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 588156
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 5th May 2014 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't think either of you know how to read. But if you'd like to try again, I replied to him.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Comment by Nelson
by kwan_e on Mon 5th May 2014 11:42 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by Nelson"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I don't think either of you know how to read. But if you'd like to try again, I replied to him.


I was wrong.

But your examples still don't actually prove your point. Yes you can put proprietary stuff on top of it and still lock people in. But that does not make it EQUALLY locked in as you try to imply:

"but that open source technologies (as opposed to proprietary ones) don't really help much in avoiding lock in."

How much is "much", as opposed to proprietary ones? With proprietary ones, lock in is practically 100%.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[13]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 5th May 2014 15:01 in reply to "RE[12]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

"I don't think either of you know how to read. But if you'd like to try again, I replied to him.


I was wrong.

But your examples still don't actually prove your point. Yes you can put proprietary stuff on top of it and still lock people in. But that does not make it EQUALLY locked in as you try to imply:

"but that open source technologies (as opposed to proprietary ones) don't really help much in avoiding lock in."

How much is "much", as opposed to proprietary ones? With proprietary ones, lock in is practically 100%.
"

That isn't always true, especially if the closed source solution includes an open, documented API and/or data freedom (via exporting).

The notion that closed source is "practically 100%" locked in (according to your actual statement, not some mischaracterized implication) isn't true.

Reply Parent Score: 3