Jury finds Samsung violated Apple patents

The jury in Apple’s patent infringement case against Samsung has found that Samsung violated a great many of the patents Apple sought to enforce, and it has awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, according to widespread reports, including this one. Meanwhile, Samsung’s countersuit fizzled.

The questions now are many, including what happens at the next stage of what will surely be a protacted appeals process, what the implications are for other makers of Android phones, and whether Apple will pursue and obtain injunctions preventing the sale of more infringing—or potentially infringing—products.

Comments closed
    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 7 years ago

    It looks like the days of putting these questions in front of a jury will be ending soon. September 16th to be exact (provided this attorney’s interpretation of the new patent law is correct): [url<]http://www.patentspostgrant.com/lang/en/2012/08/apple-jury-confuses-obviousness-analysis[/url<]

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    You dicks bumped all of but three posts off the front page for this…

    “entropy13:
    How far can we go to the right marg…
    sweatshopking:
    idk? let’s see!
    entropy13:
    Ok. Let’s see indeed…
    sweatshopking:
    what you doing tonight? a…
    entropy13:
    Uh, sleep?
    Geistbar:
    Didn’t people try to get t…
    sweatshopking:
    i’m not sure. we ca…”

    ~_~

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Well there’s Abrasion and kc77’s ongoing dispute (which I can’t be bothered to understand let alone follow), Neelycam’s more meta issue about phones and choice, my sort of ongoing with windwalker (which I’m more doing out of interest in reading more about these issues than an actual discussion; I’m not really getting anything factual or intellectual out of his/her arguments and sometimes I just like setting the record straight), Deanjo (playing Apple surrogate) vs. the world – so yeah a lot of long discussions.

      I know there was a way on k5 of compressing threads, as well as sub threads. I’m not sure how you can do it here. That said your comment bumped things off the page too.

      I’m not entirely sure what your more meta argument is.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      BEST CONVO EVER!!! YOU WANT IN? YOU HAVE TO BE NICE~!

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfrTAt_m1po[/url<] /thread

    • Anarchist
    • 7 years ago

    for sometime now it’s been both hilarious and pathetic to watch all the companies falling over themselves trying to copy iphone and ipad. Now perhaps these companies will have to do some of their own creative thinking and come up with something original. Microsoft have already shown the glimmer of creativity with their metro UI which I think will work quite well for tablets and other hand-helds. What are the chance one (or perhaps more than one) of these companies will come up with something original? Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that the “win” for the apple was nothing more than the beginning of their own demise?

    • FubbHead
    • 7 years ago

    I dunno.. A system that allows patenting of gimmicky features and general design features, and then allows the patentee to hold them hostage for an arbitrary ransom, is just defunct. In America or elsewhere…

    I mean, most (if not all) of these patents are just already existing ideas slightly improved upon. And some of it are just pure common sense being patented..

    • David
    • 7 years ago

    I thought this was an interesting if completely anecdotal look at it.

    [url<]https://plus.google.com/109374849138720664008/posts/HakhykJFQvM[/url<] It's saying that this actually hurts Apple because they're basically advertising that Samsung devices are the same(i.e. as good as) Apple devices.

      • RtFusion
      • 7 years ago

      Wow, never thought of it that way. Thanks for sharing.

      If this continues as the news for the ruling begins to settle within the general public (the buy my gear from FutureShop/BestBuy crowd especially), more and more people will think that Samsung and Apple are the same but one is many times more expensive. And in this economy, price matters and Samsung has it. This could be an unexpected positive result for Samsung and fallout from Apple’s nuclear detonation raining down on them due to miscalculation in the weather (consumers).

      I hope the black rain continues falling on Apple.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      This is great. My second favorite comment (besides spangler’s) in thread. Thanks for sharing.

      BTW original post is here: [url<]https://plus.google.com/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G[/url<]

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Up, up! More people should read this (for entertainment value if nothing else).

      • entropy13
      • 7 years ago

      Bump. For the first time in a while something I posted in Facebook garnered a lot of likes when I copy-pasted the original post. lol

    • trackerben
    • 7 years ago

    The best strategy that Samsung’s appeals team could mount in this debacle would be to politically recast their questionable behaviors, outside the courts and in the arena of public opinion, as being nobly motivated by a corporate mission to defend shining markets in “solidarity” with the American Consumer. Even if this comes at the expense of the commercial interests of a company like Apple. We already see the theme emerging in their PR counter-offensive. Activist courts like the 9th Circuit can be unpredictable especially on issues with “solidarity” themes, and Samsung strategists will have their playbooks ready for these eventualities.

    If the opportunity presents itself the team will “reach out” to a bench to get the initial verdict nicely superseded in Samsung’s favor. To support this politically, they only need to establish beforehand a broad populist narrative of “unjust” or irrational victimization at the hands of “unfair” anticompetitive parties who are distorting market processes. Pre-shaping the political and media landscape behind a legal and commercial contest is a historical specialty of chaebol families. And a low-risk strategy given Samsung’s business relationships with so many opinion makers and media houses worldwide.

    • RtFusion
    • 7 years ago

    I’ve only the first few updates on an article posted by spangler from Groklaw (thank you!) and I am just astonished and really just disturbed about this process. The overall sense that I am getting from this article is “Its too hard and complicated to properly analyze all of this, I just want to go home”.

    I am just saddened that the jury (what it seems like to me now) has given Apple the obscene power over touch gestures (as well as the touch technology itself) which has been around in academia and in some products long before Apple’s products came out, GUI layouts of icons in a grid, minimalist designs (as well as the jury’s complete ignorance of prior art), and a shape: the rectangle. I think that is the most saddest and frankly, the most pathetic of all; they have given Apple the right to patent a fucking shape.

    Just let that thought settle for a moment, the glorious rectangle has been patented . . . Yeah, not settled right?

    I read that in this DailyTech article [url<]http://www.dailytech.com/Appleflation+Apples+AntiAndroid+Win+Could+Limit+Consumer+Choice/article25517.htm[/url<] that Samsung has lost $12 Billion in value and Apple gained a similar amount following the ruling. Not only that, this will cause future products to stagnate in innovation and design simply because other manufacturers are now afraid to make anything that remotely resembles a fucking rectangle with icons on it. They are probably frantically screaming at their R&D departments trying figure some outside-the-box method of unlocking a screen without sliding it from left to right or pinch-to-zoom without pinching or how to navigate a touchscreen without actually touching the screen or to make a mobile device that looks like a rectangle but isn't one. It would be obvious that these changes will be very expensive for the manufacturer and those costs will trickle down to us. In the same DT article, Apple would like to see bans for the GS III as well. If that goes through, Apple would have taken down Samsung as one of the largest phone makers/sellers in the US. This is Steve Jobs dream of a thermonuclear war against all that is Android and its finally coming to fruition. For the competitors as well as the all important consumers who want variety and innovation, it seems that were simply fucked. EDIT: Heh, looks like Jesus Diaz is saying this ruling is GOOD for innovation: [url<]http://gizmodo.com/5938193/apple-winning-the-patent-wars-is-great-for-innovation[/url<]

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    I went to school to be a industrial designer so patent law has a huge (or small depending on how you look at it) impact on my profession. I think patents do jack to protect the little guy and are instead used by large companies everywhere to stifle innovation. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. When was the last time apple was truly original? They aren’t they just market better than anyone else.

    • BoBzeBuilder
    • 7 years ago

    COMON GUYZ, LET’S GET THIS PAST 400 COMMENTS!!!

    I HAD CHICKEN FOR DINNER!!!

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      CHICKEN? WHAT DID YOU HAVE WITH IT? WAS IT GOOD? DID YOUR WIFE COOK IT?

        • BoBzeBuilder
        • 7 years ago

        WHY YOU TALKIN’ BOUT’ MA WIFE?

          • entropy13
          • 7 years ago

          BECAUSE IT’S SSK WHO ALWAYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE’S WIFE!

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            WHAT CAN I SAY? I LIKE WIVES!!! WHO DOESN’T?!!?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            WIVES PROBABLY DON’T LIKE OTHER WIVES.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            MY WIFE HAS FRIENDS THAT ARE WIVES. I DON’T [i<] LIKE [/i<] WIVES. I JUST LIKE THEM. AS FRIENDS.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Most of my wife’s friends are wives. They all like to complain about their husbands. Proper case FTW.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            MOAR CAPS, PLZ!!

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            THERE’S “FRIENDS”, AND THERE’S FRIENDS. SO WHICH IS IT?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            I THINK HE MEANS FRIENDS. NOT “FRIENDS”.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Indeed.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            YOU STILL TYPE WITH THOSE SMALL LETTERS THOUGH.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            sORRY i THINK i MISSED THE POINT OF THIS MEME

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]COMON GUYZ, LET'S GET THIS PAST 400 COMMENTS!!![/quote<] NEW TARGET: FIVE HUNDRED!! WE CAN DO IT!

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        yes!

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          we!

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            can!

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I wonder if we should go for 512..

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            We’re approaching 500 already, so why not?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            512 sounds nerdy. you’re such nerds.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            We’re getting there!

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            You say you hate nerdy things, and yet you love us SSK. Make up your mind.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            I do love you. All of you. I’m so proud of you guys. It brings tears to my eyes!

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      ONLY THE REAL NUT JOBS RESPONDED TO YOUR POST.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        including you?

    • End User
    • 7 years ago

    A great example of Samsung not copying Apple: [url<]http://goo.gl/QclOa[/url<]

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      i hate the quality of my samsung focus. it’s horrible phone hardware. EVERYTHING hardware on it has broken. screen, wifi, 3g, battery, it’s all there. Next phone i get will be a nokia. love the OS though…

        • MadManOriginal
        • 7 years ago

        cool story, bra.

          • adisor19
          • 7 years ago

          I will never, EVER, downvote a cool story bra comment.

          +1

          Adi

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            then you need to +1 mine. you seem to have missed it.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          when are we going to take our relationship to the next level? i made physical contact with dpaus. let me know.

          • End User
          • 7 years ago

          lol

    • End User
    • 7 years ago

    I’ll still be smiling about this when I order my 2012 iPhone.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      cool story, bra.

        • End User
        • 7 years ago

        It was for you.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          i know it was. we’re secretly in love. i have a picture above my bed with the words END USER drawn inside a big heart. i use it for my “secret” time.

      • brucethemoose
      • 7 years ago

      If it’s a bogus upgrade, that’ll be a stupid smile.

      If it’s not, I will be too.

        • End User
        • 7 years ago

        Are you 12?

        It will be better than the 2 year old phone I have now.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          and you’ll still be using the same 2007 OS! nice! you can join the legions of xp hold outs for using obsolete tech!

      • entropy13
      • 7 years ago

      And true enlightenment will come to you! Glory be to the Holy Apple!

    • Anarchist
    • 7 years ago

    just shut-up and keep buying new smart-phones every 2 years and new tablets every year and let important people like obamma and romney decide how to bail out the banks and stuff trillions of dollars up the throat of the richest of riches in hope that few billion will eventually trickle down and create couple hundred more jobs at your local starbucks.

    • Ratchet
    • 7 years ago

    Now that precedent has been set, Ford should go after GM and every other car manufturer for creating a basic transportation machine with 4 wheels.

      • khands
      • 7 years ago

      If only it hadn’t expired like, 75 years ago.

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        People really don’t understand patents at all. If something isn’t patented, or the patent has expired/run out, YOU CAN’T SUE OVER IT. End of story. ‘zOMG SUE OVER RECTANGULAR TVS! TROLOLLOLOLOL!’

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 7 years ago

          And yet, Apple can patent things that have been around for a decade, and get away with it.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            And that’s Apples fault? People like to slam Apple for playing by the rules set in place. Don’t hate the playah, hate the game.

            • rrr
            • 7 years ago

            So if someone killed your mother because they were stressed out over a shitty day at work, would you excuse them, say “don’t hate the playah, hate the game” too?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            because this is the same thing.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            What? Apple patented things. Those patents were granted. Samsung infringed upon those patents. Samsung lost in court. You can argue those patents should not have been granted, but thats not an argument that you take up with Apple. Thats an argument you take up with the FTC and the USPTO.

            Hating Apple for being legally in the right and doing what they can to protect their products is just anti-fanboyism. They’ve been shown time and time again to be in the legal right, as they’ve been winning these cases left and right. At worst, they’ve been dealt a draw, as in South Korea where it was ruled that Samsung and Apple infringed upon each other’s patents. The German Motorola Wifi Patent case was just overturned with Apple being the victor as well.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            Actually, at worst they’ve had their patents nullified, such as the broad and generic design patents in the UK.

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            So it is Apple’s competitors job to spend time and money arguing that their patents are invalid around the world now?

    • spangler
    • 7 years ago

    Check-out Groklaw’s take on the verdict: [url<]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390[/url<] It looks like the jury just wanted to get out of there. It will probably be overturned.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      Who knows, but interesting link nonetheless.

      • Shambles
      • 7 years ago

      Great article, bookmarked it. Everyone should give it a glance over.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Because I was responding to some other posts I inadvertently knocked this comment off the first page where I believe it belongs.

      Please consider my bumping it my mea culpa.

      While I’m at it here are more related links so at least this post has a bit more content to it.

      [url<]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120822133019225[/url<] This is excellent too: [url<]http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/3260463/apple-samsung-jury-verdict-form-nightmare/in/2971889[/url<]

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      Wow. That is damning. So one jury member who has some patents thinks they’re the expert and convinces everyone else that apple’s patents are valid…. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Samsung are not going to pay a cent. BAHAHAAHAHAHH!!!!!

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Engineers are so arrogant

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      That’s pretty astounding. Different members of the jury out there are doing Samsung’s appeal for them.

      edit: the chart of the damages awarded is pretty amazing. It has no basis in reality – it has no consistency within itself, even. Look at the various Galaxy S II awards. We’re talking about a bunch of phones that all look alike and the difference is the carrier/radios:

      Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356

      Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0

      Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708

      Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988

      Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558

        • yogibbear
        • 7 years ago

        Those no’s are by no. of handsets sold. i.e. they’re trying to quantify the amount of money Apple would’ve made if they licensed those patents that each handset violated…. I’m as much in support of Samsung over Apple, but I think you are looking in the weeds and not at something particularly important IMHO. (Or at least that is my assumption that HOPEFULLY the jury members did it on some sort of scientific basis…. they might not have…)

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          There’s no way that’s based on handsets sold – it’s got the Sprint model way ahead of all the others.

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          One of the spots in the link indicates that they assessed damages otherwise:
          [quote<]"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."[/quote<] The jury awarded damages to punish Samsung, instead of to compensate Apple. I'm no lawyer, but I'd think Samsung should be able to win an appeal with just that, let alone the rest of the discrepancies showing up.

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            Ah ok. Then if that’s the case it’s even worse.

      • pedro
      • 7 years ago

      Bring on the appeal.

        • entropy13
        • 7 years ago

        The Holy Apple shall never falter! The magic will protect us!

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      Wow, what a clusterfart. This will get overturned and appealed for sure.

      • willyolio
      • 7 years ago

      I think it’s important to highlight their take on all the evidence of prior art:

      [quote<]"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...[/quote<]

        • yogibbear
        • 7 years ago

        “We skipped the part where his dna didn’t match the semen found inside her… It was bogging us down.”

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Maybe the jury should be paid better so they wouldn’t focus on rushing out of there

          • entropy13
          • 7 years ago

          Maybe there shouldn’t be a jury in the first place, but just a well-paid, unbiased, open-minded judge?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            … Paid by whom…?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            By an independent, genuinely democratically-elected government that is not strongly influenced by any other institutions except for its constituents as a whole.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I think that government is called The Unicorn

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            it lives at my house.

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        Except its not a jury’s duty to rule on prior art. This was not a patent validity case. If the patent is awarded, a jury has to assume that the patent is valid. The only way to invalidate a patent is to goto the USPTO and challenge it, which to date, Samsung has not done.

        The jury is not patent law experts, and they shouldn’t have to be. This case was about whether Samsung WILLFULLY infringed, which they did. Its a given they infringed, but whether or not it was willful or not is the question at hand really.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          Actually it was a patent validity case as Apple challenged Samsung’s 3G patents and those questions made it through to the jury instructions and were answered by the jury.

          Whether they should have or not – or whether their conclusion was valid is another issue.

