Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Mar 2013 22:20 UTC
Legal Judge Lucy Koh has almost halved the $1 billion in damages the jury awarded to Apple. "Koh found two main errors in the way the jury calculated the damages awarded to Apple. They used Samsung's profits to determine the amount the company owed for infringing some of Apple's utility patents - a practice only appropriate when calculating damages owed when design patents have been infringed. They also erred when calculating the time period Apple should be awarded damages for. Koh explains that Apple was only due damages for product sales that occurred after Cupertino informed Samsung of its belief that the violations were taking place." It's almost as if the bunch of random people in this jury had no clue what they were doing in what is possibly the most complex patent trial in history.
Thread beginning with comment 554063
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Ah, damn.
by atsureki on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah, damn."
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

They can't use iOS. Anyone knows any other good mobile OS to install? Because now it's like Apple and all others, just like MacOS and Windows in the old days.


http://www.windowsphone.com/

Maybe you don't think it's "good", but it's broadly licensed and, most importantly, it's original. With the death of WebOS and Blackberry Classic, Windows Phone is the only major mobile platform that doesn't take significant cues (to put it mildly) from iPhone 2007.

But why should OEMs expect to be able to just slap together some generic parts, install someone else's software, and ship it? Why should software even be broadly licensed? Aren't OEMs more likely to bring real value to the table (or die off in the face of real competition) if they're forced to be creative and to do some actual engineering?

Most handset makers are still accustomed to 2006 when every phone was a carbon copy of six others and software was an afterthought. Do that now, and Apple's lawyers come knocking. I don't consider the old way competition, and it sure as hell wasn't innovation.

Of course there are tangible short-term benefits to a ubiquitous generic platform, but big picture, it leads to nothing but price wars and stagnation. Can anyone say with a straight face that the 1995~2006 Windows monopoly was a good time for innovation in personal computing? The ubiquity of Windows was a disincentive for Microsoft to fix its bugs and reform its designs, and for OEMs to consider alternatives. While Android is currently improving rapidly, its ubiquity is a disincentive for Google to fight the fragmentation problem that means most users will never see any of those improvements, and it effectively killed off Symbian, Bada, Tizen, and WebOS by being the easy alternative to originality. If Android had killed off iPhone too, Google would probably be just as content resting on Android 2.x as its hardware and carrier partners seem to be.

So why should OEMs, or consumers for that matter, feel so comfortable with or entitled to a major broadly-licensed platform, especially one that lifts major elements from another product?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Ah, damn.
by tidux on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 14:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Ah, damn."
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

> But why should OEMs expect to be able to just slap together some generic parts, install someone else's software, and ship it? Why should software even be broadly licensed? Aren't OEMs more likely to bring real value to the table (or die off in the face of real competition) if they're forced to be creative and to do some actual engineering?

Just a reminder, it is shitposting even if you're being ironic.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Ah, damn.
by SeeM on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 19:43 in reply to "RE[5]: Ah, damn."
SeeM Member since:
2011-09-10

But why should OEMs expect to be able to just slap together some generic parts, install someone else's software, and ship it? Why should software even be broadly licensed? Aren't OEMs more likely to bring real value to the table (or die off in the face of real competition) if they're forced to be creative and to do some actual engineering?


As you said about WebOS, Tizen and Bada: they tried and failed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Ah, damn.
by atsureki on Mon 4th Mar 2013 05:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Ah, damn."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

As you said about WebOS, Tizen and Bada: they tried and failed.


That's certainly not what I said about them. Bada and Tizen didn't try and therefore didn't fail; they were scrapped because Samsung has no interest in giving up free and easy Android, and will almost certainly just end up making a deeper fork of it instead (like Amazon), while Tizen had the additional albatross around its neck of its other parent, Intel, having no mobile presence to leverage. No one needed Bada or Tizen or any number of similar projects-that-could-have-been because Android, full stop.

As for WebOS, it was constantly underfunded and lashed to the sinking ship of Palm, which was still trying to turn a profit on Windows Mobile post-iPhone (there may be a whole other argument why you shouldn't bet your company on an outside product in that story alone). WebOS was unfinished and constantly on the verge of doom (hey, the Verge! It's all right here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/5/3062611/palm-webos-hp-inside-story... ). Palm was ultimately betrayed by Verizon, because Droid. And Palm was bought by HP instead of by someone who was serious about having their own mobile platform, again, because Android. Of course it's not Android's fault HP ended up being such a deathtrap (it's Apotheker's), but it's Android's fault no one serious about making phones was in the market for their very own OS to power them.

To bring it back around to the article topic, if Apple and Sun had had the patent power to nuke Android as we know it before it could get entrenched, there might have been room in the market for some actual diversity to grow. The entire industry would be seeing a lot more innovation and a lot fewer lawsuits if tech companies would take actual risks and diversify instead of "competing" with generic hardware running generic software and determining the winner by who can spend the most on marketing, make the prettiest shell, and charge the least for the device, in that order. (So, soooo, soooooooo not conducive to innovation.)

Reply Parent Score: 3