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 588161
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 5th May 2014 15:01 UTC 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

RE[14]: Comment by Nelson
by kwan_e on Tue 6th May 2014 02:13 in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by Nelson"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

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.


I didn't mischaracterize your statement because you used vague notions that mean nothing and thus you don't have to prove. Your "not much" still isn't quantified and is clear you are now using that to weasel out of having to make an actual rational comparison.

It's very simple.

Let P1 be a proprietary platform
Let P2 be an open platform
Let A be an open API and/or data freedom

The relevant comparison is P1 + A ? P2 + A, with '?' being some kind of relational operator.

The value of A on both sides is equal because neither P1 or P2 is incompatible with the notion of A. For you to be able to claim that there's "not much" difference, P1 and P2 must therefore be the roughly the same as each other. This is simply not the case, by definition. P1, being proprietary, is thus more locked in than P2.

So P1 + A > P2 + A in terms of lock in.

Reply Parent Score: 1