Apple v. Samsung Jury Decision.

[BladeVenom]

Were those ideas patented? Were they litigated? Who won?

MotionMan

Even their name was stolen. Apple was the Beatles' trademark. So there was a lawsuit and settlement, part of which was that Steve Job's Apple wouldn't be involved with music. Needless to say that was an agreement that was broken multiple times, and lead to more lawsuits and settlements.

 

[PlatinumRice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uw_ENS6rAU&t=36m44s

proof that software patents are retarded

 

[cliftonite]

Post a link to the documents and I will look for the references.



The jury answered that question already.

MotionMan

The trial included the galaxy s3?

 

[Kenmitch]

Pinch to zoom

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth

 

[MotionMan]

Even their name was stolen. Apple was the Beatles' trademark. So there was a lawsuit and settlement, part of which was that Steve Job's Apple wouldn't be involved with music. Needless to say that was an agreement that was broken multiple times, and lead to more lawsuits and settlements.

Apple Computers and Apple Records reached an agreement on the use of the Apple name. Samsung and Apple were not able to come to an agreement regarding the stuff Samsung stole from Apple.

What's your point?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

The trial included the galaxy s3?

Was it?

MotionMan

 

[PlatinumRice]

40$ per devices for worthless patents when Microsoft only asked for 15$.

 

[PlatinumRice]

So why did I bold the part about single inputs being interpreted as scroll operations? That's exactly what Samsung went after in front of the jury — they tried to show their accused devices scrolling with two fingers on the screen. Two finger scrolling is beyond the claims of the '915 patent, so any device that implements it likely doesn't infringe. (Unfortunately for Samsung, the lawyers got caught in a bit of deception while trying to show off two-finger scrolling — they were pinching and zooming at the same time. Oops.)

 

[MotionMan]

40$ per devices for worthless patents when Microsoft only asked for 15$.

So Apple should run their business like Microsoft runs its business?

MotionMan

 

[PlatinumRice]

By Brian J. Love
Late last week, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. $1.05 billion in damages for patent infringement, a huge win for Apple in its worldwide patent fight with smartphone manufacturers that, like Samsung, sell devices equipped with Google’s Android operating system.
The award, the third largest in the history of U.S. patent litigation, will likely cruise into first place next month when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh decides what additional amount Apple should receive from Samsung based on the jury’s finding that much of the infringement was “willful.”
But even without that enhancement, which could add another $2 billion to Samsung’s tab, the jury’s $1 billion-plus verdict breaks down to just under $48 for each of the roughly 22 million infringing phones sold by Samsung. To the jury, 50 bucks per phone must have sounded like a reasonable figure, and it may well to you too.
But it’s not — it’s way too high — and here’s why: The average smartphone may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents, not to mention myriad copyrights and other design-related intellectual property. (Companies don’t sift through every patent coming out of Washington before engineering and releasing a product; they create devices and battle claims as necessary.)
If you were to divide the average retail price of a smartphone — about $400 — by those 250,000 potentially applicable patents, you’d find that each one would account for just $0.0016 of the phone’s value. And, in reality, even that’s too much, once you factor in the costs of raw materials, labor, transportation and marketing, which also contribute to a phone’s value.
Yet for infringing just a handful of Apple’s patents, Samsung faces a minimum payment of $48 per phone, a shocking 30,000 times the average per patent value. Put another way, if the owners of all the 250,000 inventions that might be present in Samsung smartphones were awarded damages at the same level as Apple, Samsung would have to charge a ludicrous $2 million per phone just to break even.
But wait, you say, the San Jose jury no doubt included some level of punishment in its award, in order to “send a message.” But, by law, patent damages are meant to compensate not punish, as the jury was expressly instructed.
Or maybe Apple’s patents are worth far more than average intellectual property and are therefore deserving of a higher rate? Perhaps so. But thousands of times more valuable?
For that matter, why shouldn’t we also entertain the possibility that Apple’s patents are actually worth less than the average? It may sound blasphemous to question the value of intellectual property owned by the world’s most valuable company, but consider this: When purchasing a phone are you willing to pay more for rounded corners and stylish icons or for the device’s ability to transmit data to a cell tower? In the smartphone wars, Apple is primarily enforcing patents on the former, Samsung and Motorola on the latter.
Surprisingly, Apple is well aware of arguments about the real worth of each patent per phone: “In a world where a device can be made up of thousands of patented components, patent infringement damages should be proportionate to the value of the component in question rather than the entire product.” That’s a 2008 quote from the Coalition for Patent Fairness, an advocacy group formed by Apple and other tech companies frequently sued for patent infringement.
Indeed, Apple makes this same point in some form or fashion dozens of times a year when playing defense against patent suits filed by other, much smaller patent owners. Over the last five years, no company has been sued more times for infringement than Apple. When the shoe was on the other foot, however, it was content to check its patent law principles at the courtroom door: It actually asked for far more than it received, about $2.5 billion total in “compensatory” damages.
So, Apple, congratulations on your large award. Next time you’re accused of patent infringement by a start-up, an individual inventor or a dreaded “patent troll,” I’m sure you’ll be flattered when the patent owner uses your own damages calculations against you. Actually, on second thought, here’s betting you won’t like it much at all.

