Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Awesome!


http://en.paperblog.com/samsung-pays...-coins-294795/

That would be kind of funny if it was true, I guess pennies can be refused for large payments by private companies though. I didn't know that.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

That would be kind of funny if it was true, I guess pennies can be refused for large payments by private companies though. I didn't know that.

Doesn't seem to be the case.
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/pennies.asp

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

That would be kind of funny if it was true, I guess pennies can be refused for large payments by private companies though. I didn't know that.

It would be friggin hilarious if true, it isn't though. The article header is humor, satire.

[oilyfan]

I repeat, there is no law that says that businesses have to accept coins as payment for large debts.

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

[Senator Clay Davis]

It cannot be true. $1billion in nickels is 20 billion nickels. I'm not sure there are even that many nickels in circulation. I would hope its true because as far as FUs go that's about as good as it gets, as it would probably cost Apple several hundred thousand dollars to spend the time counting that out.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I definitely think there's an arrogance to Apple as a company. And I own a couple iPods so I recognize the quality of the products they make. But these lawsuits are really just Apple trying to hurt the competition not on competitve means, but by using the legal system, which while it is their right, it just comes off as bullying more than anything.

The fanboys make it worse of course, not necessarily because they love their product, because thats fine by me, but how they treat those who don't love Apple. If you don't have an iPhone, its not because you prefer something else, its because you're too cheap, or too stupid, or too out of touch. Android fans don't give me that vibe nearly as much, though they are a bit overzealous in their attacks against Apple. I have no preference, I choose my phone based on whether Telus gives it to me for free.

Yeah that's a totally unique approach, no other tech companies, or companies in pretty much every single field, do that

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yeah that's a totally unique approach, no other tech companies, or companies in pretty much every single field, do that

You bolded the point I made, and somehow ignored that I said its their right to do so? Of course they can do it, sue every company in the world for all I care. Just don't be surprised when there is public backlash at such tactics. Don't like it? Thats fine, but you're not going to be able to convince all the people (and its a large and growing number) who are growing to dislike Apple.

[Bobblehead]

Canada =/= United States

In Canada:

Limitation

(2) A payment in coins referred to in subsection (1) is a legal tender for no more than the following amounts for the following denominations of coins:
(a) forty dollars if the denomination is two dollars or greater but does not exceed ten dollars;
(b) twenty-five dollars if the denomination is one dollar;
(c) ten dollars if the denomination is ten cents or greater but less than one dollar;
(d) five dollars if the denomination is five cents; and
(e) twenty-five cents if the denomination is one cent.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...52/page-1.html


Edit: I am aware the Samsung discussion is in the US - just trying to clarify that things are different

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You bolded the point I made, and somehow ignored that I said its their right to do so? Of course they can do it, sue every company in the world for all I care. Just don't be surprised when there is public backlash at such tactics. Don't like it? Thats fine, but you're not going to be able to convince all the people (and its a large and growing number) who are growing to dislike Apple.

The point is that it's mass hypocrisy. People aren't going after Apple because of the tactics, if that was the case they'd be going after a long list of companies.

Hating on Apple has become cool, that's the motivation. The funniest part is that somehow Samsung, a f'in behemoth of a company, has somehow been cast as some poor little mom and pop shop.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Apple is the worlds biggest company by market cap. Of course them going after someone is going to be a whole lot more publicized than a couple small corporations going after each other. This suit potentially affects a lot of people, once again something you probably can't say about some time corps going after each other. So that people choose to focus on this case isn't all that suprising. If you wanna start a thread about other corporate lawsuits against each other, than go for it, but you'll notice the interest level will likely be minimal. Joe's Trucking suing Jack's Trucking just doesn't rate quite like Apple vs. Samsung.

Hating on Apple has as much to do with its fans than anything else. Almost more annoying than Canucks fans....almost. I would also say Samsung is getting sympathy because they are handling this better than Apple from a PR standpoint. That as always is half the battle, winning the PR war.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Apple is the worlds biggest company by market cap. Of course them going after someone is going to be a whole lot more publicized than a couple small corporations going after each other. This suit potentially affects a lot of people, once again something you probably can't say about some time corps going after each other. So that people choose to focus on this case isn't all that suprising. If you wanna start a thread about other corporate lawsuits against each other, than go for it, but you'll notice the interest level will likely be minimal. Joe's Trucking suing Jack's Trucking just doesn't rate quite like Apple vs. Samsung.

Hating on Apple has as much to do with its fans than anything else. Almost more annoying than Canucks fans....almost. I would also say Samsung is getting sympathy because they are handling this better than Apple from a PR standpoint. That as always is half the battle, winning the PR war.

Thank you, this is yet another idiotic fanboy issue in which a handful of people actually grasp the legal issues and the fact that this is pretty much par for the course. That's been my point from the start.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Hating on Apple because of the fanboys however has nothing to do with recognizing this lawsuit is dumb and extremely short sighted. Sure they've won (though I expect from what we've heard from the ######s of the jury that this will be overturned and we'll get a new trial), but what did it gain them? Galaxy S3 sales have spiked since the lawsuit. Its like they gave the competition more sales, while hurting their rep, while also pissing off another major company. And for what? I don't see the net gain anywhere in this suit, especially now that they will be sued every chance the competition gets. The only advantage for them is they're richer and can go on the lititgation train for longer than their competitors. But if in the process the alienate a substantial portion of the public, then is it really worth it?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Hating on Apple has as much to do with its fans than anything else. Almost more annoying than Canucks fans....almost.

