Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by Thor

There certainly is some, but your not seriously comparing apple fanboyism to samsung or android fanboys?

The intensity of apple fans proclamations about the superiority of the product and fanatical devotion to the brand is intense compared to other brands. In fact I think we can all agree its very much something apple can patent

I'm referring specifically to this thread. And yes, I'm comparing it in this case. Read some of the posts, you can reverse the content to the other side and call them an Apple fanboy easily.

I think most of the posts here are bang on in terms of patent laws and the repercussions of this ruling.

This is more than just Apple and Samsung.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

What makes you think the trend will stop?

You need only look at other industries, during their eras of rapid innovation, to realize that they will tend to self-regulate. The automotive and aerospace industries, as examples, largely stopped the arms race and formed patent pools. Aerospace in particular was insane for patent litigation in the most innovative years.

[bubbsy]

pretty disappointed in this outcome.

It was getting exciting that apple had a strong competitor which would only help provide customer with very strong smart phone evolution.

Correct me if i'm wrong, this isn't the first time a non-american company that has done well to penetrate the market is pulled down in the US throught the courts, etc. I was speaking to an old timer the other day, and he was mentioning the same thing happened in the automotive space sometime back.

With regards to the case itself, i think one could argue that samsung did take the apple technology and eventually improved upon it (hence, becoming a major player in the space). However, i also believe an argument could be made that there was some level of natural progression/evolution of the techology at play.

I'm just upset at the severe punishment.

I'm an apple user (various ipods, an imac, and an ipod), however, this just pushes me to want to support samsung in recovering and really testing apple's ability to continue their innovation.

Oh, and i remember i got convinced to finally get a mac thru a buddy who's a pure fan boy. The OS is fine and dandy, but geez, it doesn't knock my socks off at all. It has just as many annoying quirks in it as the windows OS i use for work. I think the biggest negative for me about apple isn't related to the products, but the pure fanboy/cult-following they have. They lead you to believe that apple can do no wrong, and when a product may be a > better, all you hear is how much >>>>>>> it is.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by bomber317

This goes both ways as well. The amount of subjective posts by a Samsung fanboy here is a bit much.

It's what makes being a geek so much fun though.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

the price would have dropped more had the legal fees not played a factor in the overall costs. That is harm to the consumer.

Well the price would should also have dropped on devices made by companies that simply copied designs since their R&D budgets would be that much smaller. You do realize that these companies that stray into enemy patent airspace do so having calculated the risk vs ROI right? These companies know full well what patents they are going to violate, since the patent filings are public.

I'm sure Samsung isn't thrilled about a billion dollar judgement, but if it helped them become the #2 handset manufacturer in the world, it was probably worth it. #2 in this market is an absolutely huge position to be in, and the lawsuit was worth obtaining that goal at any cost.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

The Note and Note 10.1 are rectangular with rounded corners. So is the Nexus 7, and most of the Windows Phones not made by Nokia. I'm sure all of these things are next on the Apple target list.

Maybe. There have to be reasons why the Note wouldn't have made the cut in this lawsuit though - I wonder what they were.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

You need only look at other industries, during their eras of rapid innovation, to realize that they will tend to self-regulate. The automotive and aerospace industries, as examples, largely stopped the arms race and formed patent pools. Aerospace in particular was insane for patent litigation in the most innovative years.

Those industries stabilized and self-regulated because it became to costly equally for all involved. Apple has just won one of the biggest cases in history vindicating their tactics and approach to litigation. Until they hurt equally with everyone else, cooperation is not in their best interest. Couple that with the patent system being more broken than it was during that era with no reform to stop the madness on the horizon. PC industry has been around for what? Twenty years? Litigation is still going on at an ever increasing pace. So we'll see another what? 30 years of increasing litigation taxes on our products (Apple getting sued across the board too). That can't be a thrilling prospect for anyone (except lawyers).

Edit: Forgot about the lawyers, they will be thrilled.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Those industries stabilized and self-regulated because it became to costly equally for all involved. Apple has just won one of the biggest cases in history vindicating their tactics and approach to litigation. Until they hurt equally with everyone else, that's cooperation is not in their best interest. Couple that with the patent system being more broken than it was during that era with no reform to stop the madness on the horizon. PC industry has been around for what? Twenty years? Litigation is still going on at an ever increasing pace.

Oh, Apple will get their comeuppance. Google didn't buy Moto for nothing.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Azure

The hell of it is I own Apple products too. Had the iPod Touch for the longest time, and now use a 80GB iPod. There simply is nothing better. The iPhone is also a great product, and I can see why people like it. I even admit that Android had a long way to go before they could get to being on par with the iPhone and iOS. I think 4.0.4 does that, and the S2 and S3 are great phones.

Competition brought us here. Sadly I think Apple is realizing just how dominating Samsung has become so they're trying to slow them down through litigation and not actually coming up with a phone better than the S3.