          If Samsung’s patents can be decided upon then Apple’s equally should be looked at.

          Edited to add: well the jury had to decide if Apple’s were valid as well looking at Question 11. However, it was the last of the Apple related questions – which typically creates bias (especially after having to answer questions 1-10 first). See: [url<]http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/3260463/apple-samsung-jury-verdict-form-nightmare/in/2971889[/url<]

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Back to the top again you go!

        • willyolio
        • 7 years ago

        yes, more people need to see the groklaw analysis of this thing. this verdict’s going to be tossed out.

        • entropy13
        • 7 years ago

        Sorry about that. There. lol

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      New post on groklaw is up and has some analysis I find interesting:
      [url<]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828085512779[/url<] A comment by dirtydave0221 on the Verge puts things in perspective nicely: "sounds to me like someone said…‘do these phones infringe on this patent?’ everyone said yes, so they marked it as such. 3 days with 700 questions would mean that these people went through 26 (roughly) questions an hour, or 1 every 2 minutes. It’s highly unlikely that they actually agreed so well to get a question every 2 minutes answered, shit…it probably takes more than 2 minutes to get everyone to vote." From: [url<]http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274047/samsung-us-carriers-update-phones-apple-injunction[/url<] That's 700 questions in 21 hours. And now with the possible exception of the Galaxy Tab there will be no injunctions until December at the earliest. [url<]http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3275607/judge-apple-samsung-injunction-new-post-trial-schedule[/url<]

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      I get the legal arguments… well, somewhat, to some degree. I understand technology to some point (as the vast majority here), but I’m not a lawyer (just like the vast majority here). We’ll have fun arguments about the validity of the verdict, the various things that the jury messed up or didn’t mess up, and the overall state of humanity.

      But the bottom line to me is that this was a case decided by a jury of “peers” that aren’t really “peers” of multinational companies. The jury did their best, considering they weren’t experts and that they weren’t motivated enough to do a thorough job by that $10/day “stipend”. This is how jury cases go – randomly, void of legal reasoning.

      I find it somewhat appalling that everyone here is so quick to attack the jury. They aren’t experts; they shouldn’t be expected to understand every little minor detail about patent law. Yes – there was a long document they were supposed to read through to ‘learn’ how do be a patent law expert, but keep in mind that a vast majority of people would just want to get it all over with, so they could go back to work to feed their families. The money the american legal system provides to their juries is nowhere near enough to compensate for the loss of income a lot of these people have to suffer through.

      These kind of cases should be handled at a different level of court, more suitable to the parties of the cases (=companies), and not make regular people waste their time on cases that they should never have to face.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        I can’t give them that free pass given the foreman’s ridiculous patent and turning everyone else around. Furthermore they didn’t answer every question. Part of the problem is that Koh is allowing this to become the circus it has. She could well have said “You could not have reached a considered verdict in that amount of time”. Many judges would have. Plus she could have interviewed the members as well to make sure no hanky panky was going on.

        But here’s the thing – juries have to consider much larger issues all the time. Capital murder cases – which are often times complex and have issues in collecting evidence properly, whether coercion was used ad nauseum. I don’t see why these guys get a pass from you. Criminal law isn’t often clear cut either.

        Koh has consistently gone with Apple’s side thus far (not just in this case).

        I am surprised this went to a jury at all instead of being decided by a judge as SCO v. IBM was.

        “The money the american legal system provides to their juries is nowhere near enough to compensate for the loss of income a lot of these people have to suffer through.”

        So true.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Back to the front soldier!

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        yeah

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    There is obviously guilt on both parts. Since the iPhone’s release, Samsung’s smartphones started to more closely resemble Apple’s – yet a large number of Apple’s patents are clearly bogus – so many of their interface patents have been dismissed because the prior art for them existed years before even Apple or Samsung ever brought them to market – sometimes the prior art was from before smartphones even existed.

    My take on it is this:

    Samsung and Google Copy some of Apple’s innovations. That is bad.

    Apple patents everything it can and sues literally everyone it can for as many breaches as it can, no matter how little merit of chance of success each lawsuit has. Their aim is to bury competitors in so much litigation that something sticks, whilst simultaneously attempting to landmine the competetive landscape by claiming ideas they have copied from elsewhere are theirs in the first place.

    One of Apple’s major wins in this case was over the patent for “an array of icons <with a specific art style>”; At no point did any of the morons on the jury heed the fact that “an array of icons adhering to a common themed art style” is the general principle of every graphical OS going back to the days of early GUI’s from Microsoft, Apple, Commodore, Acorn and Atari. All of this was “greatly influenced by” (ie, stolen) from Xerox who came out with it five years prior.

    • dpaus
    • 7 years ago

    The contrast between the amount of thought the jury seems have put into this decision – at least as evidenced by the amount of time they took – contrasted with the size of the award… Well, it just makes me sick.

    If I were Samsung….. I’d be on the phone to HP, I’d offer them about a billion dollars for the Palm patent portfolio – which includes virtually [i<][u<]all[/i<][/u<] of the fundamental capabilities of a smartphone - and I'd turn around and sue Apple for every penny of profit they've made on every iPhone they've ever sold. In fact, given their exposure, I'm surprised that Apple hasn't tried to buy that patent portfolio from HP just to prevent it falling into the wrong hands. God knows they have the money.... (and God also knows HP could use a little extra cash right now).

      • trackerben
      • 7 years ago

      HP and Apple are old neighbors, many Apple execs are HP alumni and vice-versa. Apple’s top execs normally respect HP as a friendly corporate and this attitude is returned by many senior HP people. They have had good business relationships and have even shared joint development and marketing efforts on key products.The chances of HP supplying ammo to a foreign mercantilist rival to shoot down its fellow Cupertino resident is close to nil.

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    Remember kids, the jury is made up of people who vote for the person who is going to lead this nation.
    I changed my opinion about voter rights a few years back. Not everyone deserves to vote. I don’t care if you don’t vote for the person I vote for, but I do care if you’re an idiot and are still voting. Should be an IQ test along with some basic economics, geography.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Should be an IQ test along with some basic economics, geography.[/quote<] Same should be applied to the candidates.

        • danny e.
        • 7 years ago

        Agreed. There should be more stringent tests for the candidates.

      • Geistbar
      • 7 years ago

      A jury is actually worse than voters: both sides get veto power over any juror, for any reason. With cases like these, they intentionally select against jurors that are knowledgeable on the subject at hand (ostensibly — and often justifiably — to avoid bias); the end result is a jury that is [i<]more[/i<] ignorant than average. Don't extrapolate out from jurors. As for voting rights: There are a lot of problems with any method to enforce this however. The last time it was done, it was Jim Crow. You might be right, you might not -- but you should realize that there is no practical, effective, unbiased, and uncorrupt way to enforce that.

        • Bauxite
        • 7 years ago

        They picked a juror who has basically has a patent for a Tivo in 2003. Tivo started selling in 1999.

        Said juror, also the foreman, admitted he considered the case as if he was defending his own fantasy patent.

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          That’s a flaw with Samsung’s legal team then — the general trend is still that juries are generally selected to be as unknowledgeable on the subject as possible. My point — that you should not extrapolate out to voters from juries — still stands.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Wont work.

      And in this case, the Samsung legal team had a month to educate and present their case.
      The same people voted for Apple or Samsung, no bias.

      What might have happened is that Samsung legal team was not able to prove to those people that they didn’t break the law.
      And at the same time, Apple legal team WAS able to prove Samsung broke the law.

      If you truly believe Samsung was in its rights, then hopefully Samsung will use another legal team next time.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Samsung’s best evidence was thrown out on a technicality.

          • trackerben
          • 7 years ago

          Are you referring to the practice of logo overlays on “Sony-inspired” mock-ups which Apple marketeers used for competition analysis?

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    I really should patent the concept of a douchebag. Apple couldn’t survive without them and seems to be churning out more all the time. I’d make millions.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Too late; check out Apple’s Patent US6920574

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 7 years ago

    I think I’m going to copyright air and charge you all for breathing it. (oh wait, that’s the carbon trading scam invented by enron.)

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      no politics. you are unable to coherently defend your position, so stop bringing it up. the first sentence was fine, leave the enron out.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        What’s wrong with Enron? They invented profits

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    I wish I could say I was surprised, but the reality is that Samsung’s lawyers did a pretty crappy job. In an ideal world, I never saw Samsung winning this case, but I did see them invalidating some of Apple’s ridiculous patents (rounded corners?, grids of icons?, black and silver with a flat face for a touchscreen device?). Instead, they managed to completely lose and do nothing for the marketplace in the process.

    If Samsung couldn’t win, I doubt anyone else will. Still, they will appeal and I’m sure they’ll take their sweet time doing so.

    I think it’s a shame, even a travesty, but I think that Samsung’s case was not very well put forth and I think Apple’s was. Clearly, all that money Apple’s been losing paying their lawyers has been to good benefit.

      • kumori
      • 7 years ago

      Samsung hired one of the best litigation firms in the world. I doubt they did a crappy job.

        • Voldenuit
        • 7 years ago

        They paid the [i<]most money[/i<] for their lawyers. That doesn't mean they were the best. Didn't it turn out that one of their lawyers wasn't even registered at the bar during the trial? Their legal team was also customarily late to submit evidence, resulting in several killer pieces of evidence not being admissible. A spurious lawsuit + biased judge + incompetent defence team = travesty.

    • sluggo
    • 7 years ago

    “and whether Apple will pursue and obtain injunctions …”

    Ain’t no “whether” about it. From this morning’s San Jose Mercury News:

    “Apple Attorney Michael Jacobs told U.S. Judge Lucy Koh the company would move to block the sale of many of the products in the United States within seven days; she already has issued preliminary injunctions against the Nexus phone and the Galaxy 10.1 tablet.”

    The Fascinate, Epic 4G and Galaxy S II smartphones were singled out as “rogue products”. By implication, the current follow-on Galaxy S III would probably be a focus of any injunction request by Apple.

    So if you’re thinking about getting a Samsung smartphone here in the land of the free, you might want to act quickly.

    • Atradeimos
    • 7 years ago

    Well, I for one am not surprised. Although the patent system is a stupid way to go about proving it, TouchWiz always looked like a blatant iOS ripoff.

    The same definitely isn’t true for HTC or Motorola phones, or stock Android. I really don’t think Apple has much of a case vs phones without TouchWiz, or with a standard android button layout.

    People are worried about the patent on “rounded rectangles” but the full patent actually says “rounded rectangle with a home button.” I don’t think that applies to many other Android phones. ICS now has “software” buttons, so that pretty much invalidates this. The “bounceback” patent is easy to bypass with a software fix.

    In fact, Samsung could probably just remove TouchWiz and ship stock ICS on the GSIII. Who here would say that won’t be an improvement? I’m not too worried about the future of smartphones.

    • Anarchist
    • 7 years ago

    … this is a good thing. Maybe we can now see smart-phones that look different from iphone and tablets that look different from ipad.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 7 years ago

      I agree. Also, I think Nintendo needs to sue Microsoft and Sony for violating their design principles of a controller. Surely, MS and Sony can come up with something other than crosspads to put on their controllers and buttons. BUTTONS! Buttons are a design innovation that only Nintendo could come up with to put in a four cross-pad-like configuration.

      Innovation requires every controller be completely different in every way. In every way. What is that you say? That doesn’t help with multiplatform porting? Who cares about that? Nobody cares about that. Just as every phone should have a completely different interface that you must learn across different phones, every controller should be completely and totally different to the point of confusing for the consumer. And every car should have something other than a steering wheel except Ford. Let every other car designer make a new thing to guide a car’s path. How about a foot-controlled guide-wheel? Let your hands control the gas and break while your feet control the steering.

      We must not have standards for controls. We must not have similar colors across devices. Cars must not share colors or similar designs. And don’t even get me started on HDTV’s. So much black and silver and gray. Only certain makers of TV’s should get access to black and silver and gray. Let everyone else find their own colors. Like pink or blue or plaid.

      Because having standards and consistency is completely horrendous!

    • Yeats
    • 7 years ago

    I guess the RDF didn’t die with Jobs, after all.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Jobs didn’t die; he transcended

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        That’s a very long word for “die”.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        +1 for sarcasm.

    • riviera74
    • 7 years ago

    Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, this whole trial points to one singular problem: design and software patents SHOULD NOT EXIST at all. Until Congress dramatically reforms patent law and disposes of such stupidity, we will still see cases like this come through our courts. Juries may not be equipped to actually figure these issues out.

    The weeping and gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere is misdirected against Apple. Apple is merely using what already exists to its advantage. Change/Reform patent law first and abolish existing design and software patents. Once that happens, Apple v. Samsung will not happen again.

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    Tomorrow’s headline: Dildo inventor sues all mobile phone companies for stealing vibration technology and not paying licensing fees for their patent!

      • brucethemoose
      • 7 years ago

      Then Apple sues the dildo company for copying their idea.

      That would lead to some interesting press…

    • raddude9
    • 7 years ago

    🙁

    • My Johnson
    • 7 years ago

    These comments are from a surly bunch to say the least.

    Guess what. You desire a product Apple created and just because Samsung is aping it doesn’t make it right. And, it’s just a phone.

      • blastdoor
      • 7 years ago

      I’m loving it. The women’s Lamentations do not disappoint.

      Whine, bytsch, moan. Then repeat. Always repeat.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        My minus is that “women’s lamentations” is sexist. Not only women can lamentate. 😛

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Samsung had Apple’s feel PLUS Android’s freedom/customization.

      • rrr
      • 7 years ago

      I don’t desire any of the products Apple created. What are you gonna do about it?

    • entropy13
    • 7 years ago

    I find it weird that the Holy Apple insists that they are being copied. But true enlightenment cannot be copied! The magic of iProducts can never be duplicated by heretics!

    • Malphas
    • 7 years ago

    Ah, f*ck. Unsurprising, but disappointing, nevertheless.

    • Jakubgt
    • 7 years ago

    Probably a dumb question to a lot, but what now? What does this mean for other phones and tablets coming out? Can they not have pinch zoom or double tap now?

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      No they absolutely can, if they acquire a license it from Apple

        • yogibbear
        • 7 years ago

        Cause Apple have shown an excellent track record of making licenses for said ‘features’ which are just pathetic code that they probably won’t even test, sell or give you and make you code it yourself and not charge $20/unit for? Hahahahahaha.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          Ya they do have an excellent track record. You think that dedicated isle of products at BB with iPod docks went unlicensed?

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            Yes yes they did. That’s why Apple are changing the connection on their new products i.e. iPhone 5.

            • My Johnson
            • 7 years ago

            I smaller connector allows for a thinner product. Nice try though.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            The micro-USB connector is a bit smaller than their new connector, or if you insist, is the same size. Why not use it instead then, if all they require is to make a thinner device?

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            It would take more then one connector to equal the functions of Apples connectors. For example, microUSB could not be able to pass through analog audio or analog video. It could pass them digitally but then that also requires the add on devices to add additional components such as DAC’s and USB Controllers in the docks, etc. If they were to go the separate ports that would be needed to have the same functionality, then that not only adds to the cost of add on devices but also adds additional cost the phones and limits the future design changes they can make to the phone. They would have to keep the connectors such as the micro-HDMI and the microUSB in the same locations to maintain addon device compatibility or have those devices connected via multiple cables (a very sloppy proposal).

            People seem to forget that the Apple port carries out far more functions then just USB data and power.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Which then begs the question: why the need for a new connector? I look at the iPod my mother has and that connector has no issues with its [b<]thickness[/b<], which apparently is the primary reason it's being ditched. I can still see a few millimeters can be "shaved" off it and the connector would still be largely intact. It is "wide", but not thick that a thinner device would be impossible to make (and it's quite thin already). And as many "leaks" of the iPhone 5 say/state/show, the bottom portion is primarily occupied by that one new port that is just as thick (or if you insist, a bit less thick) as the old one it replaces, but quite smaller horizontally.

            • kumori
            • 7 years ago

            There are rumors that Apple is moving the headphone jack to the bottom of the phone. This would not have been possible with the previous connector because it too up too much room on the bottom of the phone.