 

[MotionMan]

By Brian J. Love
Late last week, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. $1.05 billion in damages for patent infringement, a huge win for Apple in its worldwide patent fight with smartphone manufacturers that, like Samsung, sell devices equipped with Google’s Android operating system.
The award, the third largest in the history of U.S. patent litigation, will likely cruise into first place next month when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh decides what additional amount Apple should receive from Samsung based on the jury’s finding that much of the infringement was “willful.”
But even without that enhancement, which could add another $2 billion to Samsung’s tab, the jury’s $1 billion-plus verdict breaks down to just under $48 for each of the roughly 22 million infringing phones sold by Samsung. To the jury, 50 bucks per phone must have sounded like a reasonable figure, and it may well to you too.
But it’s not — it’s way too high — and here’s why: The average smartphone may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents, not to mention myriad copyrights and other design-related intellectual property. (Companies don’t sift through every patent coming out of Washington before engineering and releasing a product; they create devices and battle claims as necessary.)
If you were to divide the average retail price of a smartphone — about $400 — by those 250,000 potentially applicable patents, you’d find that each one would account for just $0.0016 of the phone’s value. And, in reality, even that’s too much, once you factor in the costs of raw materials, labor, transportation and marketing, which also contribute to a phone’s value.
Yet for infringing just a handful of Apple’s patents, Samsung faces a minimum payment of $48 per phone, a shocking 30,000 times the average per patent value. Put another way, if the owners of all the 250,000 inventions that might be present in Samsung smartphones were awarded damages at the same level as Apple, Samsung would have to charge a ludicrous $2 million per phone just to break even.
But wait, you say, the San Jose jury no doubt included some level of punishment in its award, in order to “send a message.” But, by law, patent damages are meant to compensate not punish, as the jury was expressly instructed.
Or maybe Apple’s patents are worth far more than average intellectual property and are therefore deserving of a higher rate? Perhaps so. But thousands of times more valuable?
For that matter, why shouldn’t we also entertain the possibility that Apple’s patents are actually worth less than the average? It may sound blasphemous to question the value of intellectual property owned by the world’s most valuable company, but consider this: When purchasing a phone are you willing to pay more for rounded corners and stylish icons or for the device’s ability to transmit data to a cell tower? In the smartphone wars, Apple is primarily enforcing patents on the former, Samsung and Motorola on the latter.
Surprisingly, Apple is well aware of arguments about the real worth of each patent per phone: “In a world where a device can be made up of thousands of patented components, patent infringement damages should be proportionate to the value of the component in question rather than the entire product.” That’s a 2008 quote from the Coalition for Patent Fairness, an advocacy group formed by Apple and other tech companies frequently sued for patent infringement.
Indeed, Apple makes this same point in some form or fashion dozens of times a year when playing defense against patent suits filed by other, much smaller patent owners. Over the last five years, no company has been sued more times for infringement than Apple. When the shoe was on the other foot, however, it was content to check its patent law principles at the courtroom door: It actually asked for far more than it received, about $2.5 billion total in “compensatory” damages.
So, Apple, congratulations on your large award. Next time you’re accused of patent infringement by a start-up, an individual inventor or a dreaded “patent troll,” I’m sure you’ll be flattered when the patent owner uses your own damages calculations against you. Actually, on second thought, here’s betting you won’t like it much at all.

