Samsung Ordered To Pay Apple $290M In Patent Case 219
itwbennett writes "After 3 days of deliberations, a jury has ordered Samsung to pay $290 million to Apple for infringement of several of its patents in multiple Samsung smartphones and tablets. The verdict is the second victory for Apple in its multiyear patent fight against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Last year a jury in the same San Jose courtroom ruled Samsung should pay just over $1 billion for infringement of five Apple patents in multiple Samsung phones and tablets. But afterward, Judge Lucy Koh ordered a new trial to reconsider $450 million of the damages after finding the previous jury had applied an 'impermissible legal theory' to its calculations. Thursday's verdict is the result of that new trial."
Groklaw where art thou? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever happened to Groklaw!!!
Re:Groklaw where art thou? (Score:5, Informative)
From wikipedia:
On August 20 2013 an article appeared on Groklaw saying it was to be closed down due to government monitoring of the internet, particularly e-mail.[6] Jones wrote "What I do know is it's not possible to be fully human if you are being surveilled 24/7... I hope that makes it clear why I can't continue. There is now no shield from forced exposure."
The NSA scared them out of business.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The NSA scared them (groklaw) out of business.
Mostly as a reaction to the Lavabit case. Which had some justification as a protest against what the NSA is up to, but not justified if you are afraid of email surveillance.
Lavabit made the mistake of storing emails in an encrypted form which Lavabit was capable of decrypting. That made legal demands to access the decrypted data possible. To be legally safe, as a service provider you must provide end-to-end decryption where it is impossible for you to read the messages. And the NSA can't break S/MIME wit
Re:Groklaw where art thou? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're being monitored by the NSA, and if you're a journalist, that excludes a huge amount of potential sources who might talk with you. Certain sources would shy away from any contact which might be monitored by the NSA. (this is true whether any of Snowden's revelations were true or not - only if the revelations were credible).
Great example! (Score:3)
What an example they showed. Simply give up!
Re:Groklaw where art thou? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? WTF did Groklaw do that would warrant such a thing?
That is a terrible way of looking at it...
Re:Groklaw where art thou? (Score:5, Informative)
I remember asking a similar question, and I forget the answer. I think it was something like "lawyers could talk to Jones and about their cases confidentially."
There was also something about the original point of the blog, exposing SCO bullshit, was finished.
Re:Groklaw where art thou? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you are not seeing the big picture. GL more than once gathered (and published) evidence of wrongdoing of well connected people. The entire point of mass surveilance is punishing such kind of behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
While at it: Or used it as a cover while in fact moving to work for them...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tells you how a tight a grip the US government has on its people. Pretty convenient actually, don't like an activist website? Send them a secret order to make them snoop on the website's participants, website shuts down on its own accord without any messy arguments over one amendment or the other.
That's a lot of nickels. (Score:3, Funny)
Hope Apple's ready for all those coins./ [mangafox.me]
you KNOW what is going to happen here (Score:2)
Samsung will buy $290 million dollars worth of iPhones, slap a Samsung sticker on them, and offer them for $1.98 as unlocked phones. give the receipt to the judge, and say "there, got it."
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes, an edit button... so you can say something funny, get it modded +5, then edit your comment to be a GNAA troll linking to goatse.
Use the goddamned preview button, that's for, you know, EDITING.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you noticed these summaries never include what the patents are anymore? Samsung didn't even claim they didn't intrude on the patents, just that they made what their market research said was a good idea.
All you have to do is comprehensively patent every element of your design, and if any of it is a good idea, you'll get to sue anyone in the same field.
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you noticed these summaries never include what the patents are anymore? Samsung didn't even claim they didn't intrude on the patents, just that they made what their market research said was a good idea.
All you have to do is comprehensively patent every element of your design, and if any of it is a good idea, you'll get to sue anyone in the same field.
It's all a crap-shoot anyway. Odds are Apple holds a patent for something they don't use, but if you develop it independently and roll-out to market, you get shot down because they see you as encrouching on their turf*.