            Also there are rumors that the new plug will be like the mag-safe plugs which means the plug on the phone needs to be wider in order to allow the cable to easily fit the opening.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] its thickness, which apparently is the primary reason it's being ditched[/quote<] Please quote an Apple source saying that. Otherwise you are just assuming someones speculation is the official reason. There are several other reasons why a smaller connector would be beneficial. Such as smaller surface area to accumulate debris , better connections, unifying the connector types for their portable devices (such as being able to use it as well on a iPod nano/shuffle), freeing up board space for additional circuitry etc. Many of the same reasons why serial DB-9 connectors took over from the DB-25 ports serial connectors.

            • My Johnson
            • 7 years ago

            “…being able to use it as well on a iPod nano/shuffle…”

            Bingo.

            It’s not because the iPhone in particular was too thin for the old connector.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Yup, and I guarantee they will be licensing out to third parties to make device addons.

      • Jakubgt
      • 7 years ago

      I just don’t understand how someone can put a patent on something so basic as “icons arranged into a grid”

      The system is clearly flawed and I’m really curious what will happen in the subsequent rulings

        • entropy13
        • 7 years ago

        Sony’s applying a patent on a “gesture to skip advertisements”. lol

    • moog
    • 7 years ago

    Samsung and Google were set on copying Blackberry until the iPhone was released. Clearly they had no original ideas of their own.

    Thank the justice system for upholding our intellectual property rights.

    Before you get emotional about lack of choice etc., think if it’s fair that I can just copy your innovative designs and sell them as my own.

    Think again, Chinese companies reverse engineer Cisco’s designs (and other American companies) and use them for their own because Chinese law does not outlaw this.

    To summarize, if you support Samsung and Google, you’re a traitor to America and should move to China, comrade.

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      I’m not from america. My phone is an iPhone, my TV is a samsung, my PC monitor is a samsung, my microwave is a samsung, my fridge is a samsung, my clothes washer is a miele. Am I a nazi comrade?

      • sluggo
      • 7 years ago

      Or perhaps Samsung should move to China. I don’t know why they would, as they’re doing quite well in South Korea (where they’re based…), but as it would make a better fit for your world view, then yeah! Hit the road, Samsung – off to China with you! Where you can do this copying stuff as much as you want and we can’t touch you! Hah!

        • trackerben
        • 7 years ago

        Of course they’re doing well on home ground. Even the justice and jail systems are made comfortable for them.

        [url<]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NA21Dg02.html[/url<] The sleaze that shames Seoul ...First up, the chaebol (conglomerates). Many top Korean companies, including household names, are run by crooks. That's not a libel; it's a fact. The chairmen of Samsung, Hyundai Motor, SK and Hanwha - the first, second, third and tenth largest business groups - have all been convicted of crimes in Korean courts of law. And three of them (guess the exception) have spent time behind bars - though only serving a fraction of their supposed sentences... ...So did the ultimate teflon tycoon, Samsung's Lee Kun-hee. Like Chung, Lee's business nous is not in doubt. But nor are his convictions. In July 2008, Lee was fined $109 million for tax evasion. [8] Two years later, he was again fined US$89 million plus a three year suspended jail term for illegal bond trading back in 1996: part of a ploy to line up his son Jae-yong as his successor. [9] (As in North Korea, so at Samsung. In both cases the kid had better be good.) The fines are peanuts to Korea's richest man, whose wealth Forbes put at US$9.3 billion last year. [10] When the tax fuss broke he resigned as group chairman, but bounced back in 2010 to chair its flagship Samsung Electronics (the shareholders weren't consulted) after President Lee - as an ex-Hyundai CEO, a chaebol man himself - pardoned him on all counts. [11] Handy...

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Did you know that Google is American?

      And Samsung is Korean, no Chinese.

      • deb0
      • 7 years ago

      Do you realize how ignorant you sound? First, the US Patent system needs reform. Apple did not invent the smart phone, or the motion of my thumb.

      Second, Apple is NOT an American company any more than Samsung or Google is. They have stores in America, but the jobs they provide are almost all overseas. If Anyone is the traitor here, it’s Apple; another so-called American company that provides jobs to other nations first.

      Third, you can look at a Samsung and Apple phone or tablet and clearly see they are not alike. The US courts are either biased, woefully ignorant on technology or corrupt. Perhaps all three.

        • chµck
        • 7 years ago

        To be honest, the very first time I saw someone holding the Samsung Galaxy S, I mistook it for an iphone.
        I’m anti-apple btw.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          The very first time I saw a black iPhone, I mistook it for a Samsung phone.

          I think Samsung should sue Apple for trying to deceive the unsuspecting public into buying their products

        • trackerben
        • 7 years ago

        Apple is an American company run by Americans and claimed by Americans, legally, politically, socially, and even wikipedia-ly. Same with Google. Samsung is definitely Korean, its principals are mainly from family-run chaebol.

        By your definitions Nokia, Wal-Mart, CostCo, and Canon could all be seen as mainly Chinese companies, and Honda and Toyota would be American, and Shell would be Saudi Arabian. There is no easy way to have a reasonable argument on these grounds, particularly if you display general contempt for the judicial entities which have final authority to determine these things.

          • entropy13
          • 7 years ago

          Shell wouldn’t be Saudi Arabian though, but <insert country with oil/natural gas>. lol

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            Shell is dutch. There is a literal quadgigaload of oil/gas off the north sea. I guess that means that they’re not a traitor?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            I’m just following his reasoning, and it’s weird that he didn’t follow his own reasoning when it came to talking about Shell. lol

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            I remember that Shell took a momentous ownership position in Saudi Aramco during the Iraq War, which means a big stake in much of the world’s known reserves. Employment there adds up to nearly a hundred thousand in ministry drones and infrastructure crews, including a 10,000-man security force. And the argument could be made that total employment should also include the 100,000 man Guard, the guarantor of the Kingdom’s viability as OPEC’s lead and whose members’ payroll come from oil revenues anyway. So Shell would have an interest of up to 40% of all that, plus some juicy sites in neighboring Iraq.

            Yes, Shell could have vaster stakes in offshore ventures by now, but I haven’t been keeping track as things are moving fast in this sector.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Shell’s presence in the Arabian peninsula is largely comparable to their presence in Australia. Although Chevron are larger in Australia in two of the most expensive energy production projects in the world, Shell also have a significant stake on those two Australia projects (Wheatstone and Gorgon). Shell also has a stake in the Kashagan project in Kazakhstan, the most expensive energy production project in the world at $116 billion.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            And to think these are not counting all the people at their many offshore exploration and production sites. Shell is all over the terrestial surface. Oil companies are the hardcore multinationals of our time.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]If Anyone is the traitor here, it's Apple; another so-called American company that provides jobs to other nations first.[/quote<] Would you buy a smartphone for >$1000? Would you accept a manufacturing job that paid less that $1/h? Yeah, didn't think so. Case closed

          • Waco
          • 7 years ago

          No, I just wouldn’t buy a smartphone at that point. 🙂

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Troll succesful.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      Can I buy a phone made in the US?

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    i think google needs to come in and destroy crapple period. i refuse to have crapple define my life with their icrap products and this verdict just makes me h8 them even more. i can just picture each juror walking out out court with their crapple goodie basket as a reward. i would love to see another southpark xmas special with satan and jobs, but i am sure crapple will sue the studio for patenting that too!

      • TakinYourPoints
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]i refuse to have crapple define my life with their icrap products[/quote<] You kind of do already, where do you think most of these other companies get their ideas from?

        • albundy
        • 7 years ago

        you mean where does crapple steal ideas from? probably original smartphone inventors like ibm and nokia.

    • Jakubgt
    • 7 years ago

    Pretty soon apple will start suing anything that’s white and rectangular. I guess that’s the way to get rid of competition in the United States.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Good god, where will I refrigerate food then?!

        • pedro
        • 7 years ago

        In your iFridge of course!

        • HallsMint
        • 7 years ago

        Just buy a beige one like mine 😛

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    Although I think software patents that are essentially patenting an idea and not a specific method are stupid, I don’t care too much that they were upheld. There are other ways to do the same thing. (The ones that bother me are the ‘do xx [i<]on a smartphone[/i<] when the same thing was common practice on other devices. Those should be invalidated.) It's the extremely broad and generic design patents that should not stand. The UK invalidated the 'rounded rectangle' patent, the US should as well. It's a glaring example of how stupid patents can be. Oh, one other thing: Samsuing devices say SAMSUNG in large bold type on the face. How the hell can anyone assume that people are mistaking them for Apple devices?

    • trackerben
    • 7 years ago

    The Do No Evil Chaebol

    Is Samsung-Google
    Without a doubt
    They are about
    The rise of machines
    In a world without Apple

    • mcnabney
    • 7 years ago

    Based solely upon the speed of the jury – I am concerned that this might be an example of an American jury giving an American company a foreign company’s money.

      • trackerben
      • 7 years ago

      “… everybody’s going to have to give.” (B. Obama, 2009)

        • streagle27
        • 7 years ago

        What would people say if, hypothetically, a person who made such a statement, and who ran a campaign to force the rich (who already pay 70% of the taxes) to pay even more, was found to refuse to help his own brother and sick nephew who still live in poverty in a 3rd world country?

        What would people say if the brother had to borrow $1000 from a friend to pay for the sick nephew to receive hospital care because his own multimillionaire brother refused to help him and his son?

        What would people say if the rich multimillionaire brother, hypothetically, knew about the abject living conditions of his brother and family, and refused to lift them out of such conditions just because his brother didn’t share his anti-colonial political views?

        So hypothetically, the person in question REFUSES to help family, especially sick related CHILDREN simply because of their parents different political views?

        The person in such a hypothetical situation would force ALL Americans who pay taxes (who are already the most generous people in history) to pay out even more to fellow Americans (and foreigners), -effective strangers-, to help with health care, and yet he refuses to provide for his own blood especially when they are sick and in dire need of HEALTH CARE?

        Hypothetically,I believe that the vast majority objective and fair-minded and generous people would say the person in question, is a hypocrite if this is a true story.

        This would imply that the person in question is, despite what they say, NOT fair-minded, and NOT generous and does NOT practice what they hypothetically preach and require of others.

        I would strongly recommend finding out whether the story is true, before posting any dissenting replies.

          • trackerben
          • 7 years ago

          I posted B. Obama’s famous maxim in jest. I actually mostly agree with you on these observations by the insightful D. D’Souza which he further elucidates in his eye-opening popular documentary, 2016: Obama’s America.

          There is an element of truth in the President’s “giver” ultimatum, though. One way or another, monetarily or fiscally, spending-wise or tax-wise, every economic actor on this planet contributes to the ability of post-war US instrumentalities to continually finance US public-sector deficits, on the strength of the Dollar as the world’s reserve and settlements currency.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      In Korea, they ruled that both companies are stupid, slapped both companies with fines (although Apple got the bigger one), and all this despite it being Samsung’s home country. I found that was a better verdict.

        • trackerben
        • 7 years ago

        S Korea is the kind of place where they can throw an unpopular former President into a cold cell, yet can’t be bothered to have Samsung’s convicted principals serve even one day of their sentence for criminally corrupting their industry, the media, and much of the judiciary and political elite.

        S Korea is the land of enormously powerful and influential conglomerates which over the decades were privileged by the ruling party with massive loans, guidance, and market protection so that they could the expand into the economy’s commanding sectors of defense and heavy industry, automobiles, electronics. The few crony-capitalists and their families who control these national champions are Untouchables and the true aristocracy of the modern era.

        [url<]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NA21Dg02.html[/url<] The sleaze that shames Seoul "...First up, the chaebol (conglomerates). Many top Korean companies, including household names, are run by crooks. That's not a libel; it's a fact. The chairmen of Samsung, Hyundai Motor, SK and Hanwha - the first, second, third and tenth largest business groups - have all been convicted of crimes in Korean courts of law. And three of them (guess the exception) have spent time behind bars - though only serving a fraction of their supposed sentences..."

          • entropy13
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]S Korea is the land of enormously powerful and influential conglomerates which over the decades were privileged by the ruling party with massive loans, guidance, and market protection so that they could the expand into the economy's commanding sectors of defense and heavy industry, automobiles, electronics. The few crony-capitalists and their families who control these national champions are Untouchables and the true aristocracy of the modern era.[/quote<] And the USA is different...? lol

            • cosminmcm
            • 7 years ago

            USA is USA! You don’t compare USA to South Korea.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            I haven’t made any comparisons between the two? All I’m saying is that South Korea [b<]copied[/b<] the USA system for corporatism! LOL

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            Chaebol are quite a different animal. The many group subsidiaries and the ruling families’ holdings can be mutually interlocked in crossholdings which are not always transparent, particularly as some of these vehicles are suspected to be shells for various political parties. Might be even more opaque than that of Japan’s industrial Zaibatsu, although the later also developed their own banking arms in the traditional asian conglomerate model of functional integration and capacity-building. IBM was thought to be implementing a zaibatsu or at least a keiretsu system of affiliates in the 1980s, but that would be case of western firms copying eastern practices.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            Whatever S Korea claims to be, it operates as a unitary state where the military and intelligence communities have a disproportionate share of political and economic influence. Something like Singapore or Taiwan but heavily into the Swiss model of territorial defense. Some people would believe anything of the US when viewed as a world hegemony, but internally it still behaves much like a republic of federated states bound by constitutional traditions and magistered by powerful state and national institutions

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            So you’re saying that in the US corporations are either “federated states”, “state institutions”, or “national institutions”?

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            If I were to say that you are making a simple category error, you would say “exactly!”, and we would be in agreement.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            A category error? You made no mention of corporate entities in the US at all even though they’re quite powerful. I finally mention them and then I’m the one with the “error”?

            • kumori
            • 7 years ago

            I think he’s talking about the way courts are run. Courts are very independent in the U.S. The same is not true in Asia (perhaps excluding Japan).

            • spanky1off
            • 7 years ago

            are you really that naive that judges are independent. wake up. corporate interestes own you, the media, congress, the judges. principles died a long time ago.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            Well if you just wanted to differentiate between these multinationals in their origin and ownership by nationality, then you could complain as I tried to expand the contested context and identify crucial aspects surrounding the litigants. Which in Samsung’s case has much to do with it being a creature of a favorable public-private sector mercantilist partnership which has permitted its leaders to defeat or render inutile many judicial and regulatory reckonings over the past four decades.

          • blastdoor
          • 7 years ago

          Sounds like the kind of place that republicans see as a role model.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            Highly unlikely. See my last post, or ask your poli sci 101 teacher

      • MastaVR6
      • 7 years ago

      So what does this mean to the billions Apple is keeping offshore (until it can get a tax break to do it?)

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      didn’t the jury started to get info from both side on July 22.
      So they had info for over a month. Its not like in the last minute all the fact where presented.

      When a jury decide in this manner it show that the evidence presented was in favor of Apple.
      Samsung was not abbe to show they came up with the design and other concept on their own.

      Historically RIM could have done the same, but only someone like Apple can bring down monsters like Samsung.

      Maybe now Samsung can focus on being innovative , and otherwise license the work of other company if they want to copy something ?

    • pedro
    • 7 years ago

    Anyone know if Samsung is obligated to now bork extant violating phones via software updates?

    • entropy13
    • 7 years ago

    [url=http://www.icanbarelydraw.com/comic/comics/2012-08-13-prohibited.png<]This[/url<] is relevant I guess.

      • danny e.
      • 7 years ago

      perfect

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        I didn’t see the RDF hovering over the building. Did they figure out how to make it invisible?

          • entropy13
          • 7 years ago

          The building is an RDF.

    • JFS432
    • 7 years ago
      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      Ya and google will lose that as well, googles track record with litigation is abysmal. The only company that probably has a better legal crew then Apple is Novell.

        • CMF04k
        • 7 years ago

        Spoken like a true fanboi.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          Hardly, one only has to see the number of big cases that Google has lost. Their legal dept sucks.

        • JFS432
        • 7 years ago
          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          that’s not where they go.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            And they don’t stop bleeding, either.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        And this is why I say the Samsung/Apple verdict is just the beginning. iPhone fanbois are railing against me that it’s just a bunch of BHz (Butthertz) over Samsung and has nothing to do with Android itself, but I’ve been saying all along that it’s bigger than Samsung.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          Oh absolutely it is larger then just Samsung. By dealing a huge blow to the largest competitor, it is going to make other competitors re-evaluate their product, make changes to it or try to license what they need from Apple.