Apple is such a weird company to me. I own 3 of their products and am actually overall satisfied with them, but I'm to the point where I would love nothing better than to see the company knocked down a peg or two. I was hoping this lawsuit would humble Apple, but instead it's just made them more smug, and their fanboys more annoying. I think I'm to the point where I won't be buying any of their future products, not because of the features, but because of the hate on I have for the company and it's fanboys as a whole.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

These companies know full well what patents they are going to violate, since the patent filings are public.

I'm sure Samsung isn't thrilled about a billion dollar judgement, but if it helped them become the #2 handset manufacturer in the world, it was probably worth it. #2 in this market is an absolutely huge position to be in, and the lawsuit was worth obtaining that goal at any cost.

That's not the case here though, what the patent office is doing right now is presuming that patents are valid instead of checking them and allowing a period for prior art requests before granting. Presumption of validity is currently a huge problem.

Also the patent process itself takes a long while and by the time you've released a product and it's been on the market for awhile, suddenly you find yourself in a lawsuit because a patent's been granted on some features you've put into your device. People presume that the patents are valid when the USPTO office's own numbers show that the patents they granted were wrong almost 80% of the time.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...all-time.shtml

You can also turn the statement you made earlier around.
#1 in this market is an absolutely huge position to be in, and any lawsuit and tactic to keep that position is worth any cost
This is reminiscent of the whole situation between Edison and Tesla back at the turn of the last century.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

This is reminiscent of the whole situation between Edison and Tesla back at the turn of the last century.

That's a good insight.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Apple is such a weird company to me. I own 3 of their products and am actually overall satisfied with them, but I'm to the point where I would love nothing better than to see the company knocked down a peg or two. I was hoping this lawsuit would humble Apple, but instead it's just made them more smug, and their fanboys more annoying. I think I'm to the point where I won't be buying any of their future products, not because of the features, but because of the hate on I have for the company and it's fanboys as a whole.

There are plenty of fanboys on both sides. You only need to browse the iPhone 5 thread or read comments on tech articles to see its pervasive on all sides.

[Azure]

Does it actually matter who the fanboys are? Sure I love Android, but unlike Red, I can actually admit that Apple has made(any iPod device) and still makes some damn good products. The iPhone was a work of art and game changer in 2007, and the iPhone5 will still be a great device that simply works when it comes out, even if I don't believe it will stand up to the S3.

Except the problem isn't with this is better or that is better, which Red again doesn't get(not surprising)....but with HOW and WHAT the jury decided on. We've already pointed out how the foreman used personal experiences as a patent holder to influence the case, which raises a pretty question mark. Why? Because he was given specific instructions on how to look at the case, and he openly stated to the court that he ignored them. Not only that, he outright said he was out to punish Samsung, and not just make it feel like a slap on the wrist, and the instructions(which he didn't read) SPECIFICALLY stated that the damages awarded should be as compensation for infringement resulting in loss of sales, and NOT to just punish Samsung for doing something that the jury found wrong.

Not only that, but the jury went through 700 different questions in 21 hours....which we ALSO pointed out is pretty much impossible to do if you want to make sure you do your job right. They made some pretty blatant mistakes and were told to go back and fix them, which suggests that they winged it and never bothered to pay attention to the details. From there you can question whether or not they actually paid attention to ANY details, or simply did the whole 'pick answer C on the multiple choice exam' and be done with it.

And to make everything worse, they completely discounted the idea of prior art, and STILL ruled that Apple's patents were valid.

You don't have to be a fanboy either way to see that.

[Azure]

Oh, and there is this too.

Apple was awarded damages for Samsung phones that were available on networks and carriers that didn't even CARRY the iPhone. How the frack is THAT supposed to work?

The first bit obviously stands for a multitude of reasons: not everyone who bought a Samsung device was actually open to an iPhone. While I don’t have numbers any numbers, I believe its reasonable to argue that a significant few bought a Galaxy phone because they wanted Android, not iOS. And the second bit of that statement, regarding Apple’s exclusivity deal with AT&T, seems particularly strong. Until January 8th, 2011, the only network you could get an iPhone on in the US was AT&T. Keeping this in mind, it’s difficult for Apple to claim that the devices Samsung sold to users on other networks hurt their own sales, since the role of the network and it’s coverage plays an important while deciding which device to purchase.

Apple was awarded $57 million for the Samsung Prevail (Boost Mobile) and a little over $53 million for the Samsung Mesmerize (US Cellular), with the iPhone still not available on either network. Additionally, the Samsung Transform cost Samsung about a million, though it was made available on Sprint almost a year before the network’s customers could use an iPhone without switching carriers. Apple was also awarded $3.5 million for the Replenish, which was available on Boost and on Sprint for 4-5 months before the iPhone. In total, we’re talking about $115 million in damages with these devices. I’ll try to update this list once I get my hands on with a complete breakdown of damages per device.

Update: The following device-by-device breakdown of damages was provided on Groklaw. I have cancelled out those devices I believe did not compete with iPhone by being available at a network that did not sell the iPhone ever or was released before the iPhone was announced for the network, thereby not competing with it at the time of sales. I kept the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab damages since a breakdown based on networks was not provided. The total provided by Groklaw is also different since he and a few of his readers believe that the courts have it wrong by a few ten thousands (on the lower side).