Next up, in a month or two: The reversal.
*everything, everywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Apple (or someone) files a patent application it is on the public record*, if they don't, they can't make a claim. So . . . how is Apple meant to make Samsung do its due diligence?
*37 C.F.R. 1.11
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds messy, I'll get my overhauls.
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you try your case in certain places, you'll win. With Apple, apparently even if you lose, you win [cbsnews.com].
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:4, Funny)
And if you try your case in certain places, you'll win. With Apple, apparently even if you lose, you win [cbsnews.com].
Apple's legal research team are working on splitting the Litigon, a particle with quantum spin which is capable of detecting where and when someone has violated their Intellectual Property.
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:4, Funny)
Apple's legal research team are working on splitting the Litigon, a particle with quantum spin which is capable of detecting where and when someone has violated their Intellectual Property.
We have been studying matter vs Litigon collisions for quite some time at Apple's Hardly Imaginary Particle Smashing Toroidal Experiment Research fascillity (aka: The HIPSTER Collier). [cnn.com] Through friction with other manufacturers Apple's outsourced supply chain provides a never ending stream of Litigons -- Sometimes even through interaction with itself (as TFA demonstrates).
When Litigons collide with normal matter in reality they produce a veritable golden shower of Bogons. This led to the discovery of the Bogosity Field; Now known publicly as the "Apple reality distortion field" in guerrilla marketing campaigns. Apple holds the exclusive patent for the Bogosity Field retroactively and in perpetuity through creating new devices with which to fill the blank in: "Bogons on a ___." [computer, phone, PDA / tablet, set-top box, watch, glasses, Maxwell Smart's shoe, etc.]
Due to the nature of quantum uncertainty it is not observation of the Litigon itself which detects the location and time of infringement, but rather via inference after witnessing the speed and direction of the technology segment's charged Progress particle (The Progress-ion), after collision with Apple's Bogons.
Re: (Score:2)
So Apple is a branch of the US government? Here I thought it was one of those private corporations that the free marketers claim are the solution to the inherent evil of government. Or did government troops somehow force Steve Jobs at gunpoint to start this litigation and then similarly forced Tim Cook to continue it?
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That point is reached when the patent expires...
Re: (Score:2)
That fails both the "novel" and "obvious" tests.
Re: (Score:3)
Which doesn't preclude him from acquiring a granted patent...
Re: Have you noticed? (Score:2)
Which would be be invalidated if it was ever leveraged.
Far too may on here seem to lack basic knowledge about trade dress. Samsung doesn't even deny that they heavily copied Apple at this point. Their executives state they were in a design 'panic' due to the iPhone.
This was to address lost profits for Apple that Samsung took as a result of Samsung copying trade dress and infringing on various patents. It's also the reason a CPA was noted as a key factor in the amount awarded.
Re: (Score:3)
Which would be be invalidated if it was ever leveraged.
You have a thoroughly unjustified faith in the "justice" system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This was only a trial on DAMAGES. Therefore, it was irrelevant whether Samsung infringed Apple's patents, because that was already determined to be the case.
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung can't argue that they didn't infringe on the patents, that was already settled in the case. This was simply a retrial on assessment of damages. Samsung can (and is) appealing the original verdict and will most likely appeal the new damages as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who wasn't sequestered like the jury and saw the evidence the judge disallowed kn
Re: (Score:2)
No, they cant.
Attorneys cannot make arguments for matters of fact that are not in dispute. As far as this trial is concerned there is no question as to whether or not Samsung infringed on the products that are the subject of the trial, that was settled by the previous jury. The only question is what the actual damages are.
This is a retrial ordered by the trial court to reassess damages on products that the previous jury found that they did infringe. The trial judge found that the jury used a legally impermi
There was prior art for each pateent *fumes* (Score:2, Insightful)
It's sick and disgusting. There was prior art for EVERY patent Apple sued Samsung over. Every single one could be invalidated by prior art you could find on the web.
