Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:38 UTC
Legal Well, that didn't take long. Groklaw notes several interesting inconsistencies and other issues with the jury verdict. "If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? There were 700 questions, remember, and one thing is plain, that the jury didn't take the time to avoid inconsistencies, one of which resulted in the jury casually throwing numbers around, like $2 million dollars for a nonfringement. Come on. This is farce." My favourite inconsistency: a Samsung phone with a keyboard, four buttons, and a large Samsung logo on top infringes the iPhone design patent. And yet, we were told (in the comments, on other sites) that the Samsung f700 was not prior art... Because it had a keyboard. I smell fish.
Order by: Score:
So?
by Nelson on Sat 25th Aug 2012 18:51 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

The damages have not been awarded yet. Samsung will likely win small victories as the Jury is prone to error in a verdict this complex. Plus, the Judge can overrule the Jury in instances where they did not understand the minutia of the law.

The number could be revised slightly downward, and I expect it to..but

Samsung as also found to have willfully infringed which opens the door to up to a tripling of damages.

Reply Score: 2

v Lies, Lies, Lies
by jared_wilkes on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:19 UTC
RE: Lies, Lies, Lies
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "Lies, Lies, Lies"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I was referring to people here in the comments and in other articles (e.g. The Verge).

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Lies, Lies, Lies
by jared_wilkes on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Lies, Lies, Lies"
v RE[2]: Lies, Lies, Lies
by henderson101 on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Lies, Lies, Lies"
RE[3]: Lies, Lies, Lies
by Fergy on Sat 25th Aug 2012 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lies, Lies, Lies"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

No one has to like the verdict. It wouldn't have been my personal decision, I'd have pushed for as little damages as possible and tried to invalidate both sides. But, like all contests, rise above your own views. Be a man, rather than whining about fairness. We all knew someone would win. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be wetting yourself over how right the world now was. Despite the humiliation you must feel after your self righteous bigoted twisting of every news story and all the gashing of teeth, it is a hollow victory for those of us that hated both sides of the coin and would rather have seen neither win. But, we'll be the bigger people and won't rub it in, even though we know you would have not been so kind to us.

You could have saved us all a boring read. You meant to say: "Tough shit"

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Lies, Lies, Lies
by henderson101 on Sun 26th Aug 2012 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lies, Lies, Lies"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Hahaha! If I could vote you up, I would. Not that it's a victory. Thom was just on the wrong side of a bullshit battle. Sadly, standing in the middle wins nothing though.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:44 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

"If it would take a lawyer three days to make sure he understood the terms in the form, how did the jury not need the time to do the same? "

Easy, a lawyer gets paid by the hour.

Reply Score: 14

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 25th Aug 2012 19:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

BURN.

Reply Score: 1

Everybody knows
by Moredhas on Sat 25th Aug 2012 20:35 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

Just answer "A" to every question, and you can be home in time to watch Springer. Even if it's not multiple choice, just write A.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Everybody knows
by sparkyERTW on Mon 27th Aug 2012 14:53 UTC in reply to "Everybody knows"
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

What are you, stupid?! That's far to obvious! Eveybody knows it's B-A-D-D-C-A, B-A-D-D-C-A, B-A-D-D-C-A,...

Amateur ;)

Reply Score: 1

Nationalism ?
by zhengiszen on Sun 26th Aug 2012 00:26 UTC
zhengiszen
Member since:
2012-08-26

Has it occured to anyone that this decision could be motivated by some sort of nationalism ?

Everybody know American image of leading economy and technology has taken some heavy hits this last decade...

Lack of confidence in the rules of Capitalism and "free-trade" ?

Reply Score: 8

RE: Nationalism ?
by saso on Sun 26th Aug 2012 01:42 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Has it occured to anyone that this decision could be motivated by some sort of nationalism?