            • JFS432
            • 7 years ago
            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            You know what they say : “You are what you eat”

            • JFS432
            • 7 years ago
            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            +1 for bacon

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            What’s with the bacon worship? I thought that was for S|A readers

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    I’m going to try a little experiment here. I”m going to substitute two random company names like Proctor and Gamble and Pfizer for Apple and Samsung. Let’s pretend these two companies are suing each other for copying some kind of health product and see if it brings any emotions, opinions or other armchair/keyboard warrior opinions that don’t matter. None. Well that is how 99.999% of the world feels about this trial verdict.

    /goes to kitchen, gets a beer and starts playing Killing Floor on a custom built PC while wife browses Facebook on her MBP

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      /goes to Facebook and start’s chatting to your wife.

        • jdaven
        • 7 years ago

        /goes to wife in real life (not yogibbear’s made up reality), kisses her and appreciates good times on techreport, enjoying technology and being happy

          • trackerben
          • 7 years ago

          A good day, eh? Wife’s happy,Techreport’s spiffy, Jobs is vindicated and Cook is cooking, and Apple has gored the mightiest cellphone maker in the world.

          But stay tuned. Google and Samsung are in pre-production of “The Do No Evil Chaebol Strikes Back” for release in Appeals court

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      Except that pharmaceutical patents are a very different kettle of fish. It takes (literally) a dozen years to R&D, and then test, through Phase 1, 3 and 3 clinical trials, before a drug can, on average, be brought to market. These companies need (or at least can better justify) the 20 year patent duration so that they can recoup research costs, etc.

      The turnover for each generation of smartphones/tablets is way shorter. Furthermore, while drugs and other pharmaceuticals have more or less unique purposes, smartphones and tablets, no matter who makes them, are all designed to do pretty much the same thing. For this reason alone, more overlap in design should be expected and, I guess, tolerated.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Its nice that you believe that (20 years to recover R&D on drugs). Those company have done a great job in ‘educating’ the public…

        Beyond that I agree.
        But you use the wrong analogy. Tylenol does have its pill shape/color under trademark.
        Try to make a pain reliever that look exactly like a Tylenol box and Tylenol pill and you will be bankrupt before you know it.
        Even so none of the R&D done for the ingredient was infringed upon… so why ?

        A LOT of money goes into building a brand and image. Samsung is taking all of Apple market research and design for free. They waited on the sideline until apple took the risk, when Apple created this new market and all the path where made, Samsung stepped in, copy everything to the T and came to grab the profits with no risks.
        (Using the ‘same’ part it sold Apple, but at cost, since they make them in the first place)

        How can anyone respect Samsung for doing crap like that is beyond me.

          • cynan
          • 7 years ago

          Well sure, not every drug requires years of research. However, many do. Most, however, do require years of clinical testing before they can get FDA approval. I never said the 20 years was fair in every case, just that the pharmaceutical model can better justify it.

          I think Apple getting up in arms about all this imitating is, at least partly, a bit of misdirection. They need an excuse to throw their weight around in court in attempt to stifle any serious innovative competition.

          In a research note before the verdict for the Samsung-Apple case, UBS analysts said an Apple win could, in the long-run, hurt the U.S. firm “as the real threat is not a competitor beating Apple at its own game, but instead changing the game.

          “The likelihood of Apple being leapfrogged or a rival creating a new category (of device) is greater if they have to think out of the box. If they just copy Apple, like Coke, Apple can claim to be ‘the real thing’.”

          In other words, the more Apple is imitated, the better this cements their market image as THE premium brand in the minds of the consumer. Like RC Cola VS Coke. Which is a pretty good market position to have for the long term.

          Apple’s true goal isn’t to punish imitators for their imitations, it’s to cripple them in order to prevent the imitators from eventually out-innovating them. Ironically, according to the analysis above, this may backfire by forcing the competition to be even more innovative. Time will tell.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]They need an excuse to throw their weight around in court in attempt to stifle any serious innovative competition.[/quote<] Most industry people had already realized that Samsung weren't out-inventing or even out-innovating anyone in the telecomms industry but were only mostly imitating the industry leaders. Even shop talk among distributors and resellers reflect this long-held view. Here is the latest article from industry analysts who closely follow trends: [url<]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/28/us-apple-shares-idUSBRE87Q0E920120828[/url<] "The verdict does not come as a surprise," wrote William Blair & Co analysts. "From Apple's perspective, Samsung's market position and its leadership in the handset world was something the company could no longer overlook, and viewing this as another 'imitation is a form of flattery' was not possible." "Companies such as Samsung, who we categorize as fast followers, have been viewed by the industry for their ability to quickly adopt the latest handset trends ... rather than their ability to introduce fundamental innovation."

          • Shambles
          • 7 years ago

          Yes, clearly every device need to be created from scratch. Let’s return to the stone age and not build on decades of previous advancements in order to create some illusion of an even playing field. To say that Samsung DOES copy other companies and in the same breath ignore that Apple ALSO copies other companies is illogical. Apple took the risk of trying something different, and you know what? They enjoyed monumental sales at monumental profit margins for it. That is the reward for trying new things, not that you should be able to sit on one idea and own it for all time.

        • Shambles
        • 7 years ago

        If you wanted to mirror tech patents to similar patents in the pharmaceutical industry it would be like Pfizer getting a patent for “An ingestable, injectable, or absorbable drugs that increases patient comfort by reducing pain”. That’s how stupid Apple patents are.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      I could care less about hand lotion, or some pain reliever. It isn’t significant. The way we exchange information with one another is significant, especially when it’s the closed, proprietary, controlling system versus the open, free, and customizable system.

      Open, free, and customizable lost today. Everyone who purchased an Apple product provided financial support to defeat freedom. That trickles down. Manufacturers will probably be scared to copy or imitate Apple now, which will impact sales, which will impact market share. Steve Jobs, prior to his death, made it very clear that he was angry at Android [i<]for competing[/i<]. Apple has, historically, had a problem with having to actually [i<]compete[/i<]. They lost against Microsoft, thank the jury. But that was the desktop, that was big iron. This is the smartphone. This is the most personal computer that has yet been developed. And Apple just delivered a crushing blow to it. I won't disagree that Samsung probably lifted a bit from iOS -- the iconography and the box art were just... stupid, stupid decisions on their part. To be honest, it's fair to blame Samsung for giving Apple that kind of ammunition in the first place. But consumers are in for a world of hurt.

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    F***** I hate you stupid US patent system. With you still in your current state, the world just isn’t worth living in anymore. Goodbye cruel world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Overreacting just a little bit..?

    • pedro
    • 7 years ago

    How good is the timing on this verdict by the way? Tech sites of all persuasions all over the web are rubbing their hands together in glee, knowing how epic the primetime traffic is going to be this weekend.

      • Firestarter
      • 7 years ago

      I thought that tech site prime time was right about 9:30 AM, monday morning? I say that based on my entirely unbiased research with more than 0 samples.

    • Decelerate
    • 7 years ago

    Imo the only real losers of the TouchWiz trial were the [b<]other Android[/b<] OEMs that got brutalized by Samsung's move. Not that they were extremely smart about their products and differentiation strategies in general, mind you. Except maybe for Asus. Maybe.

    • NeelyCam
    • 7 years ago

    F**k. I’m close to signing another slavery contract with AT&T, and this may mean Samsung phones are out of my reach. What can I do?

    Short of actually buying an x86 Moto phone, I may have no other option but to switch to Apple. Once I find myself owning an iPhone, it’s just a matter of time before I give up on Windows Ultrabooks and get an MBA. Next, it’s AppleTV instead of Roku2. Before the year is over, I’ll probably also have an iPad Mini.

    And Apple wins yet another customer; not because they had a compelling product, but because they restricted competition.

    This makes me sad. I can see this taking the joy out of building my own rigs – what’s the point if they don’t play nice with the rest of my “system”?

    It’s very hard to draw the line somewhere between fair competition and unnatural restriction of innovation, but I think Apple just crossed the line

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Why on earth would you stay with ATT? You could always get a Samsung second hand or something. Or get another Android based phone if that suits your fancy.

      There’s no way in hell I’d reward the company that restricted competition in this way.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t have enough pride to try to punish companies at my own expense. I’ll still buy whatever I consider to be the best option out there – unfortunately, it might now be Apple

          • Shambles
          • 7 years ago

          “I don’t have enough pride to try to punish companies at my own expense. I’ll still buy whatever I consider to be the best option out there – unfortunately, it might now be Apple”

          It’s people like this that are the reason that corporations in the states run around un-checked by anything except other larger corporations. You are pathetic.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            That’s how life works… right now. The only way to fix this is to ban lobbying and vote out everybody in Congress

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        Don’t be stupid.

        [quote<]Instructions handed down from corporate state that customers seeking smartphones at AT&T retail stores should be steered away from Apple's (AAPL) iPhone and towards Android phones or Windows Phone handsets like the Nokia Lumia 900 instead. BGR has confirmed the directive with three independent sources.[/quote<] [url<]http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=23626[/url<] Yeah, they're restricting Android phones by ... steering people towards Android phones? What? AT&T is also the 'premier' Windows Phone 7 provider as well. Take off the hate glasses man.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          Your comment makes no sense. “Hate glasses”? You’re going to tell me that ATT just won at best customer service? I can’t imagine why anyone would use them. Just the worst. It has nothing to do with what phone OS he’s using.

          Why would I care what ATT does with phones – Apple’s or anyone elses? They’re a horrible company.

          If you think I’m team Android you’ve got another thing coming.

          Regardless your comment is apparently in response to something you imagined I wrote rather than what I actually wrote.

          Nor did I ever say this: “they’re restricting Android phones”.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Last time I checked, both Verizon and T-Mobile had crap signal in my home. Crap as in 1 bar and constant inability to make phone calls.

            Unless that is fixed now, I don’t really have options.. and how can I test if it is fixed or not?

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            T-Mobile and ATT commonly use each others’ towers so that’s surprising if still true. Best way would be to see which carriers your friends use and have them come over I suppose.

            The other way would be to get a used phone free from someone you know or from something like Freecycle and check it.

            Also this may help: [url<]http://opensignalmaps.com/network-coverage-maps/t-mobile-coverage-map.php[/url<]

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            T-Mobile’s 3G is a completely different frequency than AT&Ts, so I doubt they share those.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            I think you’re right on that.

            Still in some areas they’re still building out 2G from what I’d heard – or including it on new towers. I got that from word of mouth though – I don’t know how accurate it really is.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Everybody I know is either on Verizon or ATT. I have plenty of unlocked phones, but no TMobile.sim card to put in them.. I guess I could go sign a contract, test the signal, and return it within the 30-day return window. I could also use my finnish sim card, and force the phone to connect to TMobile’s network, but I’m not sure I could get it to the “4G” part of the network..

            I’ve checked the signal maps; they don’t help much. There are some dead spots that aren’t shown on those maps… one of them where my house is (or, at least that was the case 2years ago when I last tried)

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Sorry I’m out of ideas otherwise. You could go with getting one of those cellphone extender/phone booster whatchamajiggers but I get that it’s a lot of effort just to use a specific carrier.

            Ah here’s one:
            [url<]http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phone-and-smart/verizon-wireless-network-extender/4505-6448_7-33522854.html[/url<] and another: [url<]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/zBoost+-+SOHO+Mobile+Phone+Signal+Booster/1260825.p?id=1218244143904&skuId=1260825[/url<] If I were in your place I'd still do it because I refuse to use ATT again under any circumstance but if they haven't consistently cornholed you (out of sheer luck I imagine) then maybe it's worth it to you to stay. I presume you've tried your friends' Verizon phones.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Thanks; you’re really trying to help. I appreciate it.

            And no; ATT hasn’t cornholed me personally so far, but that FaceTime story seems just ridiculous

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            There’s also UMA, and wifi calling. Here’s another page that may help: [url<]http://www.cel-fi.co.uk/blog/how-to-boost-mobile-phone-signal-indoors/[/url<] T-Mo has free wifi calling [url<]http://t-mobile-coverage.t-mobile.com/4g-wireless-broadband-service[/url<] [url<]http://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-1680[/url<] That's it, I got nothin' else.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            FYI, the T-Mobile return window is 14 days. I got bit by that. Got my phone/contract at best buy as I wanted a Nexus S at the time. Returned it 19 days later, as Best Buy has a 30 day return policy. Turns out I’m still stuck with the T-Mobile contract or the $200 ETF.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Was that Best Buy or T-Mobile’s return policy?

            Added: Ah it’s T-Mobile’s. [url<]http://support.t-mobile.com/docs/DOC-2624[/url<]

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah, T-Mobile. They were cock gobblers about it too. They couldn’t understand my point of ‘I received no subsidy. I returned the phone. Why am I still stuck with a contract and a $200 ETF?’

            In fact, when I called to talk to them about issues I was having with my Nexus S (random reboots, battery life issues), they recommended I exchange it for a different phone. I got the LG G2x on launch day. If you’re unaware, the G2x, the first Tegra 2 phone release in the US, was one of the biggest pieces of garbage from a software perspective that ever was released. How could I say no to an amazingly powerful 4″ dual core phone? It shipped with FroYo almost 9 months after Gingerbread was released, with the promise that a GB rom was coming ‘very soon’. Very soon turned out to be over 7 months. It had:

            Broken battery drivers that would result in the phone not knowing how much charge the battery had left. So it would think you had 40% when you had 3% and randomly shut off. It would think you had 0% when you had over 50%, and shut the phone off.

            WiFi/BT issues where the phone would not stay connected to my Ford Sync UNLESS I turned WiFi off. Talk about a pain of having to turn off WiFi every time I got into the car.

            T-Mobile WiFi calling issues. T-Mobile allows you to use WiFi to ‘boost’ signal essentially and just use your home internet connection to make calls, that SOMEHOW still used minutes on your plan, but that’s besides the point. The phone would get ‘stuck’ on WiFi calling, and if you left the house, would not complete calls as it could no longer talk to the T-Mobile server over WiFi. You’d have to manually turn WiFi off and back on to get it to flip back to the cellular connection.

            I’d wake up in the middle of the night and the phone would be locked up with a ‘static’ snowy garbled screen. Bad juju when I rely on my phone to wake me up for work alerts.

            Randomly reboot as well. As I came to later learn, this was just an ‘accepted’ thing with Android phones of that vintage. When I’d complain, even Android fanboys would say ‘Oh, yeah, they do that.’ I fail to see how that is acceptable at all.

            With that said, they eventually did release a GB ROM and an update to that that apparently turned the phone into a very nice piece of kit. Just too bad it took a year to get to that point.

            Despite all this, T-Mobile would not let me out of the contract. Also, after these issues, is it really any wonder that I don’t like Android?

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Ouch. No I can see where you’re coming from. However I’d say the issue was more with T-Mobile than Google/Android. I get some anomalies on occasion when switching from UMA or wifi to cellular but not so many. I have an pretty old BB 8520 that’s generally solid.

            I personally would have tried different T-Mobile stores because depending on who you get you will get someone that’s sympathetic and wants to help and others that are just dicks (who it sounds like you ran into). I personally never buy anything at Best Buy (I bought a mouse there once if memory serves) and I typically wouldn’t trust anyone inside a big box retailer for anything customer service related. I’m not blaming you and I hope you don’t take it that way but these are things I do to help guarantee a better result.

            OTOH to play devil’s advocate a moment I’ve tried to bring things back to Fry’s a day late and they were “no it’s stated explicitly when you buy it you have 14-30 days depending on the item. You have to go to the manufacturer for a warranty issue at this point”. However I have my doubts that any carrier puts that out in bold print on the receipt.

            Still, it sounds like a nightmare and I’m sorry you went through that.

            I’m still more than a little unclear on what your initial response to me was about.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      nokia and wp8

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        x86 inside, and we’ll talk

          • Madman
          • 7 years ago

          mmmkay, trade it for -2 days of battery life 🙂

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Don’t you mean “the awesomest power management features AND superfast page rendering”?

      • CuttinHobo
      • 7 years ago

      Just don’t forget one of the most important upgrades: the upgrade of your wardrobe. You undoubtedly do not own enough black turtlenecks. And be sure to buy trendy ones or the next time you run into some hipsters they may call out to you, “Where did you get that turtleneck? At the… toilet store?” How humiliating.