Go figure....
PATENT office should be burned to the ground and never rebuilt.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you can't even say what any of those patents are...
I have an idea! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I swear I thought turkeys could fly :)
Re: (Score:2)
Or better still in iTunes Store vouchers.
Re: (Score:2)
30,000+ tons is a lot to drive around. Keep in mind Samsung actually (barring successful appeals) owes Apple closer to $890 million, $600 million from the original trial is still intact. The Gas would probably cost them another billion.
Thermonuclear war (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple remains obsessed with thermonuclear war instead of introducing products that people want. Meanwhile its market share keeps slip, slip, slipping away [yahoo.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But its profits stay sky high.
You know Roadrunner vs the Coyote? You know how Coyote dangles in the air [harvard.edu] for a while before cratering? It's like that.
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:5, Informative)
Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share.
Hyperbole aside, another way to state that would be to say that many many people find Apple's price point too high for what they get. You can make a blanket statement to make it seem like all Android phones are cheap and/or worthless, but that is demonstrably untrue. The top 10 smart phone list [zdnet.com] is a good microcosm of the market in general. The highest ranked phone is the iPhone 5S, and likewise the iPhone is also the single best-selling phone. Out of the other 9 places on the list, 8 of them run Android and 1 is Windows Phone. That sounds about accurate. Out of those 8 Android phones, not a single one can be described as either "cheap" nor "worthless" by anyone without a large anti-Android bias.
yes in fact people really do want their phones and tablets.
Some people do, sure. My mom and dad both use iPhones, in fact they work great for older people. But in this market the iPhone is starting to look like the cookie-cutter option, it is the Toyota Prius of smart phones. The iPhone has lost its status symbol luster, it's no longer the phone that people buy to be seen with like it was during the first couple models. Samsung and HTC phone have replaced the iPhone in that regard. The iPhone is just the phone for people who are already locked into the Apple environment. I have the HTC One, which is second on that top 10 list. My phone has a quad-core 1.7GHz processor, compared with the 5S's dual-core 1.3GHz chip. My phone has twice as much RAM as the 5S. My phone has a larger screen (4.7 in), higher resolution (1920x1080), and higher pixel density (468ppi vs 326ppi) than the 5S. My phone can also stream native HDMI. It is objectively a better device. The only part of the 5S that you might consider to be superior is the software, and that is completely subjective. You might think iOS is fantastic. Quite obviously, a large segment of the market does not agree with you. I was not lamenting the lack of iOS when I paid $600 to buy the One outright.
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:5, Interesting)
I use a Galaxy S3, and I hate iOS and its locked-down ecosystem, but your comparison of select numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Android typically needs more RAM than iOS for the same tasks because the app platform requires JIT compilation and garbage collection. These developer conveniences come at a cost. Also, clock for clock the new Apple CPU cores outperform the more popular ARM cores by a pretty wide margin. You need to compare a real-world task rather than core count or clock speed. That said, I still think my Galaxy S3 is objectively better because it can do circuit-switched video calls, scan directories on an SD card for photos/music, side-load apps, and have its firmware upgraded/downgraded painlessly over USB. Clock speed and RAM don't even come into it.
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't. Apple acquired PA Semi a few years back, whose main claim to fame was designing low-power PPC cores. The two most recent generations of the iPhone/iPad SoC have used ARM cores designed in-house by former PA Semi employees. It isn't used in any other devices. But I think you're missing my point - the CPU performance isn't even close to the top of my list of priorities for a mobile phone.
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of Apple's product stasis comes down to the idiotic decision (from Jobs?) to go with fixed pixel resolution which really limits their room to manoeuver on screen resolution and aspect. While Android scales everything on the fly, Apple apps have to be recompiled, probably the source code has to change too. To dig out of that mess Apple needs to bite the bullet and go to variable resolution just like Android. But the logistics of doing that are apparently just too scary for pencil pusher Tim Cook.