Here is the device breakdown with damages awarded to Apple for each phone. Phandroid crossed out the phones that were on networks where the iPhone wasn't even available.

Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162
Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117
Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869
Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894
Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820
Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179
Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383
Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668
Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356
Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558
Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146
Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691
Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076
Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0
Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585
Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184
Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974
Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612
Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297
Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256
Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060
Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957
TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540

Which updates the damages.

Total, removing the damages for the above devices……………..$251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages.

The article also mentions that the jury instructions were quite clear.

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.

There was no possible way that Apple should be compensated considering the iPhone wasn't even AVAILABLE to compete against the Samsung phones in question.

What a load of crock.

http://phandroid.com/2012/08/26/sams...or-its-appeal/

[Red]

Originally Posted by Azure

Does it actually matter who the fanboys are? Sure I love Android, but unlike Red, I can actually admit that Apple has made(any iPod device) and still makes some damn good products. The iPhone was a work of art and game changer in 2007, and the iPhone5 will still be a great device that simply works when it comes out, even if I don't believe it will stand up to the S3.

Except the problem isn't with this is better or that is better, which Red again doesn't get(not surprising)....but with HOW and WHAT the jury decided on. We've already pointed out how the foreman used personal experiences as a patent holder to influence the case, which raises a pretty question mark. Why? Because he was given specific instructions on how to look at the case, and he openly stated to the court that he ignored them. Not only that, he outright said he was out to punish Samsung, and not just make it feel like a slap on the wrist, and the instructions(which he didn't read) SPECIFICALLY stated that the damages awarded should be as compensation for infringement resulting in loss of sales, and NOT to just punish Samsung for doing something that the jury found wrong.

Not only that, but the jury went through 700 different questions in 21 hours....which we ALSO pointed out is pretty much impossible to do if you want to make sure you do your job right. They made some pretty blatant mistakes and were told to go back and fix them, which suggests that they winged it and never bothered to pay attention to the details. From there you can question whether or not they actually paid attention to ANY details, or simply did the whole 'pick answer C on the multiple choice exam' and be done with it.

And to make everything worse, they completely discounted the idea of prior art, and STILL ruled that Apple's patents were valid.

You don't have to be a fanboy either way to see that.

I only like Apple. I hate everything else.

And yes, I don't get why the verdict is so "controversial".
I, unlike you, was not in that court room to see all evidence.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red

I only like Apple. I hate everything else.

And yes, I don't get why the verdict is so "controversial".
I, unlike you, was not in that court room to see all evidence.

The evidence is available for anyone to look at. A lot of it has already been posted in this thread.

The jury instructions are available, as is their detailed verdict and numerous other information from how they decided.

You are just ignoring it because it doesn't point out that Samsung is in the wrong like you so badly want them to be.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, and there is this too.

Apple was awarded damages for Samsung phones that were available on networks and carriers that didn't even CARRY the iPhone. How the frack is THAT supposed to work?

The damages should reflect what Samsung did to hurt market demand for the iPhone. What does it matter if the iPhone was not offered on Sprint and the Epic 4G was? A consumer making the decision to go with a new phone can change carriers, and this happened in droves when AT&T was the only carrier for the iPhone. But having a competitor offering a phone with the same functionality and look & feel on a different carrier just allowed the consumer to buy that phone, this hurt the demand.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Azure

The evidence is available for anyone to look at. A lot of it has already been posted in this thread.

The jury instructions are available, as is their detailed verdict and numerous other information from how they decided.

You are just ignoring it because it doesn't point out that Samsung is in the wrong like you so badly want them to be.

I am not nearly as emotionally involved in this as you are. I don't give a crap which company wins or loses. I just don't get the love for Samsung here. I get the anti US hate (Apple is American) so maybe there is some of that. But seriously, what's there to like in Samsung? Huge corporation, faceless, reverse engineers electronics to ;flood the market with cheap copies....what is there to like? Cheap prices? Certainly it can't be some distinct feature, they have none.

I would like competition to push Apple, but what has Samsung innovated? Nothing.

The evidence of copying is right there in the pictures of old and new samsung phones. The jury didn't need weeks of talks to make that judgement.
You can't say it was just a matter of time before someone did what apple did. The original iphone was heavily criticized for not having buttons etc. It was called a flop. Now all phones look like that.
And now we are to believe that it was just a matter of time before Samsung came up with that? Don't think so...

I am out....

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

The damages should reflect what Samsung did to hurt market demand for the iPhone.

Actually according to the scope in the case as defined by the courts for the trial in the jury instructions, it should only be for actually losses.

Apple has to go before the courts to amend this if that's what was being claimed. Lawyers will be very specific in cases like this because changes in market demand are broad are VERY hard to prove and attribute.

[oilyfan]

I am not sure why reduced market demand doesn't lead to direct losses for Apple? How is saying that Apple has be compensated for every copied phone on the AT&T network different than saying that Apple has to be paid for all copied phones? The difference is minor in my opinion because as I said before the consumer could have switched carriers.