
[+] [-] luser001|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cremnob|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WildUtah|13 years ago|reply
First they somehow never managed to get the patent review process going that Google proved could wipe out bogus trivial patents. Then Samsung's legal team missed deadlines to produce their prior art research. Then they stuffed the arguments about tablet computer trade dress into the largest part of their time and won that but failed to save time to make a case about smart phones.
And most importantly, they let an obviously biased holder of silly patents who feels great pride in them get on the jury and lead it straight to this conclusion as foreman. Did they sleep through voir dire?
Did the Samsung lawyers deliberately throw the case for some reason? Maybe the Korean corporate culture rubbed them the wrong way and they simply couldn't communicate effectively or they were hit with an epidemic of contagious chronic fatigue or something.
[+] [-] mrich|13 years ago|reply
The biggest danger they face now is the potential blocking of their most profitable products from the US market. But they likely can fix this all in software in the time until this ban can come into effect.
[+] [-] davedx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul9290|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] streptomycin|13 years ago|reply
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
[+] [-] timc3|13 years ago|reply
That patent is ridiculous.
[+] [-] vladd|13 years ago|reply
The process goes like this: each party, taking turns, gets to ask a question about potential jurors background or their current situation. Jurors that show potential bias or inability to deliver an independent ruling are thrown out (either by the judge's decision or by using a limited amount of discretionary vetoes that each party has).
It's a major failure for Samsung's legal team to allow Hogan to stand, considering his background. I doubt these lawyers to be ever able to represent again a tech company in a court of law.
[+] [-] sp332|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] papercrane|13 years ago|reply
I don't think Samsung can. It is being reported that Federal rules don't allow them to consider jurors statements about the proceedings as evidence.
[+] [-] Retric|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
And I don't understand what you're implying by saying that they rushed through the case. Do you think they would have changed their mind or "woken up to the truth" if they were in the room longer ?
[+] [-] mrcharles|13 years ago|reply
Software patents are a joke.
[+] [-] pxlpshr|13 years ago|reply
One company doubled down on their innovation while disrupting their own major revenue channel. Meanwhile, the many stagnant phone manufactures continued copy/pasting crap because that's all they knew. BlackBerry executives went so far as to call Jobs' 2007 iPhone launch a "bluff" and an "impossible feat of engineering".
Maybe multi-touch is painfully obvious on the surface, but end-to-end execution and total consumer package made the iPhone what it is today -- and that wasn't obvious until you held it in your hand, and everything just clicked. So in that regard, I think it's fair for Apple to protect their entire pie by defending the slices/key ingredients.
PS. It took a few years before "pinch and zoom" was actually comparable to the fluidity of iOS. Some implementations on Android were a complete joke.
PPS. I don't disagree that the patent process could use some revisions, but to dismiss the process entirely is just silly -- including software.
[+] [-] bitsoda|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splamco|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nnq|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veyron|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul9290|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
Can't fault that logic.
[+] [-] beedogs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taligent|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pharaoh45|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsanchez1|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]