Look, even Steve Wozniak says this is stupid. [phonearena.com] I say, totally typical Apple. When Jobs died Apple lost the mojo but kept the hubris.
Tim Cook: wears the turtleneck, but doesn't fill the shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy thing is, Apple pretty much pioneered scaling during the 1980s. The whole point of Postscript was to make fonts scalable. If you hooked up a Mac to any Apple monitor it would autosense th
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try Anonymous Fanboi, but while Samsung have a dozend or so phones on the market they have overwhelming marketshare from only two product lines, the Galaxy S series, and the Galaxy Note series, and both of them are premium phones.
Re: (Score:2)
But its profits stay sky high. Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share. But Apple will keep selling at far larger profits, because yes in fact people really do want their phones and tablets.
Sorry, your Apple hatred doesn't fly anymore.
You are basically saying that Apple is a luxury brand and doesn't need large volume of sales to make large profits. Lets compare this to other markets.
Bentley makes luxury cars. They don't sell large volumes, but make good profits. Ford and GM sell massively more cars, cars that you might call "cheap" and "worthless". Guess which companies touch far more lives and can make or break the introduction of technology to their products?
This is very similar to what happened to Apple in the desktop market. T
Re: (Score:2)
Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share.
Worthless? You iFans are even crazier than I thought you were. My $100 Kyocera will do everything your iBling will do except die if I get caught in a rainstorm (it's waterproof) and try to send me on a runway when I'm trying to park at the airport.
But other than BAD things, my $100 phone can do anything your iBling can.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you are locked out of iTunes. However with an iPhone I can access any content from anyone. Everyone makes an iPhone.
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah so there's this giant market called "China"....
The largest smart phone market, actually. Samsung has a market share of 21%, while Apple has a market share of 6%. [wsj.com] China has several domestic vendors [china.org.cn] also.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood my point. The vast majority of those devices will be running some version of Android, and very few if any will be counted in global market share figures.
Therefore my assertion is that Apple has even less market share than is immediately apparent in big-name sales figures.
Re: (Score:3)
From your linkie : "Only about 51% of the smartphones in peoples' hands in the US are Android phones."
That's a lot. The percentage is growing.
It's not about innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?
This isn't an example of bad Samsung capitalizing on Apple's good ideas. This is about major corporations being encouraged to stick their flags in the obvious and make else everyone pay. Whether you pay Apple or whether you pay Samsung (who then has to pay Apple), you're paying up and up for a fucking rectangle and whatever else is in their catalog of the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?
I just wanted to notify you, informally, that you've infringed upon my patent that details a process for complaining about patents. I'll make sure that my lawyers send you the appropriate notice paperwork by the end of next week.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that smartphones and tablets are just the current generation of PDAs, Apple, Samsung et al should count themselves very lucky that Palm and Sharp didn't file thousands of stupid frivolous patents.
Instead of just dozens, perhaps :)
Re:It's not about innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
So while they may have patented a design for a rectangular device, a competing device would need to infringe not only on that claim, but also on all of the other claims as well before it could be considered to be infringing on the patent itself.
Granted, the GP oversimplified the design patent, but what in that patent really made it all that worth of the design patent? If they had submitted just a rectangle, it would have been rejected, right? So there is a level of simplicity that is rejected. The elements they have laid claim on from that patent are, IMO, not only obvious, and with past precident, but natural to that type of device. Rounded corners? duh... no one would want really sharp corners in their pocket. Grid layout of icons? a grid... really... a grid? Square icons with round corners? Nah, I've never seen that before, nor would be be extremely obvious on a device that has both horizontal and vertical orientations, right?
I get what your'e saying, but you haven't listed all the features that made it worthy, and you provided no justification for them, and just made it sound more complex than it really was. The GP didn't list them all either, and over simplified it (to make a point). I read the GP's post as saying he believes the design patent covered far to simple/obvious of a thing, and it's silly that it was granted. I'm not sure if you're saying it was deserving of the patent or not, but I don't think anyone would argue it was for more than a rectangle. The question is, was it enough? The rectangle, and in particular the proportions, size, and contour, were at the center of the case, regardless if that is not all that was in the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
The design is OBVIOUS.