      • Geistbar
      • 7 years ago

      Despite the potential for it, I’d be surprised if this resulted in any permanent unavailability of Samsung’s phones. Either Apple and Samsung reach some overarching settlement to cover all of their international disputes, with one side (sadly, likely to be Samsung if only because of the size of the US market) giving a lot more money than the other, or Samsung just releases some slightly modified versions of their phones that would need a whole new round of litigation to remove from sale, if they even could be.

      Even then, you could still just jump over and get the phone you want sooner instead of later? I don’t see anything about an injunction starting already.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        I gotta wait until AT&T let’s me “upgrade” at the 18-month point of my 2-year contract.. that happens in mid October

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I misread your post and thought you were going for a brand new contract instead of a renewal(ish). I think and hope you’ll still be able to get a Samsung by October though: they haven’t even filed the paperwork for injunctions yet, and justice works slow.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah; it’d be good to have options. But so.far I haven’t liked Samsung phones because they are a bit too big for my taste

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Huh the only one I’ve ever considered was the Galaxy Note just because it is so huge (and would eliminate any need of ever getting a tablet).

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            need of ever getting a tablet? i think “need” is the wrong word

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Of course you’re right there. More like killing two birds with one stone. Still not sure I could survive without a hardware keyboard though.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            its not as bad as you think. My buddy was the last hold out of the ‘I NEED a physical keyboard on my phone’ crew around here. Once he realized he was out of decent options, he went with an iPhone. After about a week he said ‘I’m not sure why I thought I needed a physical keyboard. This works just fine.’

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            If RIM dies I’ll have no choice really. I really tried to love Nokia’s keyboards and was sorely
            disappointed.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      But intel locking out their competitors out of chipsets and x86 licensing is OK right?

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        Intel spending huge amounts of time, money and resources to research and develop high-IPC processors and fast I/O technologies is a bit different from Apple spending a weekend “inventing” bouncy screens and rectangular phones

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          A weekend eh? You are pretty clueless on how long Apple works on their R&D.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Coming up with a rectangular phone took probably an hour; writing a design patent application for it took the rest of the weekend

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20121322-37/apple-r-d-as-percent-of-revenue-hits-a-low/[/url<] 2.2% of revenue? 1.78 billion. Intel spent 2.58 billion, and they're WAY smaller. apple isn't famous for their R&D, they've actually invented very little. they do produce some good products, but the actual amount of INVENTION is small. [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0[/url<] these guys do a great job in breaking it down. [url<]http://ycharts.com/companies/INTC/r_and_d_expense[/url<] • HTC spends 3.83 percent of revenue on R&D as of June 30, down from 5.23 percent for the same period a year ago. • Microsoft spent 13 percent of revenue for fiscal 2011, down from 14 percent in fiscal 2010. • Dell spent 1 percent of revenue on R&D for fiscal 2011. • Google spent 14 percent of revenue on R&D for the nine months ended September 30. • IBM has spent 6 percent of revenue on R&D for years. • For the nine months ended July 31, HP spent 2.5 percent of revenue on R&D. apple produces good products, but it's because they use other peoples inventions in a way that works well. R&D isn't something they deserve much credit for.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]2.2% of revenue? 1.78 billion. Intel spent 2.58 billion, and they're WAY smaller. [/quote<] Apple also has a far smaller amount of devices they produce. Break it down $$/sku and they dwarf intel in R&D.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            are you counting EVERY SINGLE arch? apple has their a5’s (which really aren’t theirs, as it’s all others tech), all the idevices, and software to go along with it. I don’t necessarily agree. i think you’re exaggerating the amount of R&D and the ACTUAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT that intel does. i don’t think apple does that much. they do SOME, but i think you’re crazy if you think they actually research more NEW STUFF than intel.

            edit: and $/sku makes no sense. they don’t research as much, (though it’s been said they’re efficient), end of story.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            $$$$/sku makes perfect sense. If you spend $1000 of research on one product vs $2000 on 20 products what do you think will have more refinement?

            Intel’s has a far greater number of sku’s they R&D, everything from discreet components to finished products. Apple spends the bulk of their R&D on a handful of finished products and a shared software base to cover those products.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            Who said they did more on a specific sku? that’s something you added later. they DO LESS R&D. END OF STORY. you wanna argue how efficient it is, that’s another convo.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Who said they did more on a specific sku? that's something you added later.[/quote<] You did. [quote<]are you counting EVERY SINGLE arch? apple has their a5's (which really aren't theirs, as it's all others tech), all the idevices, and software to go along with it. I don't necessarily agree.[/quote<] If you look at the original $$/sku comment it remains unedited. Also if you look at the second edited comment it was posted over two and half hours ago so you cannot assert that you did not see the edit which was immediately after to address your other concern.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            your
            [quote<] Break it down $$/sku and they dwarf intel in R&D. [/quote<] is the first mention of r&d by sku. i never mentioned it before. are you reading the same thing as me? 2nd point, what? All i've been saying, from the beginning is that apple doesn't do much r&d. they spend less, and they use other peoples inventions in attractive products. nothing you have said disproves my point. you've said they produce less products, which i suppose is true. it still has nothing to do with anything, since they don't INVENT almost anything. intel does, and then they sell it to apple. apple then puts it in a package, uses a bit of r&d to see what fits, and sells it. they're not an inventive company, they're a packaging company. that's not a bad thing, it's reality. they're acer, or dell. not intel or amd. They're not even samsung. They do a good job at what they do. many of their products are extremely good products. BUT THEY INVENT ALMOST NOTHING, AND THE R&D THEY DO IS VERY LOW COMPARED TO OTHERS.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Thy spend less[b<] total[/b<] for all their product offerings. There is HUGE difference. You put more in R&D in one product or R&D in multiple products the more products you offer then of course you should have more R&D associated costs.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            WHAT’S YOUR POINT? THEY DON’T DO MUCH R&D.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            They do a hell of a lot of R&D. It is just that it is very focused.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            they do a comparatively small amount of focused R&D.

            ftfy.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Nope, you didn’t fix a thing. Let me make this really simple for you. Two guys go out shopping for vehicles. One guy spends 50,000 on one car, the other guy got 4 cars for 60,000. Who more then likely got the better vehicle?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            your example is bad.

            ms spends almost 7x as much as apple on R&D. they are in the R&D game. they do research and development that will drive the ENTIRE industry. they’re an R&D firm.

            Apple spends roughly the same as HP and Dell. there’s a reason for it. they’re not in the same R&D league as MS is, nor do they want to be. i’m not sure why you’re even making this argument. they haven’t needed to do R&D very often, and have been hugely profitable. they let somebody else do the work for them. that makes apple more efficient. it doesn’t make them and R&D shop. any more than macdonalds selling a sunday makes them a dairy queen.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            No your example is bad.

            Let’s take a look at MS’s R&D. For the past decade or so they have been well behind the times with their products. Apple dumped a lot of cash into the development of the iDevices, what did MS do? Umteeen failures at a tablet and failure at the media player market, non existent in the phone market, massive delays in a OS release and another botched release coming up soon. For all that R&D that MS has done trying to get into established markets and having to go back to the drawing board it is no wonder that they have to spend so much.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t disagree that MS has a lot of R&D that goes nowhere. They also have a ton that goes a lot of places. the work they’re doing in a great many fields is world leading. work with 3d displays, touchscreens lag, kinect tech, etc. there is a great amount of great R&D there. will MS capitalize on all of it? most of it? probably not. but somebody will.

            My example is fine, you’re just biased, and can’t see the forest for the trees.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            MS’s R&D approach is nothing but throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks and then market what stays up where as Apple takes the startup approach to their R&D by being focused and refined.

            (BTW the examples you listed were not MS innovations but acquired by buying the firms developing them).

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            ?
            only the initial kinect tech was a purchase. you’ve been missing out if you don’t watch the MS r&d videos they release. You can pretend all you want. apple is HP with less products. they’re not an r&d firm.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            How far can we go to the right margin of the page?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            idk? let’s see!

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Ok. Let’s see indeed…

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            what you doing tonight? any plans?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Uh, sleep?

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Didn’t people try to get the text as far to the right as possible when they switched to the new comment system? I can’t remember anymore.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            i’m not sure. we can always try again though.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Aren’t we already trying again right now?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            You should try harder

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Try what harder?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            This

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            “This”? Replying? Commenting? What?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah on what?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            yeah on what neely said.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            ^This. +1

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Ok.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Ok, try to be clearer next time SSK.

            EDIT: I think we’ve hit the limit. lol

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            it would seem

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            SSK WINS!! I SEE NOTHING BUT …

            Actually, WE ALL WIN!!! GLORIOUS DAY, HALLELUYEAH

            Edit: the rating plays tricks on the text. Also, did SSK do something funny to get triple-dot before entropy that was unrelated to scoring?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            “sweatshopking:” is longer than “entropy13” hence his comment just got the triple-dot even without the (+1).

            EDIT: LOL half of the “3” in my username and the : is outside of the white background now (for me at least). LOL

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            this was the best idea ever guys!

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            hahhahhh

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            You’re cheating because you replied to yourself. No one else did that in this comment tree.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            SSK IS DISQUALIFIED!

            AND MY WHOLE NAME IS OFF-WHITE!

            Does that mean that I get a gold medal?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Of course you don’t get a gold medal.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            damn guys. i didn’t realize that broke the rules. now what can i do? should we rematch?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            You don’t deserve a second chance, YOU CHEATER!!

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            Awe, come on tiff….

            • no51
            • 7 years ago

            HAY GUISE WUTS GOING ON IN HERE?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            NOT TOO MUCH, WHAT’S GOING ON WITH YOU? HOW’S THE WEATHER?

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            This isn’t the all-caps comments section, it’s in another comment tree. So you’re disqualified in the rematch as well ssk.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            you guys need to list the rules ahead of time…

            • TheMonkeyKing
            • 7 years ago

            Is this a 1920×1080 thread? If so, you got about another 1200 to go.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Uh-oh we have TWO kings here!

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Incorrect: [url<]http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/[/url<] They do a lot of research, you'd be surprised.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            It doesn’t make sense at all. You clearly have no idea how R&D works in chip business

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            Eek, that was close! I almost got run over by your moving goalposts.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            How did my goal posts move?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            because you claimed they had a ton of R&D, then once that was disproved, you then said “they have a ton per sku”.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            1.78 billion is not a ton of R&D? Especially spread out over the amount of products they offer? What the hell are you smoking?

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            It isn’t a lot of R&D when it’s a slice of ~$81 billion. You need to take scale into account; for some people, even just $1000 is a huge amount of R&D, yet for others, it will be a pittance. The same applies for $1.8 billion — for many, it’s an enormous investment. For Apple, it’s not impressive, nor does it represent a substantial investment on their part.

            They’re not a research company.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            It is a huge amount. If you were head of an R&D dept, which would you rather have? A larger R&D budget for a smaller total of products or a budget that spreads it out across many projects? The reason they can get those large profit margins is because of their R&D of their limited amount of offerings.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            it’s one of the lowest in the industry. i’m not sure what’s confusing about this.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Percentage wise perhaps. But percentage wise they offer a very limited selection of product as well.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            i sell one product, i do .1% r&d of revenue. that’s a low amount of R&D. if i make 1 billion dollars, it’s still a low amount of R&D. your totally missing the reality of the situation, and since you’re a smart man, i can only assume you’re being blinded by your love.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            No, that is just plain efficiency. Excellence in execution.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            You’re looking at absolutes. I tried to give an example already of why that’s foolish, allow me to expand on it: Is $100,000 a huge amount of money? I think it is, and most people would as well (if you don’t think it is, can I please have $100,000? — thanks!). Despite that, it would be preposterous to say that a Fortune 500 company spending $100k on R&D is spending a “huge amount” on research, because for them it’s couch cushion change. What if it was a Fortune [i<]5,000[/i<] company though? Then it could be a huge amount. You need to look at the amount spent relative to the amount that they're spending on everything else. Otherwise IBM is a legal company, Microsoft is a real estate company, and Google is a power supply company. Apple is not a research company, because too little of their revenue is dedicated to R&D! You [i<]need[/i<] to look at relative values, not absolute.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            That isn’t the case at all.

            If I went and spend $50,000 on stocks and you went and spent $80000 on mutual funds four years later my stocks are worth a few millions and your mutualfunds haven’t even cracked a million. Does it mean that my investment wasn’t substancial? No it doesn’t, it just means that my investment paid off better dividends then yours.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            you’re incorrect. he’s right. sucks man. we know you made your millions on apple stock, but it’s clouding your vision. apple isn’t a research company, they’re a reseller of other peoples tech. AS was said, it’s not a bad thing, but they’re not a R&D shop.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            If you are a Gates or a Buffet, then a $50,000 investment is not substantial. If you are the largest corporation in the world by market cap, with spending in 2011 in excess of $70,000,000,000, then $1.8 billion is not a substantial investment. For me, $1,000 is substantial, but that doesn’t mean that a $1,000 investment is a substantial one for multi-billion dollar companies.

            Stop looking at absolute values, it makes no sense in this context.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Wow, you really are arrogant about your lucky shot with AAPL. Overall, I’m ok with arrogance when it’s deserved, but time and again you’re demonstrating lack of understanding of technology and refuse to accept that you’re wrong when evidence is mounting against you.

            Sorry, but you sort of sound like the 1% you are

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            IT WASN’T LUCK. IT WAS DESTINY. HE ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT.

          • MathMan
          • 7 years ago

          Try writing an iPhone app. UI complexity doesn’t really matter, as long as it more than just couple of buttons.

          Now try to make that UI look good.

          I’ve done it many times and it’s really, really hard to get it right.

          Now try to come up, from scratch, with a UI framework that’s 100% intuitive for finger-based touch.

          That’s what the innovation is all about. The combination of thousands of individual things that may take a weekend to invent (and but weeks to get perfect enough to get the stamp of approval by Jobs): the bouncy screens, the animation to flip a companion screen, the sideways navigation concept, the list is endless.

          Whenever I’m using my Nexus 7, it jumps at me how Android still feels like a hodgepodge of UI concepts thrown together, whereas the iPhone got this unified feel nailed down right from the start.

          Weekend work? Yes, definitely. In addition to the ungodly hours during the week too.

            • shank15217
            • 7 years ago

            I have both ipad 1/2 and nexus 7, they just feel different, one doesn’t feel any more intuitive than the other. What exactly is a ‘hodgepodge’ of ui concepts? Both iOS and Android are developing along different lines, Apple had some pretty bad multitasking till iOS 5, ui and internals, android has clunky application installation and removal, both have their strengths and weaknesses. One thing is true, android feels like a much more open ecosystem and I prefer that.

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      Samsung will not be out of reach. These lawsuits were about phones that are already EOL. The SGS3 and moving forward, you can bet the farm, will not be anywhere CLOSE to infringing on anything Apple owns. Even if this is overturned on appeal, Samsung doesn’t want to tangle with Apple if they can avoid it at this point.

    • ModernPrimitive
    • 7 years ago

    I wonder what it would cost Apple – and Samsung – if Samsung decided to stop shipping components for the iPhone.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      another huge lawsuit for samsung?

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      They would have to break contracts they have with Apple to do so with any speed. If they just refust to make any new contracts, Apple will have time to find other suppliers–they lock in the whole supply/production pipe before they commit to a product. Now, a *new* product might be slightly delayed, but not by much. In the end, Samsung would suffer more than Apple. The only way to solve this is to get this case to a Judge that will let a Jury look at all of the relavant evidence.

    • windwalker
    • 7 years ago

    Justice is far far away from being done.
    This is just the beginning.

    The floodgates are now open and the whoop ass is going to flow down all over the copycats.

    Now that a jury has found Android to be a wilful infringer, judges are going to be significantly more trigger happy.
    That will allow Apple to target copycats sooner and get bans before the models become obsolete.

    I’m looking forward to the sweet sweet tears of droid rage ahead.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Yes, because clearly a 1 company market is good for consumers.

      I give this troll 1 out of 10. Lack of originality, lack of fingerpointing and derogative comments about the users of non-Apple products, and fails to induce rage.