It has, and most likely is. Apple is constantly in the news lately viewed positively as an innovative American company, while Samsung is this Asian newcomer who is frequently ridiculed as producing knock-off products. The jurors were no doubt aware of this and as a consequence were most likely heavily biased. As evidenced by the latest released comments from the jurors, Samsung was assumed to be guilty practically from day one, thus invalidating one of the core principles of fair justice (impartiality).

Though maybe not practical in this case, it would be very interesting to see if jurors had arrived at the same conclusion had none of them been present at the court hearings themselves and instead worked from court transcripts (the information content is the same as what is said in a court room, save for the drama) and the materials identifying the parties had been anonymized (referring rather to parties "A" and "B" rather than "Apple" and "Samsung").

Edited 2012-08-26 01:43 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Nationalism ?
by kwan_e on Sun 26th Aug 2012 04:17 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Lack of confidence in the rules of Capitalism and "free-trade" ?


East Asia has been the economic and technological powerhouse of most of recorded history and was halted mostly due to external military force. East Asia is now recovering at full speed and the West simply would not be able to get them to play by their rules.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Nationalism ?
by bigdog on Sun 26th Aug 2012 09:28 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
bigdog Member since:
2011-07-06

Yes, I also think that that is the case.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Nationalism ?
by brichpmr on Sun 26th Aug 2012 14:45 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
RE: Nationalism ?
by bitwelder on Sun 26th Aug 2012 19:10 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Has it occured to anyone that this decision could be motivated by some sort of nationalism ?

Absolutely.

By the way, in last The Verge article before the verdict I did notice the following sentence, where Apple attorney McElhinny said:
If you find Samsung infringed, "you will have reaffirmed the American patent system,"

Even the current patent system is a 'product' to be patriotically proud of! Unbelievable.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Nationalism ?
by Bobthearch on Tue 28th Aug 2012 20:42 UTC in reply to "Nationalism ?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Unlikely a significant factor. I know OS News has many international (Non-US) members, so here's a couple of things I'd like to point out:

- It is "common knowledge" (correct or not) that the vast majority of consumer electronics (especially Apple-branded items) are imported from China. Many Americans view China as our economic and political 'enemy'.

- Samsung has been selling consumer products in the States for decades and is generally well-regarded.

Edited 2012-08-28 20:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nationalism ?
by zima on Sat 1st Sep 2012 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Nationalism ?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So, you describe a prevalent feelings & way thinking about the Asians as an 'enemy' (do you really think "average" folks of the kind found in a jury can differentiate between East-Asian ethnicities?) ...and you use it as an argument for "unlikely"?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by broken_symlink
by broken_symlink on Sun 26th Aug 2012 00:33 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought about this some more, and the one good thing that MIGHT come of this, is that maybe Android hardware manufacturers might decide to just use android as is, instead of putting things like Sense, Touchwiz, and Blur (although I guess this last one probably doesn't matter that much anymore) on it. Wouldn't that then shift liability from hardware manufacturers to Google?

Google should offer indemnification incentives for companies that use AOSP as is, and in return these companies should put their patents in a pool. That would solve Android fragmentation problems, and could create a single united front against MS, Apple, and anyone else who tries to sue over Android.

The only possible problem would be if hardware manufacturers tried to sue each other over Android, such as HTC suing Samsung, but maybe Google could mediate in those cases?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by broken_symlink
by some1 on Sun 26th Aug 2012 04:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by broken_symlink"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

Nexus S, which is pure Android, was found to infringe just like any of Samsung's own phones, so I doubt that will work.

Reply Score: 2

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow! Something about that doesn't make sense to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by broken_symlink
by bouhko on Mon 27th Aug 2012 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by broken_symlink"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

It's because of the Pinch-to-Zoom and Bounce scrolling stupid patents (that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place because those are neither new nor innovative).

As much as I can understand the ruling from the trade dress perspective (for some devices, Samsung really tried to look like an iPhone), just taking an interesting software interaction idea from your concurrent shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, I hope Google has some patent on "searching for stuff" and "notifications on a smartphone".

