Heh, that's interesting news. I was on a jury once and I swear sometimes I wish I had a professor to explain the law and instructions to me. There was very little to no opportunity for the juror to ask for clarification on "what does this line of the law mean". Mostly because it seems that "interpretation of the law" is up to what the lawyers try to paint them as.
Just reading the instructions for prior art (in the link) is enough for my eyes to gloss over. Without help, I'd also have problems trying to figure out what the legal test for prior art would be.
In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type.
I don't get all of the flag waiving and team mentality in this thread. Even as a person that owns and enjoys several Apple products I think a lot of Apple's tactics recently leave a bad taste in my mouth. That being said, Apple is a corporation working in their best interest. They are also working withing the framework of the laws and patent system in place in THIS country. I think what people are missing in their emotional responses to the verdict is that what this case illustrates is the need to move the patent system into the 21st century. If you think Apple is the only one that will be using the courts to further their corporate agenda then I would say pull up a chair and wait for what is coming in future months. A precedent has been set and it will now be exploited without mercy. In the end the consumer will pay the price despite what "side" they have taken.
Asian companies don't use patents to gain monopoly, American companies do.
Asian companies don't use patents to gain monopoly, American companies do.
I still don't understand why Samsung didn't have these idiot Apple Fanboy jurors removed. Can somebody please explain that to me? Why did Samsung find the jury satisfactory?
I still don't understand why Samsung didn't have these idiot Apple Fanboy jurors removed. Can somebody please explain that to me? Why did Samsung find the jury satisfactory?
Japan's former deficiency in semiconductor technology
led MITI to organize an effort to reduce the gap:
“Japan began attempting to promote the semiconductor
industry through subsidized and government-encouraged
collaborative research, especially the famous very
large scale integration program.”15 This project arranged
for disparate firms to work together for maximum efficiency
by not duplicating each others' efforts, provided
heavy protection from competition from outside firms,
and took advantage of “the openness of the U.S. semiconductor
industry to foreign investment” to introduce
exogenous sources of technology.16 As a result, Japan
reached a level equivalent to or beyond that of the U.S.
By 1987, the U.S. Department of Defense found that
Japan held the lead in twelve of 24 major categories of
semiconductor technology, with a 50% share of the
world market, up from 30% a decade earlier.17
Since then, however, the Japanese edge in semiconductors
has declined, raising questions concerning the
appropriateness of continued MITI involvement. This
involvement has accordingly fallen off: “Japanese semiconductor
makers [are] able to achieve, even at best, a
20% profit rate on their sales,” while the industry
standard is around 35%.18 Furthermore, “Japan's R&D
projects display a decline in the government's interventionist
capabilities as the country's computer and semiconductor
industry dramatically moves from industry
follower to technological pioneer.”19 Only time may tell if
this step will lead to a rebound in the semiconductor
industry.
Patent Mischief
By gathering multiple groups in the semiconductor
field and encouraging cooperation, MITI temporarily
hastened progress by reducing the inefficiencies inherent
in redundant research. Yet in the long run, this strategy
proved to reduce innovation. Because each firm's breakthroughs
were instantly accessible to its competitors, the
incentives to create additional such breakthroughs
diminished, harming the enterprise in the long term.
The problem of protecting innovation is not new, and
has long been resolved via patents and other intellectual
property protections that give the inventor of a new scientific
process exclusive rights to use or license it for a
fixed period of time. There is an inherent tradeoff in any
patent system between the short-term gains due to wide
availability of technology and the long-term gains due
to innovation that accrue from strong intellectual property
rights; the longer the time period, the more longterm
innovation, but also the more short-term inefficiency.
To a much greater extent than the U.S. and most
other industrialized countries, Japan has systematically
favored the former objective, preferring to avoid the
short-term inefficiencies of each firm reinventing the
wheel. The Japan Patent Office openly cautions against
people or firms “needlessly spend[ing] resources in order
to invent the same thing” as a product already developed.
20 Japanese patents are cited more on average than
U.S. patents, suggesting that the weaker patents were
unable to make it through the system in the first place.21
While the Japanese government theoretically needs
permission from a firm to distribute its technology to
avoid violating its private property rights, in practice
MITI is sufficiently powerful, and the government-industry
connections are so close, that the firm would be hardpressed
to avoid giving at least conditional approval:22
“ndustries are valued for the knowledge they generate
as much as the products they produce.”23 MITI wants to
take full advantage of that knowledge, although the fact
that Japan no longer needs to play catch-up has led to a
partial reassessment of this strategy.
I think the jury were just idiots, not fanboys. The judge on the other hand, I'm not too sure about.
Couldn't find what I was looking for though
Read it.
Read it.
If someone invents something in the West, there are few problems in the Eastern line of thinking to create a replica product much like Samsung has. This is perhaps why there are so many knock-off goods are created in the East to be sold in the West and other parts of the world. And because of our individualistic culture here in the West and the individualistic patent laws we apply, law enforcement has tried endlessly to crack down on these types of operations. Essentially, in the East, what’s mine is more so yours, and in the West, what’s mine more so is not yours.
Wasn't what I was looking for, but Google blows.
The dispute between Apple and Samsung is less over how the devices work and more over their look and feel. At issue are features like the ability to zoom into an image with a double finger tap, pinching gestures, and the visual “rubber band” effect when you scroll to the end of a page. The case even extends to whether the device and its on-screen icons are allowed to have rounded corners. To be sure, some of these things were terrific improvements over what existed before the iPhone’s arrival, but to award a monopoly right to finger gestures and rounded rectangles is to stretch the definition of “novel” and “non-obvious” to breaking-point.
Couldn't find what I was looking for, but the myth that South Korea is only copying is completely false. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been granted more U.S. patent than Germany.
I am having a hard time understanding your point. First it is evil American companies abusing the patent system and now Samsung has more US patents than Germany (the country?). Are you saying Samsung is not willing to pursue infringement of these patents? My understanding is that Samsung has more mobile space patents than Apple does considering they actually make much of the technology inside a great number of phones including the iPhone. Samsung has already said they will sue if Apple releases a LTE phone.
that's what i read on an american article some years ago. right now, i am trying to find that article.