$1 BILLION VERDICT: SAMSUNG RIPPED OFF APPLE!

[S4GRU]

I'm shocked how sweeping the victory is. Winner: Apple. Loser: The American Consumer

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48783982

 

Samsung also issued a post-verdict statement, saying, "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 ... 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."

Edited August 25, 2012 by S4GRU
Added Samsung quote

[fatonuseni]

Samsung will appeal, but big loss to consumers.

 

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[BenChase7]

What a shame.

[dmchssc]

I agree with some parts of the verdict. TouchWiz 3.0 blatantly mimics iOS in a lot of respects, and the original Galaxy S is slightly too close for comfort (in my opinion) in design to the iPhone 3G. However, I don't believe that specific phone was covered in the trial, since the i9000 was never sold in the US. All of the Samsung TouchWiz phones before the Galaxy S II have the TouchWiz 3.0 UI though.

 

The things I don't agree with are any of the claims against the tablets, and the idiotically simple patents like tap to zoom and pinch to zoom. Seriously, people?!

[xcharles718]

I agree that TouchWiz 3.0 the biggest iPhone imitation I've ever seen(outside of maybe the de-facto MIUI skin). What patent's is Samsung paying Apple for?

[S4GRU]

I agree with some parts of the verdict. TouchWiz 3.0 blatantly mimics iOS in a lot of respects' date=' and the original Galaxy S is slightly too close for comfort (in my opinion) in design to the iPhone 3G. However, I don't believe that specific phone was covered in the trial, since the i9000 was never sold in the US. All of the Samsung TouchWiz phones before the Galaxy S II have the TouchWiz 3.0 UI though.

 

The things I don't agree with are any of the claims against the tablets, and the idiotically simple patents like tap to zoom and pinch to zoom. Seriously, people?![/quote']

 

Amazingly though, old generations of TouchWiz were rudimentary and considered a flop. And no one was fooled into thinking it was iOS by any stretch. Other than some similarity with icons, there just wasn't much similar...especially the device OS screens. Early on, Samsung thought chasing Apple was a road to success, but later actually moved on to be an innovator itself. Apple had to start catching up.

 

If this passes the jury's scrutiny, then Google should have a slam dunk case against Apple with the notifications. Now that is an outright rip off. Apple saw how successful the notification integration was on Android and adopted it themselves. I'm looking forward to Apple getting a taste of their own medicine.

 

I don't know anyone who bought a GS-III or a Galaxy Nexus because the device was so similar to the iPhone, or they were confused or thought they were essentially the same device. In fact, even people I know that do not understand smart phones are always asking me essentially, "these phones are so different in every way. Which features of these would be better for me?'. If a lay person knows there are distinct differences, obviously there is little confusion out there that people are mistaking Samsung devices for Apple devices.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[ChadBroChillz]

Force these companies to cross-license and lets be done with this mess. Microsoft took up apple on their offer, and look at them now. Innovating and making arguably better products than the iPhone and iPad.

 

Also want to add that google still does not own the patent to their notification pull down. they filed for it back in 2009, but it has not be approved. or at least that is what I read back in February.

[SpenceSouth]

Samsung phones certainly are not easily confused with Apple phones like they say. I think that it is completely absurd that Apple has been able to patent a "rectangular device with rounded corners". Definitely a huge misjustice to both Samsung and the consumers worldwide.

 

It's very ironic, but Apple has become the monopolistic tyrant that they used to fight against. A long time has passed since they passed something off as truly innovative.

[Feech]

I know you his won't be a popular thing to say but the Galaxy line of phones 1 and 2 did look like the iPhone. I'm not talking hardware but software wise. The way the icons looked and that row at the bottom. Standing from a few feet away in the dark even I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Bottom line is Samsung arrogance caused this. As an example the iPhone icon for photos was a Sunflower and gave the reasons why they chose it. Basically they said it was arbitrary and some emotional crap. So what does Samsung use for an icon? I freaking Sunflower.. A icon that could have been anything in the world and they chose the same damn flower. What I think is Samsung thought the business relationship they have with Apple would keep them safe. They gambled and lost big. The dollar amount isn't what's important but the threat on the Android ecosystem is. Now precedent has been set for ridiculous software patents. I know people dog out HTC and Sense variations but it had a different look all together and Apple for the most part has stayed away.

