Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[TuxDave]

But these companies weren't always so eager to go to court. Even now, a cultural aversion to litigation common throughout Asia makes large Japanese and Korean companies much more leery of bringing most kinds of civil suits than their Western counterparts.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/internat...ing_AllOut_Patent_War&slreturn=20120804210435

HOHOHOHOOHOHOHO FOUND AN ARTICLE

but it's not the one I've read

Isn't that article pointing out that Asian companies are now heavily involved in patent wars?

Edit I was always wondering if the result of this lawsuit would be interpreted as a "USA vs South Korea" incident vs what I just see as litigation between two companies. I'm sure some people feel that way as somehow this thread has reduced to comparing Asian companies and USA companies in an over-generalizing manner. Seems that some people are taking this too personally from a nationalistic pride point of view.

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_utl.htm

south korea surpassed germany in 2011

south korea was 4th in the number of trilateral invention granted in 2006 behind germany

possibly, south korea now produces more trilateral inventions than germany

china is 5th or 4th

in science, japan and south korea are mediocre. genetic or environmental factors may account for these differences. however, in the U.S., asian scientists are more competent than native-born White Americans, strangely enough.

China produces 11% of the 1% most cited scientific researches (currently 4th), despite the fact most researches are not very good.

 

[Dari]

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.

Yeah, I read that too. It is extremely stupid. So, if Apple buys an LTE chip from another vendor and integrates it into their next iPhone, Samscum will sue them? They are acting more on emotion than logic. Even I know what patent exhaustion is. No wonder the EU is taking them to court.

 

[Dari]

Weird, when someone calls me 'mean names', my first instinct isn't to run to a mod like a little girl.

Also, LOL at Dari's bad posting. Why don't you just say, 'boy i hate facts that show what a stupid jury/judge/case this is, whelp, not going to really bother arguing against facts, LATERSSSSSSSSSS'

I have never contacted a mod for someone insulting me. Never. But it appears your or your ilk do. This topic has been exhausted. We have a new member with curious appetite for only this thread claiming that Asian countries are superior in the way the handle patent disputes. He must think Americans are dumb. Well, I'm not and I know how they operate over there. It is next to impossible to fight and win a patent case in any of those countries if you are not from within the country. This makes cross-border theft much easier. That is how S. Korea developed. They just steal from Japan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh39YWVjJ7Q
All of this is an open secret in the East. Koreans are known to Japanese and Chinese for claiming to be the origin of everything. When confronted, they put on a show of histrionics and cut off their fingers or committ suicide...

 

[ControlD]

Yeah, I read that too. It is extremely stupid. So, if Apple buys an LTE chip from another vendor and integrates it into their next iPhone, Samscum will sue them? They are acting more on emotion than logic. Even I know what patent exhaustion is. No wonder the EU is taking them to court.

I am not willing to go that far. If Samsung holds a valid patent for LTE technology and Apple is infringing on that patent then Samsung is just as much within their right to sue Apple as Apple was to sue for those patents that Samsung infringed upon. If you take your brand loyalty out of the mix then it boils down to that simple fact. It also illustrates the larger point of how this broken system is ruining the entire industry for the people here discussing this issue: the consumer. If these things were seen as FRAND, or if companies were more willing to pursue cross licensing agreements rather than sue we would all benefit. Instead it has become some kind of strange team sport with people rooting for companies that could give a damned about anything but their bottom line.

 

[PlatinumRice]

every patent should be FRAND, since you shouldn't be able to extort 40$ per devices for worthless patents that are obvious.

 

[Mopetar]

I am not willing to go that far. If Samsung holds a valid patent for LTE technology and Apple is infringing on that patent then Samsung is just as much within their right to sue Apple as Apple was to sue for those patents that Samsung infringed upon.

I think that his point is that Apple uses third party LTE radio hardware and that if the company that manufactured it already paid Samsung (and other patent holders) then Apple should be free to use it as the patent royalties have already been paid.

Also, Apple bought a bunch of LTE patents when Nortel went under. I'm assuming that Samsung had existing licenses in place that must be honored, but if they don't or there's some other legally shaky ground, it could cause problems for them.

 

[ControlD]

every patent should be FRAND, since you shouldn't be able to extort 40$ per devices for worthless patents that are obvious.