        • windwalker
        • 7 years ago

        Today’s verdict is the first step towards reversing the Android monopoly trend.
        For the first time in more than a year, Windows Phone and BB10 now are considered to have a chance.
        Too bad it came too late for webOS and MeeGo.

        The only consumers this ruling is bad for is bottom feeders who want to pay as little as possible for knock-off products instead of rewarding innovation.
        Shame on you, bottom feeders for your staunch refusal to pay the fair price for access to the biggest innovations in computing in over two decades!

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          Rounding the edges of a rectangle is an innovation now? Did you actually look at the patents in question, or are you just basing this off of Apple’s press releases?

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Cliché overload alert!
            Please switch from herp-derp mode to reason mode before posting.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Seriously, read the link that Scott gave:

            [quote<]Apple's three utility patents, all found infringed, cover features like double-tapping to zoom and the "bounce back" technology that snaps images back into place. The company's four design patents cover [u<]elements like the contours and shape of the iPhone[/u<].[/quote<] Emphasis added. Or we could look at the actual patents. There's patent number [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/D618677<]D618677[/url<] and [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/D593087<]D593087[/url<]. Their summaries are nearly the same -- "The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described." Or maybe you meant patent number [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/D604305<]D604305[/url<], which is "The ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof, as shown and described." No, you must have meant patent [url=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7844915<]7844915[/url<], except all that does is (to quote the WSJ) "Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures". Please do tell me, how is that one of "the biggest innovations in computing in over two decades!" ? They aren't innovations, they aren't significant, and they shouldn't even be patentable (patents are supposed to cover methods of doing something, not the actual something itself).

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Thankfully, nobody cares what random anonymous people on the Internet think the laws should be.

            If they’re not significant innovations then everyone can just ignore them and go about their merry way instead of cloning them in every phone.
            Funnily enough, at first everyone did indeed think the iPhone was a stupid idea that would never sell in any significant numbers.

            Microsoft and Nokia thought so.
            RIM engineers thought it was impossible and that Apple was bluffing.
            Five years later, in your typical phone shop you can find dozens of iPhone clones, maybe one phone that looks like a Blackberry from 2006, one that looks like a Nokia from 2006 and none that look like a Windows Mobile stylus phone.
            And they’re all Android phones because Google had the sense to copy the iPhone as fast as they could and give it away to scared OEMs and operators to spread their ad cancer.

            And just FYI, patent summaries hold no legal weight.
            Read the claims to get a clue about what is actually protected.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          “Today’s verdict is the first step towards reversing the Android monopoly trend.”

          Exactly how did you come to this conclusion? How will Apple winning on specious patents help RIM?

          MS has zero to worry about because they’ve already got a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and they both want Android dead.

          Software patents are ridiculous and the prior art is significant. There is no win here for anyone except Apple. The customer loses along with their competitors.

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            It’s not Apple’s win that helps RIM, Microsoft and all other companies that are trying to contribute something new to the market, but the Android copycat’s loss.
            Nobody wants Android dead, everyone just wants Google to make it less of a rip-off.

            Just because Google has gotten fat off of putting ads over other people’s content they think they’re entitled to do the same with everything.
            Apple and Microsoft can’t be pushed around by the search monopolist as easily as most sites.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Android itself wasn’t found to infringe on any of Apple’s patents. The majority (if not entirety) of Apple’s patents are of the type that should have died with Lotus v. Borland (although that case is about copyright the same rules should apply).

            “Nobody wants Android dead” Steve Jobs apparently did. The number that Apple is doing trying to litigate its way into conquering the marketplace certainly indicates that. About the only reason that MS might not want it dead is because they make more money off of Android phones than Windows phones.

            So it’s ok to be a monopolist on the desktop, or ok to have a closed garden, or ok to lock your OS to your devices but it’s not ok if you’re Google?

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Nexus S was found to infringe at least one claim, so Android clearly infringes.

            Only as long as Android rips off iOS will Apple try to kill it.
            Apple doesn’t care about competition because they are totally sure they make the best stuff.
            So as long as others don’t copy them, they don’t care.
            Microsoft just wants money and will strangle anyone gets in their way if given a chance.

            It’s ok to be or do whatever you want as long as you don’t break any laws.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            “Nexus S was found to infringe at least one claim, so Android clearly infringes.”

            A device was found to infringe by a highly compromised jury. The OS itself was never found to infringe – if it had been this trial would have been Apple v. Google which it is not. This was a case of look and feel, Samsung’s Touchwiz interface, and the design of their phones – basically a rounded rectangle.

            Apple has chosen to attack Android by attacking its vendors and not the OS itself. The goal presumably being to make it too expensive and too difficult to justify using Android as on OS.

            Please explain how Android itself “rips off” IOS.

            This comment is patently untrue on multiple levels: “Only as long as Android rips off iOS will Apple try to kill it.” It ignores Apple’s ongoing anti-competitive practices, it’s stated goals as well as the fury Jobs had towards Google.

            “It’s ok to be or do whatever you want as long as you don’t break any laws.”

            So it’s ok to do whatever you like – no matter how immoral or amoral – as long as you are within the letter of the law?

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Nice goalpost moving there.
            First Android wasn’t found to infringe and then the jury is compromised.
            The case was about everything: hardware, software, design, trade dress.
            All of Apple’s property rights were validated by the jury and most of them were found to have been infringed by at least one product.

            Apple is smart so they have chosen to kill Android by cutting out its air supply of profits.
            They can’t stop Android’s market share, but they can definitely kill their profits.
            Market share is vanity, profit share is sanity.

            I don’t have to explain anything about how Android rips off iOS.
            A jury has decided it does, so from this point on, the burden of proof is on whoever claims otherwise.

            Apple has no illegal anti-competitive practices at all.
            They do have a strong tendency to make amazingly high quality disruptive products which is indeed a very dangerous anti-competitive practice.
            Ask Sony, Nokia and RIM for details about how just enough hubris can mean death if Apple decides to enter your industry.

            I don’t care what you think is moral or not, but it’s illegal to try to stop any kind of legal behaviour.
            The laws are pretty much the morality most of us agreed to, so if something legal seems bad to you it’s very likely you’re in the minority.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Android has not been found to infringe in this case – period. Samsung != Google. Touchwiz, like Moto Blur, is not the standard Android UI. Touchwiz has elements that has been found to infringe – by a jury that has clearly been compromised as has been noted by reuters, groklaw, ArsTechnica, Techdirt and others. The last time I checked ignoring orders and failing to read directions as well as deliberately ignoring prior art were serious issues.

            At no point has the underlying OS been accused of anything in this trial. If you honestly believe it does then kindly provide a link that states Android infringed and how.

            Edited to add: Here’s the jury form in its entirety [url<]http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266878/apple-vs-samsung-final-jury-form#3696275.[/url<] It asks which devices infringe. If something in there helps your case feel free to point it out.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            idk, i’m not sure, but didn’t google come out and say that MOST of the patents weren’t core related? that implies some were.
            edit: they did:

            [quote<] The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. [b<] Most [/b<] of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that. [/quote<]

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Even if that were true a trial against Samsung wouldn’t affect Android itself. I am not a lawyer but short of suing Google I don’t see any way that it could be made invalid in a third party case.

            I could absolutely be wrong but it’s a case of law – and the intricacies thereof – it isn’t the slamdunk windwalker purports it to be.

            I’ll do more reading and look into this – so far I haven’t seen anything on it directly on groklaw, the verge or Ars but I’ll look deeper. Google’s wording in that statement is rather vague. All the gestures that were mentioned as infringing were apparently a part of Touchwiz. It’s in Google’s best interest (and in this case – the industry’s) that prior art be established and that a rounded rectangle not be considered patentable. Further Samsung is probably their most valuable partner and they’ve got to find a way to look like they’re supporting them (while minimizing the damage).

            As I wrote – if he can provide a link that actually states that Android itself infringes – great. Nothing I’ve read supports that view.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            yeah, i have no idea. i just saw that quote from google. makes you wonder. android is getting to be a tricky OS to sort out though…

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Turns out s/he’s sort of right – while this wasn’t a trial about Android itself infringing the Nexus S was found to infringe on two patents ‘381 inertial scrolling and rubber band effect’ and patent 915 “programming interface for responding to finger scrolls and gestures”. Now this took a not insignificant amount of time to dig for – and it wasn’t really covered on the main tech websites.

            Links that cover this:
            [url<]http://9to5mac.com/2012/08/26/can-google-claim-apples-win-doesnt-relate-to-the-core-android-os-when-nexus-s-got-hit-hard/[/url<] And [url<]http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/making-sense-great-apple-vs-samsung-patent-battle[/url<] So while Android itself hasn't been found to infringe (because Apple didn't sue Google they sued Samsung) the Nexus S was (and the Nexus S uses an older version of vanilla Android and 4.0 eliminates at least one of the two patent issues). It's a fine point but legally it's an important distinction. The broad brushing of the actual facts by windwalker is and was highly annoying and rather than get into a pissing contest I wanted to stay on the facts. That said looking at those two infringing patents it looks like a joke. These are so open-ended you could drive a truck through them. There should be some pdfs in those two links for anyone that cares enough to read them. I think there are various reasons they didn't target Google initially - given that SCO v. Linux turned out to be a horrible public relations disaster for SCO (but still succeeded in spreading FUD) that's a route I don't think they wanted to take. Apple is very aware of its image and I doubt they want to be seen as anti-open source. Secondly Google's been pretty aggressive in getting out of Apple's way by finding new and different gestures and responses to those gestures in software that it made Google a moving target. Further I think that they weren't going to make a move against Google until they had won some cases already (as well as establish that running Android meant being beaten down in court with the best lawyers money can buy in every court in the world). I know - big ugly paragraph. I am not in love with either OS but this anti-competitive behavior and bullying is sickening to me. For this reason and the incredibly dubious nature of software patents in general - as well as these in particular - Apple's patents in this case need to be found invalid.

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Apple doesn’t care about their image among people that will never buy their products.
            Open source neckbeards and just plain freeloaders can hate Apple all they want.
            They are lousy customers and Apple almost surely wants other companies to serve them.

            Android is not a legal entity, so it’s obviously impossible for any liability of Android to be legally decided.
            That’s just arguing semantics instead of logic. But you already knew that because you’re obviously smart enough to know the difference.
            Only your blind hate and sense of entitlement to the fruits of Apple’s labour stand in the way of reason.

            Nexus S infringes so Android infringes.
            No amount of hand wringing, hot air or wishful thinking will change that because as of last Friday it’s an established fact.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            “Apple doesn’t care about their image among people that will never buy their products. Blah blah blah nonsense.”

            Are you Tim Cook? Because you constantly keep pulling things out of your 4 corner contact as if you were. At least the fingerpointing and slanderous comments finally come out.

            “Android is not a legal entity, so it’s obviously impossible for any liability of Android to be legally decided.”

            Oracle v. Google called and asked if you had anything to support that statement.

            Android may not be a legal entity – but only because it’s an OS not a company. Google releases the code therefore Google is liable. If Apple wanted to win on the Android OS infringing they’d have to sue Google. They might include the Open Handset Alliance and misc. does as well. However, since Google doesn’t make handsets (except through its Motorola divison which was already at battle with Apple even pre-merger) they choose to go where the money is. That’s Apple’s choice. You can call whatever you like semantics but as a matter of law – which this is – that’s how it operates. It’s not like Linux where you *have* to go after vendors as SCO did. Note that when Oracle went after Android it went after Google. Furthermore since Android is a moving target it would be very hard to prove willful infringement which is where Samsung really got dinged (and where the jury decided wrongfully to “punish Samsung” when it’s not up to the jury to provide punitive damages). A side point being they lose the “home team” advantage if they were to go after Google. If you have evidence to the contrary then you need to provide it.

            “Only your blind hate and sense of entitlement to the fruits of Apple’s labour stand in the way of reason.”

            lol. Perhaps you should look in the mirror there pal. I have no hate at all. I’m not the one making grandiose statements and refusing to back up my arguments or completely ignoring the law when it’s convenient. My only issue with Apple is how they’ve chosen to battle in the courts to destroy Android – period. I’m not a fan of closed systems but that’s secondary and universal. My entitlement to software patents 381 and 915 (which you don’t appear to have read)? I don’t think those should have been awarded as patents if that’s what you mean – but I’m not the PTO. That still doesn’t make Apple not a patent troll. Your constant insistence on using loaded emotional language instead of looking at the facts undermines everything you say. Much of what you have posted thus far is partisanship to the point of sheer lunacy.

            “Nexus S infringes so Android infringes.
            No amount of hand wringing, hot air or wishful thinking will change that because as of last Friday it’s an established fact.”

            Except the OS was not on trial as I have consistently stated. You will note that there’s no attorney anywhere that has taken such a reductionist argument (Feel free to provide one). Now you can infer or extrapolate that if infringes *but it would take direct adjudication in a court of law* to be found so. Which requires Apple to sue Google to do so.

            Further legal decisions change and it’s always a crap shoot when you get to any court especially an appeals court; so you can say it infringes now but by the time of appeals (or retrial) it’s just as likely it won’t. We haven’t even gotten to the point where Judge Koh makes a final determination and a lot can change in the interim. The problems with this jury make it entirely likely to be sent back down to be retried or had parts of the verdict set aside. Every single comment coming out of the jurors mouths make them look worse. They alternatively ignored instructions, failed to answer questions, made errors in how they assessed damages, prior art etc. Regardless of which side you’re on that’s problematic (Apple won’t want a retrial, it costs them both more money, neither side knows the outcome).

            As I wrote there are two patents this particular jury decided the Nexus S infringed upon. Another judge or jury would not necessarily come to the same result. Did you actually look at the patents involved? I’m going to guess you didn’t since this, for you, is apparently a holy war and not a trial.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            this is long, but right.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            I should change my user name to Warren Peace. 🙂

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Oracle vs Google called back and said that it was Oracle vs Google not Oracle vs Android.
            Statement upheld.

            Apple can sue any distributor of Android they want, not just Google.
            Sort of like you can shoot whichever burglar tries to kill you first, not necessarily the mastermind.
            Oracle sued Google because they own Java.
            Apple sued Samsung because they own multitouch.

            The law doesn’t care what you are fan of or not. We are all equal in front of it, bad or good.
            That’s a fundamental part of our civilization and that’s how it should be.
            If you have no hate at all why would you want to pervert the fundamentals of our society just so your preffered neckbeard religion gets imposed on the rest of us?

            Feel free to live in your fantasy world where Koh, the appeals court or Santa make the bad truth go away and you can feel like you’re saving the world by advocating the hard work of better people than yourself should be given away to all.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Man are you really that dense? You can’t sue an OS. Tell me – why did Oracle sue Google?

            Oracle v. Google was over Android. Apple v. Samsung was over devices. Samsung in this case will be told which devices can be sold and what, if any, software needs to be changed *on their devices*. Now provided everything stays the same they can use that in their other cases with handset makers but they will still have to try it again with each one. Had they sued Google they would not have to.

            No Apple can’t sue handset makers except over their implementations because, for example, if you were to sue over infringement of Open Solaris you would have to have sued Sun. I realize that this is a legal principle – which for someone that continually loves to talk about the law should be able to fully grasp; as well as back up.If your assertion was true you’d be able to find a legal pundit that agrees with you.

            “Apple sued Samsung because they own multitouch.” Actually no. They have specific patents awarded to them regarding certain implementations of multi touch.

            Not once have you used legal principles or cited anything. Where are your links? Here’s a rhetorical question: did you read the two patents?

            lol “neckbeard religion”.

            “Feel free to live in your fantasy world where Koh, the appeals court or Santa make the bad truth go away and you can feel like you’re saving the world by advocating the hard work of better people than yourself should be given away to all.”

            You have nothing but opinion on your side. It’s too bad that you didn’t bother to refute my arguments or even bother researching instead of continually pulling stuff out of your butt. I’d really hoped you’d up your game. Whenever called on something you try to slander others instead of supporting your assertions. Because logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks really are convincing, right? I could call you an Apple fanboy (which you certainly appear to be) but really it brings nothing to the table.

            Soon these types of cases will be more often than not tried before people that understand the principles and grasp prior art. Since defendants will be able to choose the venue legitimate ip will end up at the PTAB and companies with somewhat dubious claims will want to have jury trials. Let’s see who picks which.

          • albundy
          • 7 years ago

          the android OS is free! how can it be a monopoly?