[bigsnake49]

I think Samsung thought they had the bull by the horns because they were the largest provider of screens, chips etc. for Apple and that would shield their phone division from Apple. They were wrong. They were arrogant and they are going to pay for it. Apple is already shifting their business to other display providers and they are also going to shift their flash memory and ARM chip manufacturing to other chipmakers. Intel has wanted the Apple business for a long time and they will be the largest beneficiaries. I'm sure that Samsung will try to replace Apple with other customers, but not too many companies can afford to prepay for their orders. The $1B award is peanuts (although it can go up to $3B, triple damages). It's the loss of business from Apple that will hurt more.

 

I also see Microsoft, and their licensees, benefitting from this, since carriers might be hesitant to deal with Android handset makers. Microsoft, licensed Apple patents and also signed a non-copying agreement. They have innovated, bringing a new interface paradigm to the smartphone wars, unlike Google and definitely Samsung.

[S4GRU]

unlike Google and definitely Samsung.

 

I find this ironic since as I write this, neither Microsoft nor Apple have brought a LTE device to market after two years. Yet Google's Android was the very first OS to support it and Samsung was an early adopter too. Just sayin'.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[S4GRU]

I know you his won't be a popular thing to say but the Galaxy line of phones 1 and 2 did look like the iPhone. I'm not talking hardware but software wise. The way the icons looked and that row at the bottom. Standing from a few feet away in the dark even I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Bottom line is Samsung arrogance caused this. As an example the iPhone icon for photos was a Sunflower and gave the reasons why they chose it. Basically they said it was arbitrary and some emotional crap. So what does Samsung use for an icon? I freaking Sunflower.. A icon that could have been anything in the world and they chose the same damn flower. What I think is Samsung thought the business relationship they have with Apple would keep them safe. They gambled and lost big. The dollar amount isn't what's important but the threat on the Android ecosystem is. Now precedent has been set for ridiculous software patents. I know people dog out HTC and Sense variations but it had a different look all together and Apple for the most part has stayed away.

 

I love your 'a few feet away in the dark' description. I can get a Bentley Continental and a Chrysler 300 confused a few feet away in the dark. However, your main point stays in tact. Samsung ripped off icons. That is obvious. Icons were not Apple's case, they just used that as evidence. Are icons worth 1 billion? Please.

 

For them to be worth one billion bucks in my mind, it would have to mean that Samsung had to have taken in one billion dollars in sales from people who mistakenly bought Samsung products over Apple products because they were confused by how the icons look similar. Did anyone in the world buy a Samsung thinking it was an Apple product because of the icon similarity? If so, we are talking about a couple of million bucks, not a billion.

 

In my opinion, the icons were the only issue that had merit in this case. Samsung was stupid to essentially rip those off. But the value at the end of the day of the icons is pretty small. And since they were replaced in newer OS'es, the problem even has been corrected.

 

During the period that Samsung was copying icons from Apple, Apple lost far more sales to exclusivity deals with carriers than it did from icons. In fact, Samsung hardly sold any devices at carriers that carried iPhones. Samsung was only a contingent at carriers where Apple refused to sell devices. In my opinion, Apple was creating an environment where they were not even a direct competitor to Samsung in the smartphone business at the time of icon infringement.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[bigsnake49]

For all of you ABA (anybody but Apple), maybe this will lead to the rebirth of WebOS, which was a truly innovative OS, or even Blackberry OS 10, as well as Microsoft's Phone's OS, OSes that are not "me too".

[S4GRU]

For all of you ABA (anybody but Apple)' date=' maybe this will lead to the rebirth of WebOS, which was a truly innovative OS, or even Blackberry OS 10, as well as Microsoft's Phone's OS, OSes that are not "me too".[/quote']

 

I hope it spawns innovation. I'm looking for a silver lining.

 

And I'm not a "Anybody but Apple" person. But it is fair to say I am a "Let's keep the smartphone business competitive so no one dominates and controls the business" person. Can you imagine what life would be like if RIM dominated the smartphone market and dictated to us what we would use?