I read that. Love the fuzzy math. If only things actually worked that way.

MotionMan

 

[PlatinumRice]

i will quote you when Samsung ends up with the win.

 

[MotionMan]

i will quote you when Samsung ends up with the win.

Nobody wins this, least of all the consumers.

MotionMan

 

[Zaap]

Nobody wins this, least of all the consumers.

Mostly thanks to Apple.

 

[MotionMan]

Mostly thanks to Apple.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

MotionMan

 

[Zaap]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

MotionMan

I dont see a single other large business out there tying up the courts trying to limit consumer choice as much as Apple right now.

And they want to get into TV's as well? Geesh. So what will they do there? Buy up patents for 'button press to change channel' and 'glowing LED indicates power state' and other such overly-broad bullshit, and then start suing everyone else as if they invented the freakin' TV?

Show me another large company actively disrupting competition in a consumer market, abusing patent laws and the courts to ban other products as much as Apple is currently disrupting the smartphone market. Where's everyone else doing the same thing? Let's see it.

 

[MotionMan]

I dont see a single other large business out there tying up the courts trying to limit consumer choice as much as Apple right now.

And they want to get into TV's as well? Geesh. So what will they do there? Buy up patents for 'button press to change channel' and 'glowing LED indicates power state' and other such overly-broad bullshit, and then start suing everyone else as if they invented the freakin' TV?

Show me another large company actively disrupting competition in a consumer market, abusing patent laws and the courts to ban other products as much as Apple is currently disrupting the smartphone market. Where's everyone else doing the same thing? Let's see it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah And we've always been at war with Eastasia. How quickly you forget the past actions of companies like Microsoft and IBM. Maybe not to the same extent, since Apple has surpassed their success, but patent lawsuits have been a long and storied tradition in the tech world.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

MotionMan

 

[Zaap]

Yeah, yeah, yeah And we've always been at war with Eastasia. How quickly you forget the past actions of companies like Microsoft and IBM.

So Apple is justified, because it's just abusing the system and trying to create a monopoly the same way big companies (ironically those most opposed by Apple themselves) did in the past! That's just rich!

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I would say in this case, those that excuse current abuses based on past abuses are dooming consumers to have to repeat them. You're not even attempting to refute the assertion that Apple is the one with practices worse for the consumer, just using the ol' "Well these guys did it tooooo..." excuse.

I'd be the first to say that IBM was in the wrong for trying to monopolize the PC market way back when, and I champion the fact that Compaq and others ended their bullshit by making 'clones' that in reality are what made the desktop computer revolution happen. Had IBM succeeded in blocking all others from making a 'clone' (IE: an improved, cheaper, more consumer-friendly version) of their products, we'd all be worse off today for it, and ironically, especially Apple.

Meanwhile, you'd be the one defending IBM and the stifling of progress, because you can't go against 'the team'- same as with Apple and current smartphone technology. I don't stump for any team. I'm for the consumer, not anyone's silly team, because I am a consumer and choice rules.

 

[MotionMan]

So Apple is justified, because it's just abusing the system and trying to create a monopoly the same way big companies (ironically those most opposed by Apple themselves) did in the past! That's just rich!


I would say in this case, those that excuse current abuses based on past abuses are dooming consumers to have to repeat them. You're not even attempting to refute the assertion that Apple is the one with practices worse for the consumer, just using the ol' "Well these guys did it tooooo..." excuse.

I was just answering your question. You seemed to vilify Apple because they were the only ones doing it "currently". I was simply point out that Apple is not unique in its actions.

If you want to talk about right and wrong, then we should be talking about the system, not the individual companies. Of course, Apple-bashers cannot bring themselves limit themselves to such a discussion.

