If the goal of a patent system is innovation, and if you're right and the European system is superior, why aren't we all using French phones and reading about the German exploration of Mars ?
Right. I agree that the two discussions are intertwined in this thread. I don't agree that they can be easily separated, when the result of the trial was a direct result of Apple's patents. So, some people would say "the outcome is absurd because Apple should never have had the patents" in the same way as an undergraduate student will recognize that:
i) If Apple has patents, then it can successfully sue other companies that approximate the patent in any of its products.
ii) Apple has patents that were approximated.
iii) Therefore, Apple successfully sued another company that approximates its patents.
Is a valid argument, but the validity of the argument is not what all courts ought to care about (check the references to Europe). Some legal systems care about how sound the argument in question is, not that it is merely valid.
The two are, on my view, intertwined. And some of the posts in this thread appear to say that the legal system in the USA should have assessed the second argument you refer to as well, in order to check for more than the validity of a basic argument.
Patents are there to protect, yes. But I think you and I would disagree with respect to what they exist to protect. And this point has been covered earlier in the thread. Why do you think that Apple's 'being the first to mass market X' (referring to one of your recent posts in this thread) is sufficient to provide a patent with a legitimate basis? I find that very confusing.
If that person engineers a novel way to fold and/or store the wings while not flying, that may be eligible for a patent.
They cannot own the concept of a flying car.
This is what Apple fanatics don't seem to understand.
But folding wings on a flying car were in a cartoon I saw 10 years ago as a kid. Prior art!!
/Samsung fanatic logic
But Steve Jobs came up with the idea of a flying car with wings and patented the rounded windows, so nobody else can make a flying car!
/Apple fanatic logic
No. I was commenting on the fact that people have put any weight in the amount of time it took the jury to reach a verdict. From my experience as a trial lawyer, I put zero weight on the deliberation time.
No one is found innocent. They are found not guilty. There is a big difference. In any event, I don't use the Simpsons to prove my points regarding the legal system - I use my 17+ years of experience as a California litigation attorney.
Actually, all of the instructions were read to them. They are not required to actually physically read the jury instructions, though they are made available to the jury for reference.
Which instructions do you believe they ignored?
That still does not invalidate the result. Not all jury instructions are important to reaching a verdict.
No. I was commenting on the fact that people have put any weight in the amount of time it took the jury to reach a verdict. From my experience as a trial lawyer, I put zero weight on the deliberation time.
No one is found innocent. They are found not guilty. There is a big difference. In any event, I don't use the Simpsons to prove my points regarding the legal system - I use my 17+ years of experience as a California litigation attorney.
Actually, all of the instructions were read to them. They are not required to actually physically read the jury instructions, though they are made available to the jury for reference.
Which instructions do you believe they ignored?
That still does not invalidate the result. Not all jury instructions are important to reaching a verdict.
Also, what most non-lawyers fail to realize is that the jury does not have to consider every single piece of evidence. Facts that may seem important to the public, and even the lawyers, may have no import to the members of the jury.
I have had many cases where I thought a certain piece of evidence was important where I was told, after the trial, that the jury did not think it was important at all. This is why it is preferable to settle!!! There is no such thing as a slam dunk winner or loser once you hand it to 12 people in a box.
I am not saying the verdict was right or wrong. What I am saying is that the behavior of the jury was not improper or all that unusual.
I welcome any other members of the ATOT Legal Bar to disagree with me.
MotionMan
I don't know. Did they "skip" others? Or did they render verdicts for every one?
Why would you expect it to take longer?
I am a trial lawyer and I have found that the amount of time a jury takes on a verdict has no bearing on how "right" or "wrong" it is.
MotionMan
We should make a poll about this.
Ted talk in 2006 showing multi-touch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd-dqUuvLk4&feature=player_detailpage#t=334s
Apple patented in 2007.
If you were a juror, would you invalidate the patent based on prior art?
The impact of any injunctions based on Apple's victory has been effectively reduced to zero:
Injunction hearing set for December 6th
December 6th? In a smartphone industry where new products are introduced every other month, Apple has to wait another 3 months for an injunction hearing.
Like they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.The precedence of such a ruling and the media impact and $$$ mean much more to Apple.
If the SGS3 is "fugly", I think consumers dig fugly.Sales of Samsungs flagship Android-device the Galaxy S III were through the roof the weekend after a California jury found that previous-generation Galaxy S phones and other devices violate Apple patents.
Customers rushed to buy Samsung Galaxy S III this weekend, with some stores reporting stock out, according to analyst Trip Chowdhry with Global Equities Research.
The sales boost added to Samsungs already impressive sales, which topped 50 million Galaxy and other Google Android-based devices last quarter, almost double Apple iPhone sales.
Chowdhry said random channel checks revealed that the Galaxy S III was sold out at a couple of Costco stores, while some Verizon stores reported the phone outsold the iPhone. Similar sales spikes were found at AT&T and Sprint stores.
That strategy only works if the item is in very short supply. The SGS3 is definitely not in short supply, and Samsung does a great job of replenishing stock.Interesting [news about Galaxy S III being sold out] - maybe people are buying them up in hopes to resell them at a higher price?
That strategy only works if the item is in very short supply. The SGS3 is definitely not in short supply, and Samsung does a great job of replenishing stock.
Not that it matters for Samsung or their partners, a sale is a sale, a 2-year agreement is a contract. They don't care if you're an end-user or someone flipping phones, as long as they get their cut.Yep. The morons who are doing that are going to get burned.
Yep. The morons who are doing that are going to get burned.
If the goal of a patent system is innovation, and if you're right and the European system is superior, why aren't we all using French phones and reading about the German exploration of Mars ?
Not that it matters for Samsung or their partners, a sale is a sale, a 2-year agreement is a contract. They don't care if you're an end-user or someone flipping phones, as long as they get their cut.
Are you really using a one-day snapshot of their market cap as an actual measure of loss for Samsung from this verdict?They have to sell a hell of a lot of phones to make up for the $12,000,000,000 in market value they lost so far this week.
Are you really using a one-day snapshot of their market cap as an actual measure of loss for Samsung from this verdict?
Fair enough. When Samsung announces they shipped 60 million smartphones in Q3, how much do you think their market cap will go up?
Was there any other news that came out in the past week about Samsung besides their loss in court?
Which instructions do you believe they ignored?
The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
That isn't the only goal. Patents exist to protect innovation as well. It just so happens that the French and Germans innovated in other ways - or is mobile technology progression the only metric for understanding a successful patent system, on your view?