 

I like my Androids. I like having a bigger smartphone than what Apple sells. I like having a smaller tablet than what Apple sells. I like the customization features of the OS. I like the fact that I can get to all my hidden screens and tweak my settings and adjust things and change my PRL. I like having the choice to buy a product that best fits my needs. And I'm glad there is Apple to better fit the needs of others.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[ChadBroChillz]

I am glad Apple won this, and I hope google smashes apple with their motorola lawsuit. We need these companies to come at a gridlock, so they are forced to actually come to a reasonable cross license agreement. I hope this lawsuit forces apple and samsung to come together and cross license. I hope the motorola/apple lawsuit leads to a google-apple cross license, which covers other OEMs.

 

Copying and litigation do not lead to innovation. If this mess continues for too long, the only winner will be Microsoft and we will all be losers( including apple).

[pyroscott]

I am glad Apple won this' date=' and I hope google smashes apple with their motorola lawsuit. We need these companies to come at a gridlock, so they are forced to actually come to a reasonable cross license agreement. I hope this lawsuit forces apple and samsung to come together and cross license. I hope the motorola/apple lawsuit leads to a google-apple cross license, which covers other OEMs.

 

Copying and litigation do not lead to innovation. If this mess continues for too long, the only winner will be Microsoft and we will all be losers( including apple).[/quote']

 

I agree, cross license so I don't have to be witness to this soap opera any more. This drama is idiotic. Pretty soon there will be a reality tv show about it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 (nakasi) using Forum Runner

[irev210]

I hope it spawns innovation. I'm looking for a silver lining.

 

And I'm not a "Anybody but Apple" person. But it is fair to say I am a "Let's keep the smartphone business competitive so no one dominates and controls the business" person. Can you imagine what life would be like if RIM dominated the smartphone market and dictated to us what we would use?

 

I like my Androids. I like having a bigger smartphone than what Apple sells. I like having a smaller tablet than what Apple sells. I like the customization features of the OS. I like the fact that I can get to all my hidden screens and tweak my settings and adjust things and change my PRL. I like having the choice to buy a product that best fits my needs. And I'm glad there is Apple to better fit the needs of others.

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

 

I think everyone is for competition. In many senses, why would anyone invest resources into innovating when samsung would have free reign to copy those features? If it is ok for samsung to copy, why wouldn't everyone else? And if everyone else copied, apple couldn't/wouldn't invest in developing new groundbreaking devices (nor would google or microsoft).

 

The design patents are really hard to rule on (in my opinion) but the utility patents are much more black and white.

 

Take for example, the iconic coca-cola bottle patent - you can't copy that but at what point are you not copying? Your comparison of Chrysler copying Bentley is another great example - there is a gray line where it would be infringement. I think Samsung tried to take it to the edge on trying to emulate the successful features that were found on the iPhone. They probably wanted to push it but ended up going too far.

 

How can you read this and say this is samsung being competitive?

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102317767?access_key=key-o1nfmlft8am5nw1qlpr

Instead of showing iPhone features and how to improve on them, it's "this is how iPhone does it, we'll do it this way too."

 

It would have been pretty awesome if all of us nerds could have been in the courtroom listening to the whole trial - we could have a much better discussion about protecting innovation vs. stifling innovation.

[S4GRU]

I think everyone is for competition. In many senses, why would anyone invest resources into innovating when samsung would have free reign to copy those features? If it is ok for samsung to copy, why wouldn't everyone else? And if everyone else copied, apple couldn't/wouldn't invest in developing new groundbreaking devices (nor would google or microsoft).

 

The design patents are really hard to rule on (in my opinion) but the utility patents are much more black and white.

 

Take for example, the iconic coca-cola bottle patent - you can't copy that but at what point are you not copying? Your comparison of Chrysler copying Bentley is another great example - there is a gray line where it would be infringement. I think Samsung tried to take it to the edge on trying to emulate the successful features that were found on the iPhone. They probably wanted to push it but ended up going too far.

 

How can you read this and say this is samsung being competitive?

http://www.scribd.co...mlft8am5nw1qlpr

Instead of showing iPhone features and how to improve on them, it's "this is how iPhone does it, we'll do it this way too."

 

It would have been pretty awesome if all of us nerds could have been in the courtroom listening to the whole trial - we could have a much better discussion about protecting innovation vs. stifling innovation.