- proportions
Hey it needs to fit in your hand and you need to be able to manage it with your fingers. The proportions of the device are related to the proportions of the human hand.
- size
Even though hands come in different sizes, there's probably a size that will be both usable for people with small hands and people with bigger hands.
- contour
Rounded edges. Wow. Not having rounded edges are uncomfortable in your pocket. Oblong, well oval or round phones are not comfortable in your po
Re: (Score:2)
The design is OBVIOUS.
this argument is invalidated by Samsung successfully carving niches for a 5" note, a 7" tablet, and phones with wider and taller screens than the iphone's. the iphone itself has also grown an extra row of icons in height. there are criteria regarding screen size selection that have outgrown the original 'human hand' argument.
Rounded edges. Wow. Not having rounded edges are uncomfortable in your pocket. Oblong, well oval or round phones are not comfortable in your pocket either and you'd also like something that doesn't use more space other than to house the required components, of which the size of the touch screen is probably the most important factor.
I too, have 20/20 hindsight. [lowendmac.com] You also focus on the hardware design, and fail to acknowledge the blatant copying of the the IOS look and feel. [begeek.fr] it wasn't accidental, there are 132 pa [scribd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I too, have 20/20 hindsight. You also focus on the hardware design, and fail to acknowledge the blatant copying of the the IOS look and feel.
Yopur hindsignt is not 20/20. You mean that Samsung blatently copied the look and feel of the AT&T broadband phone: exactly the one that Apple also shamelessly ripped off.
If you stick this:
http://www.xorl.org/people/krw/ipaqalone.jpg [xorl.org]
Next to your "blatent copying" link then you see that the Samsung one with it's flat icons and non-rounded corners to the icons looks
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't, what I say, is that Samsung copied the same fucking OS that Apple copied for it's iOS.
Palm, omg, a rounded rectangle device with a grid of icons and a touch screen. Holy Shit, why the hell isn't Apple suing Palm....Er....(switch that).
So really, the one huge huge patentable thing Apple had, was a design patent to use only a single button on the front of the phone. It's amazing. Let's all bow down and worship Apple's innovation. Or light a match, smoke a stogie, and toss the butts into the patent
Re:It's not about innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent you're speaking of was a design patent ... and the claim you're referencing was but one of many included in that particular patent...Suggesting that someone was able to patent merely "a rectangle" is a gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.
Here [google.com] is the patent in question. Please show me the "many" claims other than the rectangular shape that demonstrate the OPs "gross mischaracterization".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was certainly talking about the distribution of the icons on a grid. NOBODY ever tried to distribute icons on a grid.
Apple was even nice enough to restrict their patent into colored icons, letting the entire set of phones with black and white screens (that's because nobody tought about a color screen before Apple - NOBODY) copy their completely new idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not about innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent you're speaking of was a design patent (which in many ways more closely resemble trademarks than utility patents (with which we are more familiar) in how they are handled), and the claim you're referencing was but one of many included in that particular patent.
That's bullshit mate. They patented the rounded rectangular slab with touch screen (thus few buttons) and a grid of icons. The rounded rectangle tablet was in everything from Soylent Green to Star Trek. The touch screen I had in the 90's complete with GEM desktop's grid of icons. Putting a few bits of existing tech together and documenting the only real practical design shouldn't be allowed just because you had enough legal budget to do so. At 10 paces folks can't tell the difference between my older HP IPAQ [repairhppda.com] PDA and dark desktop w/ icons. They couldn't tell the difference between the iPhone / iPad and a Samsung phone or tablet either. So what.
Let me tell you something about design patents. The Fashion Industry and Automotive Industries are all about design. They market heavily on design and yet they have no design patents or copyrights in the USA. Despite NOT having such patent protections these markets are more lucrative than nearly any other patent protected markets. So, here we have clear evidence that design patents aren't needed. They're pure anti-competitive bullshit, and unless you have empirical evidence to show vs a control group that patents are beneficial then you're full of shit.