MotionMan

 

[Zaap]

I was just answering your question. You seemed to vilify Apple because they were the only ones doing it "currently".

Currently is all that matters, because it also determines the future. Past actions of others isn't a valid excuse.

Basically, your answer reaffirms my point. No one's actions right now is worse for the consumer than Apple's. But hey, I guess you sleep better at night knowing that, because it's 'the team'.

 

[MotionMan]

Currently is all that matters, because it also determines the future. Past actions of others isn't a valid excuse.

Basically, your answer reaffirms my point. No one's actions right now is worse for the consumer than Apple's. But hey, I guess you sleep better at night knowing that, because it's 'the team'.

You are purposely misinterpreting my response and are either acting dumb, or are really dumb.

I believe that Samsung's actions, purposely copying another company's patents and look and feel, and profiting from it, is bad for consumers.

Can you even fathom why that is bad for consumers?

MotionMan

 

[Zaap]

You are purposely misinterpreting my response and are either acting dumb, or are really dumb.

Now your're backpedaling.

I believe that Samsung's actions, purposely copying another company's patents and look and feel, and profiting from it, is bad for consumers.

Show me where ANY of Samsung's current phones is a purposeful copy of Apple.

You're doing what your 'team' always does- trying to smokescreen the issues together like no one else can pay attention. Apple is now suing to block the SGS3, the Galaxy Note 10.1, and they've successfully blocked the GNexus for a time. There are many other Samsung models they've sued to block, none of which are copies of Apple. I've posted the list of them here.

You're just parroting Apple's bullshit that says they can own broad ideas like spelling word suggestion, slide to unlock, multi-touch, email address link recognition, unified search, etc. etc. You're excuse is: other businesses were patent abusers in THE PAST so that somehow makes it okay- but you can't point to a single current business abusing the patent system in the same way. So apparently, even though the law may allow it, it's simply NOT true that everyone else lives and thrives on being patent-douchebags like Apple is now blazing the path for.


Your purposefully ignorant type of mindset is a huge part of the problem.

 

[MotionMan]

Now your're backpedaling.


Show me where ANY of Samsung's current phones is a purposeful copy of Apple.

There's that word again.

You're doing what your 'team' always does- trying to smokescreen the issues together like no one else can pay attention. Apple is now suing to block the SGS3, the Galaxy Note 10.1, and they've successfully blocked the GNexus for a time. There are many other Samsung models they've sued to block, none of which are copies of Apple. I've posted the list of them here.

You're just parroting Apple's bullshit that says they can own broad ideas like spelling word suggestion, slide to unlock, multi-touch, email address link recognition, unified search, etc. etc.

Actually, the patent office and the courts say they can.

You're excuse is: other businesses were patent abusers in THE PAST so that somehow makes it okay

I did not say it was OK. I was just pointing out that Apple-haters have seem to have forgotten the past when vilifying the companies of the present.

- but you can't point to a single current business abusing the patent system in the same way.

And again.

So apparently, even though the law may allow it, it's simply NOT true that everyone else lives and thrives on being patent-douchebags like Apple is now blazing the path for.

At least we agree that the law allows it and that Apple is acting within the law. That is more than what can be said for companies like Samsung.

Your purposefully ignorant type of mindset is a huge part of the problem.

Back at you. You admit that Apple is acting legally, yet you want to attack Apple rather than the system that makes there actions absolutely legal.

MotionMan

 

[MrX8503]

i will quote you when Samsung ends up with the win.

Omg, why does this even matter to people. Lol.

Do these corporations send you $100 dollar bills to wipe your ass with?

I certainly don't care who wins as long as I can buy the device I want.

 

[ThermalShark]

Gotta love it, Apple wins, largely using evidence obtained from Samsung's own internal documents, showing willfulness in the process, just wait till Koh adds a multiplier to the settlement. The screams supporting Samsung will be deafening, and Apple will still be making money and selling their stuff as fast as they can make them.

Anyone else pick up on one of the things that lead to a reduced penalty was Apple's constrained supply of iPhones?