 

I get your points. But I don't think Samsung profited from what they did copy, and in fact, largely had to reject them and do something else in later models because it wasn't successful. However, the things they did do on their own and innovate have been successful.

 

Robert

[SpenceSouth]

By the precedence set forth from this trial, if Henry Ford had patented a chassis that has four rounded wheels then we would drive no other brand of car. As far as Samsung's icons looking similar... the doors on my Chevy look similar to the doors on my friends Nissan. The steering wheel was also an amazingly successful feature that started on one car. Point is we are getting very vague with what we are calling copying. The simple truth is that a Galaxy S and iPhone function as two completely different phones.

 

Honestly though Apple fanboys should be thrilled about Android. If Android hadn't hit the market then Apple probably never would've made all the improvements that went into the iPhone 4. Competition fuels innovation.

[bigsnake49]

By the precedence set forth from this trial, if Henry Ford had patented a chassis that has four rounded wheels then we would drive no other brand of car. As far as Samsung's icons looking similar... the doors on my Chevy look similar to the doors on my friends Nissan. The steering wheel was also an amazingly successful feature that started on one car. Point is we are getting very vague with what we are calling copying. The simple truth is that a Galaxy S and iPhone function as two completely different phones.

 

Honestly though Apple fanboys should be thrilled about Android. If Android hadn't hit the market then Apple probably never would've made all the improvements that went into the iPhone 4. Competition fuels innovation.

 

Having being associated with the development of large size systems, we had roadmaps that extended to 4-5 generations. I'm sure that Apple did as well. The roadmaps are even more secret than the different prototypes than have been exposed. We have no idea what Apple's roadmaps included.

[S4GRU]

I kinda see this as telling:

 

Ilagan said: "We were debating the unregistered trade dress claims. That took a while because some of the guys wanted to give [Apple] protection to round corners, the icons, and rectangles, but they were not registered. So, some of the jurors said 'Why are we playing patent office? We're not the patent office. It's not even registered.' And some of the jurors, when you look at the combination of those features, said it looks like an Apple. But we didn't want to shut out Samsung from the market because we thought 'OK, well, if Apple had tried to get a patent for all that stuff and didn't, now they wanted us to be the ones to get it for them. We didn't want to do that."

 

It seems some of the jurors could care less about patents or claims. They just wanted to give Apple everything. Including things they had no right to, nor what Apple even asked for.

 

It seems to me that the jury was not well instructed and/or made their minds up really early in the trial. *shakes head*

 

Source: http://m.cnet.com/news/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/57500358

 

Robert via CM9 Kindle Fire using Forum Runner

[mellimel2212]

I know you his won't be a popular thing to say but the Galaxy line of phones 1 and 2 did look like the iPhone. I'm not talking hardware but software wise. The way the icons looked and that row at the bottom. Standing from a few feet away in the dark even I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Bottom line is Samsung arrogance caused this. As an example the iPhone icon for photos was a Sunflower and gave the reasons why they chose it. Basically they said it was arbitrary and some emotional crap. So what does Samsung use for an icon? I freaking Sunflower.. A icon that could have been anything in the world and they chose the same damn flower. What I think is Samsung thought the business relationship they have with Apple would keep them safe. They gambled and lost big. The dollar amount isn't what's important but the threat on the Android ecosystem is. Now precedent has been set for ridiculous software patents. I know people dog out HTC and Sense variations but it had a different look all together and Apple for the most part has stayed away

 

The iphone just have a grid of icons but on the galaxy phones is 5 wallpapers icons widgets u name it that's how this is ridiculous

 

Sent from my Nexus S 4g rockin jellybean using Tapatalk 2

[bigsnake49]

There is an art to copying other people's work. Samsung was just blatant! As blatant as the mainland Chinese man that called me at 3AM to ask me about a module in a system I had written to which he had no license. At the time we had no customers in China. We still don't know how he got hold of our source code.

[Feech]

Well it seems now that the verdict is public and the jury is talking there seems to be some inconsistencies thru the deliberations. Like the NFL would say.. This one might be coming back

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[Feech]

Another thing. The jury could have came back as Samsung did violate the trade dress but found the patents invalid. I'm sorry a rectangular phone with rounded corners is not a valid patent. Did Samsung violate the look and feel of the iPhone I would say yes, but as far as hardware that's a no

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2