Doesn't matter how "correct" someone's statement is regarding application of current patent law -- The laws themselves are bogus. We don't know if they're harmful or helpful, only that other evidence shows design patents and copyright aren't necessary for progress in design. Anyone with half a scientific method would never agree to run world economies based on untested hypotheses.
You're bitching about some pedantic bullshit about how the laws cover this or that -- Sure, go fuck yourself though. It's like someone saying: It's bullshit that you can have design patents, then you go on for a paragraph about what a design patent is -- As if we don't already know that they're bullshit; And you have NONE -- ZERO evidence to prove they are not, in fact, harmful unnecessary burdens or beneficial in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot would not protect their valuable property. Check this link about Ford suing for design patent violation. [aftermarketnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Really, cause it sure as hell was. Because there are many designs that were extremely similar to Apple's, with the exception that they had a few more buttons.
No, you're right. It wasn't about a rectangle. It was about a fucked up system that protected a company viewed to be more American. That was it...
EVERY item Apple sued Samsung over had prior art that you could easily find on Google.
Re:It's not about innovation (Score:4, Informative)
If everything Apple designed was so obvious, then why is it that no one made the iPhone before Apple did?
LG Prada. Go look it up. Look what it looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
The Prada did not come to the market after the iPhone... how the fuck is a keynote relevant, anyway? Images of the Prada were already released the year before, and the Prada was on sale before the iPhone.
Re: It's not about innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Next, you seem to think that Apple got a design patent on rectangles. No, they haven't. They have design patents on designs that involve a complete design, of which _rounded_ rectangular shape is just one component.
What other components are in the design patent in suit [google.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Design patents cover the decorative/aesthetic aspects of a functional device. Rounded corners are not a decorative aspect; they have a practical purpose - spreading load in an impact to reduce damage.
Likewise the arrangement of icons in a grid; it's the simple and obvious thing to do because it works, like having wheels near each corner of a car rather than t
Re: (Score:2)
No-one has patented the 'rectangle' as a design element, nor could they..
Really? https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286?dq=apple+rectangle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yqqOUvetHuKyiAem5YGYAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA [google.com]
Is it a waste? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is more productive (Score:2)
Than making millions of dollars for yourself and your firm?
Re:What is more productive (Score:4, Informative)
It's not productive because nothing is being produced. It's just taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. It's redistributive rather than productive.
Making phones is productive. Advancing technology is productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid. In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government and to a lesser extent charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations.
Welfare is more than just wealth redistribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, commerce at its core is redistribution of wealth. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be worth doing.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of commerce and welfare are different types of wealth distribution. Welfare seeks to redistribute the amount of wealth each person has, to ensure a minimum wealth level.
Commerce seeks to redistribute types of wealth, so people can properly benefit from wealth, while not necessarily changing the amount of wealth people have. (i.e. trade). It doesn't do the owners of Sony any good to own 1 million playstation 4s if they can't sell them for other things like cars and fancy dinners.
Usually when peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Also I wasn't commenting on the merits of wealth distribution, merely the waste of spending lots of human effort in determining how wealth is distributed.
If it was one guy spending 1 hour every day or even a computer program deciding how much money everyone got, fair or not, that would not be much wasted human effort.
Unfortunately we spend a fairly large percentage of our GDP on figuring out how to distribute the rest of it.
Maybe Not So Good For Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple claims that Samsung hurts the market for iPhones.
B.S.!
If you want IOS and the Apple App Store you have to buy an iPhone today every bit as much as you ever had to do so.
The Samsung phone is a different creature in a different environment.
Apple couldn't even make enough smartphones to supply the whole world provided that the did have a monopoly on them.
