Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Aug 2012 23:54 UTC
Legal And just like that, within a matter of days, the jury has reached a verdict in Apple vs. Samsung. The basic gist is simple: Apple's software patents are valid, and many Samsung devices infringe upon them. Apple's iPhone 3G trade dress is valid, and Samsung's Galaxy S line infringes, but other devices did not. Samsung did not infringe Apple's iPad design patent. Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents. Apple is awarded a little over $1 billion in damages. Competition lost today, and developers in the United States should really start to get worried - software patents got validated big time today.
Thread beginning with comment 532107
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Appeal Coming Soon
by Lorin on Sat 25th Aug 2012 02:42 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

No big deal, no lower court can ever overturn a Supreme Court ruling. and SCOTUS has said that software as an abstract cannot be patented.

Not only that the judge unlawfully suppressed evidence that would have destroyed Apple's entire case, no one, not even an Apple fanboy with their limited grasp of logic could ever believe that a company only building a phone for 5 years could hold patents on work other companies have been doing for more than 20 years.

But hey, Apple killed itself in the China market, people here don't accept dirty dealing like the kind Apple has displayed, I see empty Apple stores with most people crowded around the Samsung product displays.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Appeal Coming Soon
by darcysmith on Sat 25th Aug 2012 03:22 in reply to "Appeal Coming Soon"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

No big deal, no lower court can ever overturn a Supreme Court ruling. and SCOTUS has said that software as an abstract cannot be patented.


Sadly they have not said that. If, on the off chance I am wrong, please point out where they said that. I am hoping I am wrong :-)


Not only that the judge unlawfully suppressed evidence that would have destroyed Apple's entire case, no one, not even an Apple fanboy with their limited grasp of logic could ever believe that a company only building a phone for 5 years could hold patents on work other companies have been doing for more than 20 years.


The unlawful suppression part, assuming you are talking about how Samsungs lawyers tried to introduce evidence too late in the trial, that is not unlawful suppression, that is following the rules.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Appeal Coming Soon
by jared_wilkes on Sat 25th Aug 2012 03:46 in reply to "RE: Appeal Coming Soon"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The reality (that several here refuse to admit) is that software patents are legal, well precedented, and here to stay. This case has little significance. It's certainly no Bilski. It's impact does not ripple out to whether or not software patents are legal at all or not... It has great significance for other U.S. Apple v. Samsung battles, but it does little to alter the general landscapes of IP law, software patents, iOS v. Android, or the consumer handing over $100 to $1000 to some business.

The histrionics are quite depressing and delusional.

When Samsung says they will appeal to the highest court in the land or a fanboy holds out for a significant legal precedent being handed down by the Supreme Court, they are deluding themselves. Let's see how for an Appellate appeal gets first. I'd easily wager a fortune this never gets to the Supremes.

This is a seemingly iron-clad jury decision presided over by an extremely cautious, equitable, and no-bullshit judge (not biased despite the propaganda some corners want believed).

Edited 2012-08-25 03:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Appeal Coming Soon
by kristoph on Sat 25th Aug 2012 04:47 in reply to "Appeal Coming Soon"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Wow, dude, read and then think about what you read before you speak. Otherwise you wind up sounding pretty dumb ...

No big deal, no lower court can ever overturn a Supreme Court ruling. and SCOTUS has said that software as an abstract cannot be patented.

No, it didn't. SCOTUS said that abstract ideas that are not otherwise patentable don't become patentable just because their expressed in software. None of the Apple patents in question represent abstract ideas; their all very utilitarian in nature.

Moreover none of the trade dress patents are in any way 'abstract ideas'.

Not only that the judge unlawfully suppressed evidence that would have destroyed Apple's entire case

No it didn't. The only thing the 'suppression of evidence' that you are talking about would have impacted would be the trade dress part of the suit of which Apple only won for the 3GS.

Even if that whole trade dress piece gets tossed it would have only limited impact on either company (what's a few hundred million to these guys).

no one, not even an Apple fanboy with their limited grasp of logic could ever believe that a company only building a phone for 5 years could hold patents on work other companies have been doing for more than 20 years.

Did you even bother to read which patents Apple is asserting here? Because if you did you would understand how totally stupid that statement is.

But hey, Apple killed itself in the China market, people here don't accept dirty dealing like the kind Apple has displayed, I see empty Apple stores with most people crowded around the Samsung product displays.

Apple is 'killing itself' with a 48% y-o-y growth. I am sure Tim Cook cries every time he looks at that number.

]{

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Appeal Coming Soon
by unclefester on Sat 25th Aug 2012 05:12 in reply to "RE: Appeal Coming Soon"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Apple is 'killing itself' with a 48% y-o-y growth. I am sure Tim Cook cries every time he looks at that number.

Apple is getting absolutely slaughtered outside North America. The iPhone market can't exist without massive carrier subsidies. Hence the frivolous lawsuits.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Appeal Coming Soon
by jared_wilkes on Sat 25th Aug 2012 05:18 in reply to "RE: Appeal Coming Soon"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I love how the rhetoric shifts "submission" of evidence to "suppression." When Samsung was denied, it was often because Samsung was pursuing a new theory/narrative several months late, without notice. When they avoided "suppression" of evidence, the fanboys thought it shifted the case to a slam dunk -- when in reality it was weak sauce.

Reply Parent Score: 2