Reply Score: 2

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

Doesn't Samsung have like no say in the UI of the Nexus S though? I mean doesn't Samsung just build the hardware for that?

Reply Score: 2

v What were the Jurors thinking?
by Tony Swash on Sun 26th Aug 2012 09:20 UTC
RE: What were the Jurors thinking?
by porcel on Sun 26th Aug 2012 14:39 UTC in reply to "What were the Jurors thinking?"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

What exactly does your post add to the conversation?

Are the jurors going to come out and admit openly that they are inherently biased against Apple, because one is an American company and the other a Korean one?

Are they going to admit that they have no understanding of technology?

Trade dress patents, really? Is that what the technology world has come down to?

Only thing this has proven is that Apple and Microsoft are not able to compete on a leveled playing field.

Too bad Microsoft´s ecosystem of applications is so entrenched because of all their early illegal behavior or the world of computing would look so much different: We could have Be, we could have a real qnx-based desktop, we could have Linux making even more serious inroads on the desktop.

I am done with this pathetic debate and the iClueless fashionistas.

Edited 2012-08-26 14:43 UTC

Reply Score: 7

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Oh give it the hell up already! Here we are, in the middle of a conversation about Apple VS Samsung, and what do we get? A butthurt FOSS zealot screaming about "Teh ebil M$"!

Dude where have you been for the past half a fricking decade? MSFT is the new IBM, with a market that is flatline and gonna stay that way, hence why we have Ballmer throwing the Hail Mary with Win 8 "LOL I Iz A Cellphone LOL" play, yet here you are STILL whining like its 1997! Give it up Sparky, you didn't have a product the people wanted,and on the desktop you STILL don't, so they went elsewhere simple as that. I'll even hand you a link from a Red hat dev that says the Linux desktop is "suckage" and "in its death throes" for you to ponder..

https://plus.google.com/109922199462633401279/posts/HgdeFDfRzNe

Now back to the ACTUAL topic...welcome to the future, the land of the lawyers. This is what happens when you have an out of control patent office that will let you patent anything! Everyone in IT knows we stand on the shoulders of giants only now we have tollbooths everywhere. I mean screens with bezels? Really? Wanna know why Asia is gonna kick the USA's behind this is it in a nutshell, they can build on previous ideas without tapdancing through a legal minefield to do so.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Too bad Microsoft´s ecosystem of applications is so entrenched because of all their early illegal behavior or the world of computing would look so much different: We could have Be, we could have a real qnx-based desktop, we could have Linux making even more serious inroads on the desktop.

Don't kid yourself. Sure, MS did play dirty (who wouldn't, in such position?), but they were also simply the most sensible choice out of all not-so-great ones ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?522221 ); and network effects mean that we naturally gravitated to one dominant market player.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What were the Jurors thinking?
by JAlexoid on Sun 26th Aug 2012 17:51 UTC in reply to "What were the Jurors thinking?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Even though I agree on the $1bn "fine" and think that Samsung management should be smacked with a $1bn sack of money; I can't dismiss all the subtle hints that the utility patent part of the was largely skipped over.

Fair is fair, and it seems that in the complex case the jury went for the easy part(designs and trade dress) and skipped the technical one(utility patents).

Also, technically the jury compared the effect of the utility patents, not what should be compared - how they do it.(Utility patents don't cover what, it's the how)

PS: Where is your disgust that they did not find, a currently banned, GTab 10.1 to infringe on iPad design?

Reply Score: 2

The obvious
by Tony Swash on Sun 26th Aug 2012 09:22 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone’s design is “obvious.”

Dan Frakes

Reply Score: 0

RE: The obvious
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Aug 2012 09:43 UTC in reply to "The obvious"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

None of my Palm or Windows Mobile devices had more than a few buttons.

Next.