Aside from the fact that Apple never should have been granted these patents, I mean really, how long before Samsung -- who still supplies a lot of the i
Actually, $890 million (Score:5, Informative)
US Court sides with US defendant (Score:5, Informative)
No surprise there. Samsung apparently wins the cases overseas, Apple wins them in the US. The whole system is rigged, flawed, and useless. Down with software and "design" patents!
Fire up the dumptrucks! (Score:2)
I feel a parking lot full of loose change in Apple's future. Maybe this time it will happen!
worst summary ever (Score:5, Informative)
"After 3 days of deliberations, a jury has ordered Samsung to pay $290 million to Apple for infringement of several of its patents in multiple Samsung smartphones and tablets."
Ok.
"The verdict is the second victory for Apple in its multiyear patent fight against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Last year a jury in the same San Jose courtroom ruled Samsung should pay just over $1 billion for infringement of five Apple patents in multiple Samsung phones and tablets."
So, first they one a billion in court, then this win for 290 million.
"But afterward, Judge Lucy Koh ordered a new trial to reconsider $450 million of the damages after finding the previous jury had applied an 'impermissible legal theory' to its calculations."
Oh... ok... so not really a billion. 450million is being reconsidered, but there is this 290 million win. Still good for apple, though right?
"Thursday's verdict is the result of that new trial."
Wait what? So this isn't new money they won, but rather that of the 450M of previous win they we're fighting to keep, they've just lost 160M.
Wouldn't that have been the correct way to start?
Something like "Trial to reconsider $450M of previous $1B settlement has been reduced by $160M to $290M."
And that's assuming the patents stand up long enough for the checks to get written, something I understand may not happen as the patents themselves are facing invalidation.
Seriously, this article made it sound like another big win for apple, when in reality its really news that their one big win has been cut down...yet again.
Round 2 of a still ongoing match? (Score:2)
Amen to that.
Basically, the way the legal process goes, Apple still hasn't "fully" won its match against Samsung. This isn't Apple's second victory if by victory we mean the guy who gets the gold medal, the championship belt, the cheer leader's hug, etc. Apple may have won the round/lap/inning/half but a victory it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Last news I have (from the time GrockLaw still existed), most of the patents were already invalidated - but the judge decided that this small fact shouldn't change the veredict.
Re: (Score:2)
Last news I have (from the time GrockLaw still existed), most of the patents were already invalidated - but the judge decided that this small fact shouldn't change the veredict.
My impression was that the judge assumed that would be sorted out in the appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, my impression is that the judge assumed that the appeals court is the right place to hear Samsung's defense, sort if the law actually applies, and look at the facts.
Apple Wins For Invalidated Patent (Score:2)
It's pretty incredible but sadly predictable that Apple can keep winning over juries in its home county of Santa Clara to award it damages mainly for a patent (pinch to zoom) already declared invalid twice by the USPTO [fosspatents.com]. Thanks however to the US's weird system, Apple can go on appealing until 2017 or 2018 before it finally runs out of people to whine to. I'd like to think that sanity could prevail then, but as recent experience shows, the US President would have no qualms about vetoing any adverse judgement [cnet.com]
uhmm.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm worried about you, intermodal, do you have early onset Alzheimer's? You just made this post a little bit ago.
No, Samsung did not try to pay Apple in Nickels (Score:2)
Believe everything you read on the Internet, do you?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/samsung.asp [snopes.com]
Re:"APPEL FANBOI LOL" commenst aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
The verdict clearly shows that Samsung did capitalize on Apple's enormous investment into R&D and should pay.
Tech R&D or Legal R&D?
It's so hard to tell these days without a scorecard.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the verdict shows (Score:2)
American courts are pre-disposed to American companies. Every patent that Apple sued Samsung over, has prior art you can locate simply with Google searches.
And Samsung was refused being able to submit a lot of evidence. It's disgusting.. FUCK crApple.
Re: (Score:2)
Show us one of those searches and explain how it shows prior art for a particular claim. I realize you can't because you are just making crap up, but it was kind of fun asking.