Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2014 00:28 UTC
Legal

An eight-person jury on Friday handed back a mixed verdict in the Apple v. Samsung patent-infringement case.

The jury found Samsung's gadgets infringed Apple's '647 patent, but not the '959 patent or '414 patent. Results were mixed for the '721 patent, with some Samsung devices, such as the Galaxy Nexus, found to infringe, and others not.

The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for the infringement.

Apple wanted more than $2 billion. The verdict is still being read, and the jury has also ruled that Apple infringed on one of Samsung's patents, awarding Samsung $158000 for it.

So, pocket change both ways. A total waste of money, public resources, the jury members' time, and the court system. Well done you, patent system.

Thread beginning with comment 588125
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 4th May 2014 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


Apple's end game is.....
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank,..." - Steve Jobs.

“I’m going to destroy Android, ... I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs.


I don't know if you've heard, but Steve Jobs is no longer with us. His past motivations no longer apply really, as a new executive is in charge. Their end game is very much in question.


Both Apple and Microsoft are working to use the legal system to make Android and FOSS in general toxic. Microsoft started doing this with the Linux kernel before Android even came on the scene. Microsoft had vowed to use this strategy to "destroy open source and free software" and software freedom in general.


I think this is a rather black and white read of the situation, especially when Microsoft actually facilitates the resolution of Android IP conflict by having a massive licensing strategy. That's in stark contrast to what Apple has been willing to do up to this point so far.

I don't think they are of the same mind when it comes to their approaches to Android. Microsoft is an Android vendor (hello Nokia).


That is their end game. They are in the business of locking people into their proprietary platforms (see steve lobs last memo "Make our platform more sticky") and open source is a huge impediment to that.


Everyone who runs a platform is in the business of locking people into their platform. That's the point of the platform.

Proprietary vs "open" in this sense doesn't really mean much, because you can lock people into a platform built on open source technologies.

Edited 2014-05-04 15:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by TechGeek on Sun 4th May 2014 20:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Nelson:

You've piqued my curiosity. How do you lock someone into an open platform?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 5th May 2014 00:45 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because there's a potential for a proprietary layer to manifest itself elsewhere. For example, platforms built on open technologies which seek to lock you in to an API or file format. You can have the wool pulled over your eyes quite simply.

You deal with this a lot in the cloud. Everybody talks Node but there are always platform specific APIs (even AWS vs Azure with their storage APIs) to contend with. There's a degree of lock in that exists there because of existing code investments.

Why do you think Android exists? Owning a platform, even an open one has its perks. You dictate direction and technology adoption. Google has their Play Services front and center. That's an API lock in.

Their various bylaws for their OEMs, discouraging forks (or rather making it an extremely unpleasant endeavor) are another form of lock in.

Do you think Apple would have as many ObjC devs if their iOS platform didn't dictate it?

The end goal here is to own a platform so that you can move the ball forward with the adoption of your other technologies or products. Open does nothing to change that, except put some of you here at ease.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Comment by Nelson
by Soulbender on Mon 5th May 2014 12:23 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Nelson"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There's a difference between an "open platform" and a platform built on open source technologies.
When you say "open platform" most people think of a platform that is just that, open.
A platform built on open source technologies on the other hand does not need to be open.

Reply Parent Score: 4