Reply Score: 5

Only Value for Apple is PR
by Lorin on Sun 26th Aug 2012 11:34 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

Based on prior Supreme Court rulings, this will be struck down and Samsung will with certainty go all the way and nothing will ever be paid out to Apple, most likely it will be Apple paying out to all of the companies that were inventing these things long before Apple decided to "borrow".

Reply Score: 3

RE: Only Value for Apple is PR
by viton on Sun 26th Aug 2012 15:48 UTC in reply to "Only Value for Apple is PR"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Apple "PR" turned out against them.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G

So this stupid trial is a huge Samsung Ad-campaign sponsored by Samsung =)

Edited 2012-08-26 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

judge and jury problems
by TechGeek on Sun 26th Aug 2012 19:37 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

This case is full of fail. First, the judge tells Samsung that if they don't like something Apple is doing (dont remember the specific thing) that they are free to file a motion. The very next day, Samsung presents the motion and the judge refuses it. Nice.

Then we have the foreman of the jury admit that they didnt read the instructions prior to coming to a verdict. Finally we have the $1Billion award. The jury says that this was to punish Samsung. Problem is that, as listed is the ignored instructions, the award can not be punitive. It is only meant to make Apple whole. And I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that Apple would have sold more iPads if not for Samsung. I think the people who were going to buy an iPad did, everyone else was never going to.

I expect the verdict to be overturned or appealed. There is clearly enough reason to do so.

Reply Score: 7

RE: judge and jury problems
by bitwelder on Mon 27th Aug 2012 07:15 UTC in reply to "judge and jury problems"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

By the way:
- do the jurors only need to fill their 'questionnaire' Yes / No / Fine amount or are they required also to later release an official motivation for their verdict?

- If the jurors have effectively ignored the instructions, are they potentially liable for something like 'contempt of court' ?

Reply Score: 2

Groklaw isn't exactly unbiased or objective.
by MollyC on Mon 27th Aug 2012 00:38 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

It should be noted that Groklaw, Thom, other tech "savvy" geeks, are not unbiased and had a rooting objective in this matter. The jurors (if they were properly screened) did not have a rooting interest.

Therefore the jurors' opinion would be based on objective analysis while the tech geek peanut gallery opinions are generally not.

Personally, I don't trust jury decisions in technical matters and would prefer a panel of experts (though it would be harder to find a pool of objective experts than a pool of objective laypersons) or a group of philosopher kings. ;) But trashing the jurors for "inconsistencies" when they are objective and the critics are not seems wrong.

Reply Score: 0

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

While groklaw's authors certainly do have opinions, they at least provide unedited documentation of the entire trial, both for Apple and Samsung. That makes them a excellent source of information. In addition, the foreman seems to have been anything but unbiased. He ruled for Apple the way he would want the court to rule in his favor over his patent. He also had a lot of influence on the outcome according to other jurors. Now samsung bears some blame for not dismissing him. But they also have a right to be judged by a unbiased group, no matter how many jurors they would have to dismiss.

Reply Score: 6

TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

You believe that with all of the evidence presented in the last few days by Groklaw and other news sources which interviewed the jurors that they were not in the least bit biased? You believe they are less so than 'experts' in the field? You believe that they and they alone have no biases and therefore you defer to their wisdom?

Seriously?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by OSbunny
by OSbunny on Mon 27th Aug 2012 10:32 UTC
OSbunny
Member since:
2009-05-23

The way I look at this is that it is sort of like protectionism. If America wants to employ protectionism to prevent competition from foreign companies then it has that right. The good thing is that the world has now changed and there are other large markets out there so competition won't just die. For example the Chinese market is set to become the world's largest mobile phone market. Protectionism of this sort just means that the US falls behind. That is all.

Reply Score: 3

The Koreans should retaliate
by ozonehole on Tue 28th Aug 2012 05:01 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

This is clearly American protectionism, and the Koreans should retaliate. Apple should never be allowed to sell a single iAnything in Korea again.

Reply Score: 3