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Monopolies are based on market share, not price. A free thing can be the dominant force on the market, even while free.

            Not to say that windwalker isn’t talking nonsense… but you definitely can have free (either “as in beer” or “as in speech” — both work) things in a monopoly position.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            it’s also only “free” in the sense of your ability to access it. you wanna sell a device, you do need to pay google for it’s apps. it’s not “free” for HTC or samsung in “reality”

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Plus they need to pay a not-insubstantial fee to MS too. I was just focusing on the idea that “free” means that something can’t be a monopoly.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            you know, geistbar, i’m developing quite a bit of respect for your posts. take that how you want it. neely, MMO, and dpaus take it as a good thing. EU, Deanjo (sometimes), and adisor might not…. (l33t) is jealous, however. he secretly has a crush on me…

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Aww, thanks! I try my best.

            l33t always did strike me as the jealous type…

          • mutarasector
          • 7 years ago

          “The Android monopoly trend”?

          1> Where does an >open< OS running on multiple vendor platforms have any monopoly?

          2> Monopolies are not “trends”. Android either has a monopoly, or it doesn’t. A monopoly ‘trend’ is like being “a little bit pregnant”.

            • entropy13
            • 7 years ago

            Reminds me of the Top Gear episode wherein they mention an Audi advert talking about a man who is “mostly married.” LOL

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            If you don’t have a logical argument, argue semantics.

            • mutarasector
            • 7 years ago

            I’ve made two arguments: 1> you’re monopoly argument is a piece of swiss cheese, and 2> your claim that Android has been found to be infringing is erroneous. Simple enough for you?

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            Those are claims, not arguments.
            Go away and read up on what arguments are or I shall taunt you a second time.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            1. Has Android been declared by a US court or EU court to be a monopoly?

            2. Has a court found Android to infringe?

            These are the only relevant questions in your discussion – and the answer to both is the same.

            • windwalker
            • 7 years ago

            The answer may be the same in your imagination, but reality is more complicated.

            1. Monopolies are not illegal, so there is nothing for a court to find. Only abusing monopolies is illegal.

            2. Not a court, but even better, a jury.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Until a company is determined to be a monopoly in a court then it’s just laymen bandying a word around.

            If that were true then Apple wouldn’t have to try the exact same issues in every case. They can make an attempt (provided nothing changes prior to appeal) to use it as case law but it will still depend – in every instance – on whether the judge accepts it as so. Suing Google would have alleviated them of that responsibility and shown that it wasn’t just the devices that infringed.

            Your comment about the jury is pretty funny considering everything they’ve said and the fact that they not only ignored prior art, they didn’t even understand it. But don’t let that keep you from your fanboyish smugness.

        • trackerben
        • 7 years ago

        A worldwide, distributed super market with annual sales of tens of millions of units delivered in six major OSes and two major hardware architectures through a dozen major brands and involving innumerable technology platforms, can be presumed to be turning into a 1-company market, sooner or later? I’ve seen marketing case studies which fantasized over such an incredible possibility, but real examples are almost non-existent. Particularly in a core globalized market like personal cellular communications.

        About the only one I can think right now was the notorious de Beers monopoly. And thats if the definition of the market and effects is restrictive and/or selective – which is what appears to be going on here with al these fervent contra-Apple posts.

      • rrr
      • 7 years ago

      You mean Apple will target themselves soon?

        • windwalker
        • 7 years ago

        Yawn.

      • mutarasector
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]Now that a jury has found Android to be a wilful infringer,[/quote<] I believe Samsung was found to be the infringer, not Android itself.

    • Mourmain
    • 7 years ago

    Hate to say this, because no-one will care, but… didn’t I tell you so?

    <—- red button over here.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      No; that’s green. Are you color blind?

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        A green button?!? Oh noes, TR, Apple [i<][u<]owns[/i<][/u<] the very concept of a green button!! Run away, run away!!!

          • EtherealN
          • 7 years ago

          Next patent lawsuits:

          Facebook sues everyone that uses a thumbs up button.
          Google sues everyone that says “+1”.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I’m going to patent voting buttons that say “yay” and “boo”.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            That’s gonna suck for Tivo

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            Especially when that juror goes back in time so he can post his patent application pre-Tivo.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      I use the proper theme for the site, the buttons don’t have colours.

        • MrJP
        • 7 years ago

        Commodore own blue backgrounds. They should sue.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Starting with BSOD

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        So, default isn’t proper enough?

    • pedro
    • 7 years ago

    So is it basically correct to say that rectangular round-corner phones are exclusive to Apple from here on in, but rectangular round-corner tablets are not? Is that essentially what the judgement boils down to?

    I don’t care at all about smart phones but I think it’d be a real shame if the logical shape of tablets were the purview of Apple and Apple only.

    • south side sammy
    • 7 years ago

    just decided what SSD’s I’ll be buying………… can you say Samsung ?………. I can.

      • Mourmain
      • 7 years ago

      You’re boycotting Apple SSDs?

        • south side sammy
        • 7 years ago

        SEE # 78

      • End User
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]You’re welcome to love Android and hate Apple. Just don’t be fooled into thinking Samsung are the good guys.[/quote<] [url<]http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/[/url<]

        • south side sammy
        • 7 years ago

        the only appleS i EVER PURCHASED WERE GRANNY SMITH’S FOR MAMA TO BAKE ME A PIE.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          +1 for ALL CAPS.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      I can still say “Crucial”

        • south side sammy
        • 7 years ago

        Samsung has the edge ( better product for me ) last time I looked……. that would have been last night.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          Then your decision wasn’t based on the lawsuit; you had already made up your mind, and were just looking for reasons to make yourself feel better about your choice

            • south side sammy
            • 7 years ago

            stop already.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Ok

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 7 years ago

      I’ll buy a Samsung SSD too! In a kick-ass MacBook Pro with Retina Display.
      Both Apple and Samsung will be happy I did!

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        I would love to see how you plan on accomplishing that.

        • kumori
        • 7 years ago

        The SSDs in macbooks are either Toshiba or Samsung. You have about a 50/50 chance of getting a samsung drive if you just buy the regular Retina Macbook.

          • MastaVR6
          • 7 years ago

          Retina Macbooks don’t use industry standard SSD’s theyre soldered to the mainboard, like the memory and the video cards you can’t upgrade yourself.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            The ssd is not soldered to the board. They do however use a proprietary connector.

            [url<]http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Retina-Display-Mid-2012-Teardown/9462/2[/url<]

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Good for you. The Korean economy need all the help it can get.

    • BoBzeBuilder
    • 7 years ago

    meh, haven’t bought a single Apple product in years. Urge everyone around me not to.

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    Apple is just prolonging the inevitable.

    They are preventing the repeat of “Mac-clones” that practically destroyed Apple during late 1980s and early 1990s as much as possible.

    I don’t have a stake in this, because smartphones doesn’t interest me at all.

    They are just overglorifed PDAs.

      • oldog
      • 7 years ago

      I guess someone has to ask. Does this mean you are not impressed?

        • Mourmain
        • 7 years ago

        That joke will never get old.

        Never.

        Ever.

        I’m being sarcastic.

      • Squeazle
      • 7 years ago

      Well people can certainly write this off as Krogoth being Krogoth… however he has a good couple points-
      1) Apple lacks a singular visionary direction. And no, not since Jobs died. Before that. When they decided the best thing they could do to innovate was put a camera on both sides of the phone. It shows no sign of another big jump, so they have to at least hold onto the market share they have, which can be done by eliminating competition.
      2) Smartphones are becoming less relevant. As people pick up tablets, they might realize that tablets can do everything their smartphones do (aside from 3g/4g on some) but bigger and more enjoyably. After spending three years with smartphones, I’m thinking about going back to basics (text and talk). Admittedly it’s mostly due to cost, but there’s also not much I would miss about having internet on my phone. Or GPS. And that’s really all I used on it aside from calling and texting.

      • chuckula
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<] I don't have a stake in this, because smartphones doesn't interest me at all.[/quote<] Really Krogoth? Don't you mean to say that the smartphones don't [b<][i<]impress[/i<][/b<] you at all? I'm just sayin'....

        • entropy13
        • 7 years ago

        It’s a “two stage” flowchart for Krogoth.

        1. Does it interest me? If yes, go to 2, if no, end process.
        2. Does it impress me? If yes, “Krogoth is impressed”, if not, “Krogoth is not impressed.”

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    And each juror gets a free iPad 3 for their contribution to the american legal system.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      And it feels good to do the right thing…

    • pogsnet
    • 7 years ago
      • odizzido
      • 7 years ago

      beginning?

    • flip-mode
    • 7 years ago

    This: [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/23472?post=663184[/url<]

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    One thing y’all need to remember about patent cases: They always get appealed, and the Federal Circuit has a habit of ignoring the lower court and deciding the case the way it wants. It’s so weird that it often doesn’t even outright reverse the lower court much of the time, but straight out pretends the lower court didn’t even make a ruling and comes up with an entirely new grounds for a decision. The Federal Circuit is a strange beast as appellate courts go.

    Doesn’t mean that Samsung will get off scott free, but this verdict is really only round 1 and this case is [b<]far[/b<] from being over.

      • kumori
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah and the Federal Circuit is more of a specialist court since they handle many more patent cases than a U.S. district court.

    • ALiLPinkMonster
    • 7 years ago

    Apple: give us your lunch money while we shove you into a trash can.

    • GeorgeMichael
    • 7 years ago

    Apple has copied the notifications system from Android, Shouldn’t Google sue apple based on that?

      • xeridea
      • 7 years ago

      That and other things, but everyone knows Apple can do no wrong, and they swear they invented everything under the sun. They say everyone else copied them, but then they turn around and take features from other phones like its no big deal and call it their own. Next they may try to patent a cell phone that makes calls.

      • yokem55
      • 7 years ago

      Google’s patent applicationon that hasn’t been approved yet. But when it is, they likely will use it….

      • Decelerate
      • 7 years ago

      They should, if they have a case. Ditto with the LG Prada I keep hearing so much about.

      … and Xerox.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      Notifications were around long before Google even existed.

    • cynan
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t know if these sorts of trials (and rulings) are more embarrassing for the US Patent Office or the Justice System itself.

    Software patents as they stand are broken. On the one hand you have the USPTO granting patents for functionality, when that functionality could be achieved multiple different ways. You can’t patent ideas alone, but this is tantamount to what is being done in many cases as far as I can tell. And even in cases were the patents are more water tight (more than just a description of an idea or functionality) companies should be forced to license them in a fair manner. Perhaps grant them full rownership for a couple of years (which in the tech sector is like 3 or 4 product cycles) and then force them to license the IP to interested parties at a set rate, otherwise, too bad, you loose any ownership. I know it is easier said than done to define the details of such a system, but the alternative is just more of this nonsense: The damages calculated in cases such as these are generally about as appropriate as the accuracy with which video game execs divine the proportion of PC gamers that pirate their games.

    At least Apple has another billion dollars to fund the next couple years worth of frivolous law suits (because they really, oh so very badly needed it and would otherwise have been forced to succumb to the injustice that is Android…). Not that I’m naive enough to believe that a company like Samsung is innocent. They knew very well that they were risking being the main target of Apple’s legal retribution when then pushed the envelope on imitating Apple products more than any other device maker. In the end, this move may still pay off due to the market presence they’ve attained with their Galaxy products.

    And then there are the appeals…

    I obviously chose the wrong field. I should’ve been a patent lawyer..

      • Shambles
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]I don't know if these sorts of trials (and rulings) are more embarrassing for the US Patent Office or the Justice System itself.[/quote<] To be frank, it's most embarrassing for citizens of the USA. The justice system in this case was the jury, which proved to be incompetent, lazy, and looking for a quick way to get out of the courtroom. It doesn't take an expert to see that what is going on is fundamentally wrong. For the patent system, for competition, for the whole country. While EU is at least showing some reason in their patent lawsuits the american system continues to be owned by the corporation with the largest bank account.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Nope this ruling is based on facts and the legal teams skills.

        The trial has been going on for a month, another month wouldn’t have changed anything.

        If you are a small shop in china ripping off brand name, you can get away with it.
        When your one of the biggest world wide conglomerate, you are in the spotlight.

        Refuse to license, battle it out in court.

        Or here is an idea… come up with the idea first ?

        If the Galaxy product line was released in 2006, I bet you Samsung would have won this case.

          • cynan
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Refuse to license, battle it out in court.[/quote<] I don't get how articulating Apple's (anti-competitive) corporate business model helps your case here.. [quote<]Or here is an idea... come up with the idea first ?[/quote<] How is that possible in instances where Apple is granted patents for ideas they didn't even fully come up with? Like some of their UI patents for example..

          • cynan
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Nope this ruling is based on facts and the legal teams skills. The trial has been going on for a month, another month wouldn't have changed anything.[/quote<] Personally, I think the reason Apple came out so well after this round was chiefly due to how poorly Samsung defended themselves. Apparently one of their key arguments was that Apple didn't have adequate manufacturing capacity to supply the full demand for smartphones during 2009. Therefore there should be no reason for Samsung to have to pay up even if they did blatantly copy... Yeah.. Whichever lawyer came up with that idea should probably not be asked back for the appeal.

            • Shambles
            • 7 years ago

            The whole case was a joke. Are you really telling me these two devices look the same?

            [url<]http://www.zenilshroff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Samsung-Epic-4G-vs-iPhone-4.jpg[/url<] Apple was awarded 130 million just for that one phone.

    • pedro
    • 7 years ago

    Step back from your keyboards fellas, the fanbois are coming!

    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 7 years ago

    I don’t believe for one second that the jury actually read the entirety of the notes. I think they were tired, had no concept of just how important their decision would be and wanted to leave it all behind on a Friday evening.

    Judge Koh has consistently sided with Apple on every case brought before her. As I understand it all questions of prior art were discarded by her early on.

    The question to my mind is will the appeals court circle the wagons around her (unlikely but possible) or be as swayed by the whole “home team” thing as Koh has proven to be.

    I do think that the part about prior art will be handed down to a lower court. Unfortunately that might mean a redux from Koh. It would serve Samsung well to show how she’s consistently ruled for Apple.

    Added: keep voting me down. Even the Verge felt that it would take longer than 24 hours for the jury to adequately read, let alone reply and make a decision.

    Copypasted from Techdirt – ” the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict — including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement. While this will be corrected and won’t change the results much, it certainly suggests that the jury rushed through this and may not have taken this particularly seriously. When you start talking about the numbers being thrown around in damages here, at some point, it must start to feel like play money. But it’s a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this. It raises significant questions about how careful they were in getting to a verdict vs. how quickly they wanted to be done in time for the weekend.”

    P.S. thanks to dpaus for turning me on to that site.

      • chuckula
      • 7 years ago

      Don’t know why you were downmodded so heavily… I’d tend to agree that the jury did rush through it and even if Apple mostly wins on appeal, there’s a very good chance the $1 billion award will be slashed considerably. Considering how big Samsung is, it won’t go out of business over it.

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      I was on a jury once for a trial that only took 5 days and it took us 2 days to reach a verdict. And that trial was NOT very complicated. This jury are a bunch of clowns.

      • LocalCitizen
      • 7 years ago

      agreed, this jury reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. so much technical evidence and it only took 2 days to make up their mind. this jury didn’t want to be there.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        And like Judge Ito, Judge Koh is too inexperienced (or perhaps incompetent – to be unkind) or too biased. Tossing out prior art in a patent case is ridiculous.

      • kumori
      • 7 years ago

      The jury did have to sit through the whole trial reviewing the evidence. One of the problems with juries (generally) is that they tend to make up their minds early on and often before the defendant has even gotten to make his or her case.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Glad you’re enjoying techdirt. I have to say I was a little underwhelmed by their coverage of this verdict, but hopefully they’ll add more later.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        Not as good as the Verge’s in this case but I’m really digging the articles in general.

    • wiak
    • 7 years ago

    competition 0
    anti-competition 1

    pretty sure this will motivate android partners to band together and fight

    and am 99% sure that on appeal it will be turned around :p

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 7 years ago

      American companies that spend money on R&D to bring new products to market: 1
      Asian conglomerates that use American companies as free R&D departments: 0

        • nafhan
        • 7 years ago

        Did you look at the patents in question? Those are not R&D type patents. I would not even call them inventions.