In the case of LTE I can see that as being a valid point because it is something that could very well be set as a standard for 4G communication. In that case I'm not sure Samsung should be able to sue for other companies adopting it. I don't believe EVERY patent should be FRAND however, and in fact most patents don't fall in line with the definition anyhow. There still needs to be incentive for developing (and shouldering the enormous cost of) new products and technologies. I guess one could maybe extend this to things like multi touch however. That could perhaps be seen as the standard way of interacting with modern capacitive touch screens. I don't think Apple has a patent on capacitive screens so perhaps trying to patent multi touch gestures should not be allowed either (I believe that was part of the case but I could very well be mistaken).

 

[PlatinumRice]

In the case of LTE I can see that as being a valid point because it is something that could very well be set as a standard for 4G communication. In that case I'm not sure Samsung should be able to sue for other companies adopting it. I don't believe EVERY patent should be FRAND however, and in fact most patents don't fall in line with the definition anyhow. There still needs to be incentive for developing (and shouldering the enormous cost of) new products and technologies. I guess one could maybe extend this to things like multi touch however. That could perhaps be seen as the standard way of interacting with modern capacitive touch screens. I don't think Apple has a patent on capacitive screens so perhaps trying to patent multi touch gestures should not be allowed either (I believe that was part of the case but I could very well be mistaken).

you think extorting 40$ per devices for multi-touch or double-tap is fair?

 

[ControlD]

I think that his point is that Apple uses third party LTE radio hardware and that if the company that manufactured it already paid Samsung (and other patent holders) then Apple should be free to use it as the patent royalties have already been paid.

Also, Apple bought a bunch of LTE patents when Nortel went under. I'm assuming that Samsung had existing licenses in place that must be honored, but if they don't or there's some other legally shaky ground, it could cause problems for them.

Did that company already license the technology from Samsung? I am not familiar enough with the case to know, I was just generalizing.

 

[PlatinumRice]

I think that his point is that Apple uses third party LTE radio hardware and that if the company that manufactured it already paid Samsung (and other patent holders) then Apple should be free to use it as the patent royalties have already been paid.

Also, Apple bought a bunch of LTE patents when Nortel went under. I'm assuming that Samsung had existing licenses in place that must be honored, but if they don't or there's some other legally shaky ground, it could cause problems for them.

If what you say is true, why would Samsung sue Apple over that, are they dumb?

 

[ControlD]

you think extorting 40$ per devices for multi-touch or double-tap is fair?

No, that's why I addressed that issue in my post.

 

[PlatinumRice]

Edit I was always wondering if the result of this lawsuit would be interpreted as a "USA vs South Korea" incident vs what I just see as litigation between two companies. I'm sure some people feel that way as somehow this thread has reduced to comparing Asian companies and USA companies in an over-generalizing manner. Seems that some people are taking this too personally from a nationalistic pride point of view.

http://www.goophone.hk/

>implying implying implying

 

[PlatinumRice]

No, that's why I addressed that issue in my post.

sorry, only read the 2 first sentences.

 

[Dari]

Did that company already license the technology from Samsung? I am not familiar enough with the case to know, I was just generalizing.

Assuming it is an American company I would bet they have. But let's assume they have. Samsung says that, no matter what, if Apple has LTE, they will sue.

If what you say is true, why would Samsung sue Apple over that, are they dumb?

Yes, yes they are. They are highly emotional and think that just because someone sues them they can just sue back without thinking. That is why they got no rewards in the recent verdict. My guess it was all due to patent exhaustion. They just felt they had to put on a show or countersue for the sake of countersuing...

 

[PlatinumRice]

I guess not every patent should be FRAND, since companies would want a monopoly over revolutionary technologies.

 

[PlatinumRice]

Assuming it is an American company I would bet they have. But let's assume they have. Samsung says that, no matter what, if Apple has LTE, they will sue.



Yes, yes they are. They are highly emotional and think that just because someone sues them they can just sue back without thinking. That is why they got no rewards in the recent verdict. My guess it was all due to patent exhaustion. They just felt they had to put on a show or countersue for the sake of countersuing...

I mean Samsung lawyers.

 

[PlatinumRice]

Assuming it is an American company I would bet they have. But let's assume they have. Samsung says that, no matter what, if Apple has LTE, they will sue.



Yes, yes they are. They are highly emotional and think that just because someone sues them they can just sue back without thinking. That is why they got no rewards in the recent verdict. My guess it was all due to patent exhaustion. They just felt they had to put on a show or countersue for the sake of countersuing...

