Apple Wins $1 Billion Patent Case
- Started
- Last post
- 128 Responses
- 20020
^ SOLD
- monolith0
Great comment on Engadget on the editorial piece about this ruling
"I need to point out that people have spoken with jurors, and some damning facts were revealed.
First, the jury felt from day one that Samsung had harmed Apple, the debate amongst them from that point was how much to punish them. It was a partial, biased jury from the get-go.Second, most of the jurors were unfamiliar with patent law... so they looked up to the jury foreman, who was a tech patent holder with a patent similar to Apple's. Thus, he had a vested interest in upholding Apple's patents, to create a precedent to protect his own patent if it ever came up in a court. He basically led the rest of the jury on it, which is why the jury disregarded the prior art.
Third, the jury all came from near Cupertino, a region which economy depends on Apple's success and in which Steve Jobs is bigger than Jesus.
If ever there was a case where a mistrial should be declared because of a biased jury (excluding the Jim Crow days in the South), this is it. The jury had made their minds before the trial began, the foreman had a clear conflict of interest and had authority on all others, etc...
Everything Samsung's lawyers said fell on deaf ears. The jury was rigged to begin with, they could not win this.Here is a VERBATIM quote from the foreman:
"“When I got in this case and I started looking at these patents I considered: ‘If this was my patent and I was accused, could I defend it?’” Hogan explained. On the night of Aug. 22, after closing arguments, “a light bulb went on in my head,” he said. “I thought, I need to do this for all of them.”"
Can ANYONE deny that this juror had a clear conflict of interest?Here is the link http://www.bloomberg.com/news/20….
And it is a conflict of interest, don't kid yourself. The guy admitted he made his mind by thinking about his patent and not about the case at hand. He wanted to uphold Apple's patents not because of their own merits, but because he wants to protect his own patent.
If he helped declare Apple's patent invalid here because of prior art, he would have created a precedent that could have hurt his own patent. That is a clear and definite conflict of interest. It is the very definition of a conflict of interest.
Here is a definition of conflict of interest: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest"
The primary interest here is serving as an impartial jury and rendering an objective and unbiased ruling. The secondary interest is the protection of this juror's own patent, which he ADMITS he understood to be equivalent to Apple's own patents involved in the case."
- can you link to the endgadget article pleaselowimpakt
- http://www.engadget.…lowimpakt
- monolith0
This is just getting better and better
Juror in Apple-Samsung Suit May Have Owned Patent Used by Apple
http://www.androidpit.com/what-j…- Says the android site2002
- Says CNN/Fortune
http://tech.fortune.…ETM - sorry TLDR2002
- ernexbcn0
Samsung copied a product in 3 months that took Apple more than 5 years to create.
And clearly this isn't over, there will be an appeal and who knows what else.
- ernexbcn0
'When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone’s design is “obvious.”'
- ok_not_ok0
O Snap!
- monolith0
Things are popping up all over the place. This whole verdict will get thrown out almost certainly.
Steve Jobs response about the party for DiamondTouch technology he basically ripped for iPhone:
"The Wired Magazine reception is not only a great party, but also a showcase for new and entertaining technology. This year there was a live demo of Mitsutishi Research Labs "DiamondTouch" technology. Simply put, a multi-user touch pad or screen that let's a group of people control an application. In this case, we were playing wonderful new computer games.Here's more information about the technology from the Mitsubishi web site. The video is worth a 1000 words.
-Steve"
from the Mitsubishi engineer and Steve Jobs:
"Mr. Adam Bogue who is a Mitsubishi engineer said he demoed a piece of hardware called Diamond Touch to Apple engineers in 2003 which allowed users to shrink and expand images by grabbing and dragging their virtual corners. In essence, this is pinch-to-zoom as we know it today."
I guess this is what Apple means when they say they invented it. /s
and of course tap the zoom stuff and sliding screens and UI Apple claims they invented.
And all of this was just skipped because it "bogged the jury down" in giving a win to Apple??
and of course mandatory
The balls to claim you invented something you so blatantly ripped off
- I had been arguing similar things in the last couple pages. They over-reach their claims of invention.ETM
- monolith0
Apple/Samsung Ruling May Not Hold
http://gizmodo.com/5938219/why-t…groklaw legal site and tracking this whole fiasco ruling
http://www.groklaw.net/article.p…Samsung to counter-sue Apple
http://mashable.com/2012/08/27/s…
- monolith0
All that needs to be said about this ruling.
Did anyone really think that California jury would rule anything against Apple?
It was impossible for them to even read all checkpoints on the verdict documents in the short time it took them. That means they already knew they would give it to Apple.
Sad day. Consumers and technology industry was set back seriously today.
- utopian0
Apple (aka) David, has become Microsoft (aka) Goliath.
The beginning of the end?
- prophetone0
innovation to follow, let's hope
- qoob0
"This verdict kicks Google’s Android in the teeth. The result will be higher costs for phone manufacturers who use Google Android and some slowdown in the rapid expansion of Android Juggernaut. I estimate that slowing down Android juggernaut is worth $150 billion to $200 billion to Apple over the next 10 years."
- stoplying0
Apple? More like Appeal.
- qoob0
- qoob0
The jury found that various Samsung products violated Apple patents covering things like the “bounce back” effect when a user scrolls to the end of a list on the iPhone and iPad, and the pinch-to-zoom gesture that users make when they want to magnify an image. Samsung was also found to have infringed Apple patents covering the physical design of the iPhone.
- i_monk0
Samsung didn't copy the iPhone, they fixed it.
- qoob0
- inteliboy0
Set back? How?
For some reason, there's this idea that it is Apple who are holding back innovation... that Apple are evil, the patent system is broken, the judge and jury were biased, innovation is fucked etc. How about, just maybe, Samsung shouldn't have ripped off Apple in the first place? Come up with your own ideas and products, define the industry in your own ways. That is innovation. Not looking at what Apple do. Before the iPhone, NO ONE had their head down swiping a finger at a piece of glass, now everyone everywhere on almost every device interact this way.
Though then I guess you can't expect that much from a company that makes cheap TV's and washing machines.
- yeeeah boy.CanHasQBN
- inteliboy apparently never visited south korea..GeorgesII
- yeah i've been to korea - seoul and busan for the film festival. amazing place.inteliboy
- my korean friend (and i gather everyone else) were SUPER proud of samsung.inteliboy
- THEN HOW CAN YOU SAY THEY MAKE CHEAP TV AND WASHING MACHING, THEY EVEN MAKE CAR /caps unlocked :)GeorgesII
- unlocked :)GeorgesII
- inteliboy0
I love the lounge chair (computer chair?) lawyers that seem to know better... Everyone is an expert at everything on the internet.
If Samsung wasn't using Android, hardly as many fanboy/hater nerds would give a shit. This is PC vs Mac wank all over again.
- no.. this is innovation/creativit... that has been present in tech world for decades vs one greedy ass rip-off companymonolith