Whoa, whoa - you're comparing to CANUCKS FANS?!?! Come on man, not like there are tens of millions of people lighting their own cities on fire.

[chemgear]

^ Exactly.

To be fair, I've tried to reread my posts and see if I'm going off the deep end emotionally. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for higher stock prices over here but the fanboy thing in either direction is kinda silly to me. Can you imagine people cheering or booing for one uranium/gold producer over another?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fotze

The most fascinating thing about all this is how people's particular phone choice plants them firmly on one side or the other on this legal quagmire. A case that has probably paid lawyers 10 of millions of dollars, careers worth of time invested in the details. But we have it all figured out by reading a few articles and just happen to fall on the side of the phone we own. Its neat.

Oh ya Azure has always hated apple forgot about that.
Oh and there's fanin80, we know what side he will be on.
Chemgear, he cheers every time apple stock goes up another 10 bucks, curious
Slava, IIRC a blackberry relic guy.

This is true for the time being. A new phone is on the horizon or maybe closer though, and the odds of it being a blackberry are pretty slim!

I don't have a horse in this race though. I just think that any company being granted patents for things like a grid layout of icons is ridiculous. Like I said earlier though, if I was Apple I would be going after Samsung and anyone else who potentially violates patents. I also think that its quite likely they did violate the patents because they made some components of the phones and were probably privy to proprietary information as a result. My issue isn't with the entire lawsuit or even with it being successful in general. My issue is that the system has allowed patents for things that require no innovation at all, and really shouldn't be patentable in the first place. The courts upholding that kind of stupidity is more what I care about.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Hating on Apple because of the fanboys however has nothing to do with recognizing this lawsuit is dumb and extremely short sighted. Sure they've won (though I expect from what we've heard from the ######s of the jury that this will be overturned and we'll get a new trial), but what did it gain them? Galaxy S3 sales have spiked since the lawsuit. Its like they gave the competition more sales, while hurting their rep, while also pissing off another major company. And for what? I don't see the net gain anywhere in this suit, especially now that they will be sued every chance the competition gets. The only advantage for them is they're richer and can go on the lititgation train for longer than their competitors. But if in the process the alienate a substantial portion of the public, then is it really worth it?

I'll address these one by one.

More Samsung sales: I don't think Apple particularly cares. So long as people aren't choosing Samsung over Apple who's in second really means nothing. I can't imagine that the number of people swayed to Samsung over this lawsuit is anything but negligible.

Hurting their rep: I know all 5 people in this thread care, but the vast majority of the world doesn't even know this case happened nor do they give a damn about the result.

Pissing off another company: Who cares? It's not like they were dating, this is a business issue. Apple already had the target on their back at other companies for a variety of reasons, do you really think this lawsuit is going to provide that motivational spark that shifts the market?

They'll be sued: This is the point that doesn't seem to be sticking, this lawsuit, and others like it, are not unique occurrences. Samsung has sued Apple before, Apple has sued Samsung before. It will happen again, it would have happened regardless of whether or not Apple sued this time.

And the alienating a substantial portion of the public argument is extremely over the top. Like I said, most people do not know about this suit nor do they care about it.

[FanIn80]

I get that I've earned a certain label based on past performances, but I don't think I've gone off the deep end in quite some time now. Certainly not in this thread, and certainly not in any thread in recent memory at least.

Having said that though, of course I deserve to be mocked for some of the things I've said. I'd mock someone like me too. It's embarrassing when I search back in previous threads for something, and wind up reading some of my old posts.

Edit: This was just a quick response to fotze. I'm not contesting what he said, just making a comment. I'm really not looking to derail anything here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

The most fascinating thing about all this is how people's particular phone choice plants them firmly on one side or the other on this legal quagmire. A case that has probably paid lawyers 10 of millions of dollars, careers worth of time invested in the details. But we have it all figured out by reading a few articles and just happen to fall on the side of the phone we own. Its neat.

Oh ya Azure has always hated apple forgot about that.
Oh and there's fanin80, we know what side he will be on.
Chemgear, he cheers every time apple stock goes up another 10 bucks, curious
Slava, IIRC a blackberry relic guy.

Really? Fanin80 has owned Android devices too. Not surprised he agrees with Apple here though.

Slava on the other hand.....

[Azure]

As for the interview the jury foreman gave to Bloomberg, here is the exact transcription.

Jury Foreman: It was about a particular, uh, patent, uh, the 460 patent and whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that pattern, that patent. And so, with that moment I had I realized that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. And that means they're not interchangeable. And that changed everything right there.

Groklaw pointed out that there is no 460 patent in question. Which again begs the question if the foreman knows what the hell he is talking about.

Plus that comment doesn't even make any bloody sense.

[sclitheroe]

This is a great article that I encourage anyone with an interest to read:
http://techpinions.com/pinch-to-zoom...didnt-say/9465

Some very interesting things (including stuff I was wrong about)
- pinch to zoom and related patents wer not asserted as a claim by Apple
- many of the rounded corners/icons claims were rejected:

Apple claimed that Samsung infringed on four design patents. The D’677 patent covers the overall design of the iPhone while D’305 covers the layout of icons. These claims were upheld. But the jury rejected infringement claims based on patent D’889, which covers the iPad, and rejected eight of 13 claims under D’087 and which deals specifically with the rectangles-with-rounded-corners design of the iPhone (see the relevant sections of the jury verdict form below.)