I don't think that's the case, because Samsung got awarded damages in South Korea. And obviously if that was true, Samsung wouldn't have to pay Microsoft 15$ per devices for using Android, which is made by Google.

 

[Dari]

I mean Samsung lawyers.

We already know Samsung lawyers are not the brightest. They probably got their degrees from University of Phoenix or some community college. But, no, the word came down from Samsung corporate. They say if Apple integrates LTE they will sue. So, I think Samscum is just wasting their cash but the show must go on, right???

 

[Phynaz]

I think the jury were just idiots, not fanboys. The judge on the other hand, I'm not too sure about.

Ok, again - why did Samsung find the "idiot" jury satisfactory?

 

[Phokus]

Apparently, the Jury Foreman got *EVEN MORE* things wrong:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120904190933195

The foreman said it wasn't the jury's place to decide whether or not a patent in question was valid, but apparently it was actually part of the INSTRUCTIONS that he was supposed to. If a patent is invalid, Samsung couldn't infringe it. This guy is a fucking idiot of epic proportions.

The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed.
What a mess this jury made of things. IF you are ever on a jury, please use your common sense. The function of a jury is to decide facts, not just be little patent fascists. The USPTO issues patents that have the benefit of certain weight, but it is a challengeable assumption that they are valid. The USPTO leaves that to the courts. If in turn the jury leaves it to the USPTO, nobody ever decides whether or not a patent is valid.

And that is exactly what happened with this jury. They failed to fulfill their function.

He goes on to say that he understands prior art, but I think not. When asked, "Do you honestly believe that companies should be allowed to patent basic geometric forms?" he answers, Yes. He repeats the false claim that the prior art didn't count because it was not "interchangeable":

I eagerly await Motionman's legal analysis on this, since he's an 'expert' at the law (once again, appeal to authority falls flat on it's face). Oh lets be honest, he'll defend the court and apple no matter what.

 

[Dari]

I don't think that's the case, because Samsung got awarded damages in South Korea. And obviously if that was true, Samsung wouldn't have to pay Microsoft 15$ per devices for using Android, which is made by Google.

Samsung owns the judiciary and political establishment in S. Korea. S. Korea is a banana republic where Samsung does as it pleases and shits on anyone they want to shit on. Who know, maybe Samsung corporate wrote the judgement and handed it to the judge...

 

[PlatinumRice]

We already know Samsung lawyers are not the brightest. They probably got their degrees from University of Phoenix or some community college. But, no, the word came down from Samsung corporate. They say if Apple integrates LTE they will sue. So, I think Samscum is just wasting their cash but the show must go on, right???

LOL, you're misinformed.

John Quinn and Charles Verhoeven Named “Top 100 Lawyers in CA” by The Daily Journal

http://www.quinnemanuel.com/media/2...op 100 lawyers in ca by the daily journal.pdf

 

[Phokus]

Samsung owns the judiciary and political establishment in S. Korea. S. Korea is a banana republic where Samsung does as it pleases and shits on anyone they want to shit on. Who know, maybe Samsung corporate wrote the judgement and handed it to the judge...

LMAO, and you don't think American corporations own our government, LMAO.

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://betanews.com/2012/09/04/judge-koh-should-vacate-the-apple-samsung-verdict/

Jurisprudence demands that US District Judge Lucy Koh right a terrible miscarriage of justice occurring in her courtroom. The Apple-Samsung patent dispute is nothing but a mock trial. The jury ignored key instructions, failed to complete a crucial checklist, made egregious errors on the final verdict form and reached a verdict after 21 hours of deliberations. The foreman misunderstood one of the concepts fundamental to the case -- prior art -- leading the jury astray. Then there is Judge Koh, who prevented Samsung from presenting key evidence or witnesses that could have made its defense and case against Apple more credible.
Apple claims that Samsung copying iOS device designs and patents causes irreparable harm. But the greater injustice is against the South Korean manufacturer, which is branded a copycat and thief -- all while the victim of terrible misreporting by analysts, bloggers, journalists and other writers. Samsung suffers irreparable harm here, not Apple. Judge Koh let this travesty occur on her watch. She should be ashamed and do what this malfeasance demands: Set aside the verdict. Best scenario: She should deny all claims by both parties, and let them sort it all out on appeal. Acceptable: Order a new trial. She let the case get out of control. Time is long past to reel it in.