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 532244
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kyousefi
Member since:
2012-07-28

I was born in 1975 and used most of those pre apple devices first hand to solve my problems, including apple failed products themselves.iPad and iPhone are pioneering devices and totally different from what used to be before them in terms of usability, technology and UI concepts, to the point that they can be considered a new category of products. If they were not, we would all using palm treos or Windows tablets with styluses in millions which is not the case. In the business world, it doesn't matter who got the idea first. It's important who implements something successfully it in the market first. The massive integrated ecosystem of itunes+iPhone+iOS+Mac OS, etc created two new market categories that didn't exist before. The sales figures are my proof, the popularity is my proof, the iPhone being a cultural icon is my proof. Let's not play with words. Apple created two new categories and others joined it later which is fine, but samsung copied the trade dress. And that's why they lost in court. It's business. You won't like that I publish a site with a white logo on gray background and name it mOSnews, with a very tiny letter M and publish news similar to yours. Anybody who owns an ice cream cart understand this it's an unfair business practice.

Reply Parent Score: -1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Being born in 1975 does not give you a right to move goalposts.

Edited 2012-08-25 15:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

kyousefi Member since:
2012-07-28

Does my rationale has any shortcomings if you ignore the fact that I worked with those machines first hand?

Will it reduce the iPhone sales volume, or popularity? Does it make palm pilot treo the most successful 360 degree solution for mobile computing? What goal posts I've changed ?

Reply Parent Score: 0

galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

In the business world, it doesn't matter who got the idea first. It's important who implements something successfully it in the market first


I completely agree with that statement. Do you not understand that it completely invalidates everything else your wrote...

Apple DID achieve market success first with this "class" of product (ie. multi-touch tablet/smart phone). It certainly matters because their headstart paid off in spades, their sales show it... That first to market advantage paid off enormously for them.

Seriously, I respect their ability to make good products. I have some of them. Good for Apple! I'm glad they made a fortune - they deserve it.

Now why the f*ck should that preclude other companies from making similar products and trying to compete with them??? Apple already got the benefits of their advantage - and then some. How does giving them an unfettered monopoly on an entire category of product benefit anyone other than Apple?

Reply Parent Score: 2

kyousefi Member since:
2012-07-28

They are not claiming on the entire category. The proof is they don't have and didn't have the same problem with windows phone, touch screen black berries and palm's web OS. They have the problem with the samsung copying their trade dress. Trade dress has nothing to do with technology or freedom of innovation. Trade dress is Casio makes some watch similar to Rolex submariner. In any other trade the winner in court is obvious. OS news is muddying the water by framing this legal battle as a battle of copying technology. It's a war on copying the looks. And looks are important, profitable, and can be stolen.

Reply Parent Score: 0