          • TEAMSWITCHER
          • 7 years ago

          The Jury concluded that the patents and trade-dress claims were valid. That was the whole purpose of the case and more important to Apple that the 1B dollar judgement.

          This site is overflowing with flaming iHaters. I bet you think that Windows 8 is pretty cool don’t you? Well, I’m gonna ruin it for you. The new Start Screen isn’t the Start Menu on steroids – it’s the Start Menu in FULL DRAG – complete with Charms! It’s only pretty from a distance. I work with a bunch of developers and we have concluded that Windows 8 is the queerest OS on the planet. And we are Windows developers!

          It’s a bad time to be a Microsoft Fanboy right now. Wait until you see the new Windows 8 desktop – it’s a throwback to Windows 3.1. They were going for “Simple and Elegant” and ended up “Brain Dead and Ugly.” And they are making the entire world cough up $40 for a DOWNGRADE!

          Microsoft is no longer falling….they fell. iHaters like you just haven’t figured it out yet.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Huh? A queer OS?

    • indeego
    • 7 years ago

    I fear Justice

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Embrace the RDF, and you shall never feel fear again

    • derFunkenstein
    • 7 years ago

    This is bull shit . Welcome to a one-player smartphone market, then, because so much of what Apple sued on is standard UI in Android, all the way down to the green tint of the phone icon.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      WINDOWS PHONE STILL EXISTS.

        • blastdoor
        • 7 years ago

        And its existence proves that slavishly copying apple isn’t the only possible way to make a phone.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          i don’t disagree

          • adisor19
          • 7 years ago

          That’s because MS has a cross license agreement with Apple.

          Adi

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          No, Apple and MS have a number of deals together and they have cross-licensed each others patents. Plus they both want to kill Google.

          It’s not so much about copying as it is about who owns which patents and who they’re in bed with.

          • kc77
          • 7 years ago

          Actually it doesn’t. Apple isn’t dumb enough to sue MS. It’s got more money than Samsung and owns FAR more patents. If Apple even attempted to play this game MS could wipe them off the map by going after not only their devices but computers as well.

          The patents Samsung “infringed” are things that affect MS as well. One of them is the eclair/rectangle shape of the iPhone, which every phone basically has.

            • mutarasector
            • 7 years ago

            ..which is a junk patent likely to get tossed if apple ever tried to press the point. Just because Apple gets awarded patents like toilet paper does not mean they worth any more than the same.

          • nafhan
          • 7 years ago

          Actually, the Lumia hardware has many features that were obviously stolen from Apple including rounded corners, a rectangular shape, and an uncluttered appearance. Some Lumias are even black; a color which many people associate with Apple phones.

            • chµck
            • 7 years ago

            My sarcasm detector didn’t go off until I was halfway through that.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            Same thing happened with me. Made it all the more witty, in the end.

            • clone
            • 7 years ago

            rounded corners is a “feature”, a rectangular shape is a “feature”….. an uncluttered appearance is a “feature”……a phone being black is a “feature”?

            good god if true Apple may as well patent oxygen and charge everyone for using it when breathing.

            USPTO is stalling innovation in the United States while interested parties use it to raise the costs of everything involved to consumers.

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      This is NOT standard UI on Android. If it were, they wouldn’t be suing Samsung, they’d be suing Google. They’re suing based on icon layout and the bounce back feature as well as physical appearance of the device.

      [url<]http://www.connect.si/media/Photo/2011/04/21/galaxy-s-vs-iphone-3gs.jpg[/url<] Tell me those don't look EXTREMELY similar in nature.

        • ALiLPinkMonster
        • 7 years ago

        Jobs himself wrote in his autobiography that the ultimate goal is to go after Google. Samsung was first because yes, their UI choices most closely resemble iOS.

          • Decelerate
          • 7 years ago

          Jobs is dead, and he did specify to the next generation [b<]not[/b<] to try to follow his footsteps

            • ALiLPinkMonster
            • 7 years ago

            Doesn’t mean they’ll listen. It’s an excuse for them to make more money, so why wouldn’t they do so under the guise of carrying out Job’s wishes?

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            I’m sorry to break the news, but [b<]every public company's goal is to make more money[/b<]. [i<]Yes, even Samsung[/i<]. Apple is like every other company: if it can't make the stuff people will want to buy, it will die. Also, it's hard to do what Jobs would do if they don't have Jobs to tell them what he would want to do. And since he told them not to try to follow his footsteps, I [u<]seriously doubt[/u<] that he left strategical podcast(s) laying around...

            • ALiLPinkMonster
            • 7 years ago

            It shouldn’t be their goal to harass the competition despite a very well established semi-domination of the market. Also I wasn’t talking about left behind strategies, I was talking about the simple fact that he stated his desire to go after Google and his successors will more than likely do the same.

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            Even if he didn’t state that, I expected, and still expect Apple to do so: Google is their number 1 competitor.

            Sometimes I wonder if some of you are old enough to remember the console wars, the browser wars, the search engine wars, or any previous large-scale competition…

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            Great Seldon! Could it be Jobs never truly was against Google as we all thought? That under the cover of a supposed rift with the wizards, the Founder strategically established within them an inner, hidden Second Fruits, a psychohistorical institute to guide, support, then to eventually control and supersede the First Fruits in Cupertino? This might explain the manipulation of the old empires of industry like Samsung, against the new power.

            The wizard planners hidden in the opposite end of the Valley are behind it all, working according to the Plan. They scheme to use the old to test and strengthen the new, that Apple would continue to reforge itself into the world-conquering vessel they would need to shorten the dark interregnum of fallen UI!

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          No, he didn’t write that. Because A) he didn’t write an autobiography. Walter Isaacson wrote a biography. and B) he wrote that ANDROID was a stolen product. Its war on ANDROID, not necessarily Google. If it was Google, there wouldn’t have been deals to have Google as the default search, Youtube, Google Maps, GMail push, etc in the iPhone from the getgo.

          He was pissed because he had deals with Google in place to have a prominent place on the iPhone, and then Google turned around and made(bought) their own smartphone OS to compete. It was even MORE quizzical because Google made more money per iPhone than they did per Android phone sold.

          On top of that, Google has been shady in the past with Oracle/Java licenses in Android as well. Internal e-mails acknowledging that they needed to license it, with rebuttals saying ‘we’ll just use it and cross the license bridge when we get there’. Google is not some saint company either, lest you forget the wifi network info incident from the Streetview team.

          I’ve owned Android phones, back in the Froyo/early GB days, and was not impressed. I’m liking more and more what I see from ICS and JB. Currently I have a Windows Phone 7 phone that I really like, but I’ve also owned plenty of iPhones, and Blackberries as well. I’m seriously considering another Android phone in the fall when my upgrade becomes available, but I’m waiting to see what the new hotness phones are in terms of Android, Windows Phone 8 and the iPhone 5 before I make a decision, so I’m not an Apple fanboy or a Google hater.

          People just need to look at the whole situation objectively and realize there is no good guy or bad guy. Its all about perspective and both arguments CAN make sense if you color it one way or the other even ever so slightly. It just so happens that the jury AND the judge sided with Apple, and even in South Korea, it was a split decision. If South Korea, Samsung’s protector, finds that they weren’t 100% completely in the right, you can bet your bottom dollar that they did something wrong. Even the Motorola suit that was originally found for Motorola in Germany was just reversed. So Apple keeps winning, or at best, not losing these cases no matter where in the world it is. Do people really think that the entire globe is in Apple’s corner? Could it possibly be that they really DO have good grounds for these suits and/or defenses?

          Blindly saying ‘this is bullshit’ or ‘serves them right!’ is fanboyism, plain and simple. This isn’t going to create a ‘1 player market’ because HTC, LG, ZTE, Motorola and others still exist, and lets be honest. Samsung isn’t going anywhere. They’re not going to change anything. The products covered here are already EOL so its essentially just about money at this point.

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, every phone will look and have some feel “similar” in nature to something else, its near impossible to make something that is totally unique that shares nothing with any of the other hundreds of devices. There are similarities, but the patent the most trivial, and obvious functionality and design possible, so that they can stretch the facts and say that everything is copied. They have a patent for something like a large rectangular black flat-screen device or something like that, how much more general of a phone description can you get? And extremely no brainer features like if there is a email in a text, maybe you want to send an email to them, I wonder how long it took to come up with that idea?

        They just wanna sue everyone out of existence, because they have way to much money on their hands to spend on hired “experts”. They hate competition, it nearly did them under before they became popular again. They can’t fathom that someone could possibly come up with anything themselves, and must patent common sense features to make them selves feel better. I personally will never be buying anything from them, ever, because of this BS. Not that I would anyway, I actually hate how their devices operate, but love Android, funny how this could be if they are a direct clone like they claim.

          • deathBOB
          • 7 years ago

          Kids, don’t post under the influence of droid rage.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        It’s a phone with a front-facing, full-body touch screen.

        Look! A green call button.

        [url<]http://www.w-cellphones.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/donate-old-cell-phones.jpg[/url<] [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-legendary-mac-designer-testifies-about-copied-icons/[/url<] Do they also own microphone icons that look like big condenser mics? The search bar icon is the standard Android microphone icon and has been for a long time. This is the kind of garbage that Apple has been on about over this whole lawsuit. And you can see from my posting history that I love(d) the classic Mac OS and OS X. With me it's not now nor has it ever been anti-Appledom. It's just a seriously messed up situation that we're in here. Maybe Google should sue over the messaging center, considering that iOS 5 ripped off Android's notification bar.

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          They can’t, yet. They don’t have the patent for the notification center slide down yet. Its in the process but has yet to be granted in the US.

        • kc77
        • 7 years ago

        That’s the Galaxy II S International. The US version has a different color scheme.

        • Shambles
        • 7 years ago

        Stop posting those bullshit images. Sure they look similar when you render an image that changes the phones height, width, depth, and edges of the phone. Take a moment to think for yourself. Here’s a real image of the Galaxy S vs the iphone 4. Since then the two lines of phones have only moved further apart in appearances. Try to tell me that you could honestly mistake one for the other.

        [url<]http://www.mobiletechworld.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Galaxy-S-vs-iPhone-4.jpg[/url<]

          • willmore
          • 7 years ago

          Wow, the iPhone looks like crap next to the Samsung.

            • kc77
            • 7 years ago

            Yup. that image is the image that Apple put up. Anyone who has owned a Galaxy phone will tell you they really don’t look like an Apple phone at all. That picture reduces the height drastically from the actual phone.

        • shank15217
        • 7 years ago

        bull.. then why is apple trying to get galaxy nexus off the market, the only reason apple doesn’t sue google is because google makes android, not phones. Sueing Samsung gives a message to all phone makers not to use Andriod effectively shutting out google all together. If Apple ever did sue google they would get counter sued to eternity, remember google own’s motorola mobile and every single fundamental cell phone tech patent ever made.

          • Corrado
          • 7 years ago

          Incorrect. And this is not Samsungs first patent issue. Check out the Interdigital vs Samsung lawsuit about 5 years ago. I used to work for Interdigital. The sued Qualcomm, Nokia and Samsung. They went to the supreme court in the US before Samsung decided to license the patents fairly because they knew they were going to lose. Nokia did lose and so did Qualcomm. Without Interdigital’s patents, HSDPA and HSPA+ don’t work. They don’t make any products, but they are far from patent trolls, as they develop things to then license out.

          Apple, Google, Qualcomm, Samsung and Nokia have all been linked in recent years to a buyout but none has happened yet.

          My point is, that theres so many intertwining parts in the mobile industry that no one player is going to own enough to be able to hold it over everyone. Even MSFT makes $11 per Android phone sold in licensing fees after Google lost a lawsuit to them.

          When every large player in the industry has issues with you, MSFT, Apple, Oracle, chances are you’re doing something wrong and pissing a lot of people off. Heck even the FTC and the EU are rumored to be eyeing up Google for anti-trust cases.

            • shank15217
            • 7 years ago

            What exactly is incorrect? When did I ever say Samsung doesn’t have other patent disputes? What was the whole point of your rant? Only thing incorrect I see is that you’re not replying to the right post or you didn’t get what I wrote.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            The fact that you said that Motorola has every single fundamental cell phone patent ever made.

      • Decelerate
      • 7 years ago

      One-player smartphone market? I don’t think Google or Microsoft got the memo.

      Also, you’re feeling bad for the companies that consisted of nearly 100% of the market for generations to get [b<]creamed[/b<] by a newb to the game in [u<]merely 5 years[/u<]? You're a very charitable man to a multi-billion dollar industry. [i<]Woe is me...[/i<]

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Dont be stupid, the lawsuit is not about using green for calls.
      Its the sum of the parts that is at the center of the suit.

      Prior art from the 90s show green as call and red as hangup. Do you really think Apple is going to sue Samsung on their Blackjack phone ? … thats RIM job 🙂

        • Corrado
        • 7 years ago

        Thats what I keep seeing people doing. Picking out one thing and dumbing it down to the point that it seems ridiculous. This is about the entire sum together.

        Google admitted Samsung was ripping off Apple. Samsung chose to ignore Google’s advice to change it up a bit. Samsung changed their argument halfway through the trial from “We didn’t copy!” to “So what if we copied? Apple’s patents should be invalid!” after those emails were subpoenaed and entered into evidence. This just makes them seem shady.

          • trackerben
          • 7 years ago

          Didn’t realize Samsung’s team had amended its line of reasoning so suddenly. That move makes Samsung’s defense appear to be relying too much on the capricious deprecation of contingent arguments.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            Yeah, and thats what the jury latched on to really. After those emails were put into evidence, the jury really started to change their minds. I don’t think there was any doubt that the patents were infringed. It was more a matter of if they were WILLFULLY infringed upon. Once they had evidence that Samsung knew that they were, at the very least, treading close to Apple waters, were warned, and chose to flippantly ignore that advice, their minds were made up rather quickly.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            That’s a solid interpretation. Willful misconduct is a valid characterization of someone who goes against friendly advice provided by their own counsel or experts. In face of all the other evidence it sounds pretty damning. Apple’s legal team has to be given due credit for presenting this narrative without too many mistakes.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Unless the patents were invalid in the first place.

            • trackerben
            • 7 years ago

            Heh. If the court of appeals and the patent office reverses the original decisions, it would mean the advice of Samsung’s own people and from Google’s execs were also invalid. It would be an extreme case, and extreme cases may make a good movie but not good law.

    • blastdoor
    • 7 years ago

    I am very pleased with this outcome.

    Let the lamentations of the women begin.

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      I am as well. When Google tells you “Stop doing what you’re doing. You’re copying Apple.” and Samsung essentially shrugs it off, you deserve to get slapped. Samsung seemed to think the whole world worked the way South Korea does. Their chairman is a scumbag that CONSISTENTLY gets in trouble with the law only to have his buddies in the government pardon him. In South Korea, Samsung is the ‘too big to fail’ company that provides a large part of their entire economy. Its in their best interests to let them do as that please. However, they seem to forget that outside of South Korea, people don’t view them that way.

      This verdict does NOTHING for/against Android. These issues are strictly Samsung based, being Touchwiz and physical design of the phones. If anything, all the Android fanboys should be HAPPY. It means that other Android OEMs will be more likely to stick with the stock Android UI in order to avoid things like this.

    • sweatshopking
    • 7 years ago

    fastest post ever, scott?
    [quote<] incliding [/quote<] almost never see typos from you! that being said, they got what they deserved. sure, apple copied too, but THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CASE WAS ABOUT.

    • TheEmrys
    • 7 years ago

    Nice…. and will be rendered meaningless on appeal. Can’t wait for round 2.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Meanwhile, Samsung misses out in BackToSchool sales.. and maybe even christmas sales

    • Shambles
    • 7 years ago

    Beginning of the end. I will never buy an Apple product again.

    Apple makes the RIAA look honest.

      • Alexko
      • 7 years ago

      Yes, if the justice system can’t do its job properly, it’s up to us to vote with our wallets, as they say.

        • jss21382
        • 7 years ago

        I’ll continue to enjoy apple products…

          • internetsandman
          • 7 years ago

          Most controversial statement you could make

          On the one hand, their products do work well and perform well, and integrate very nicely together

          On the other hand, it’s a very closed ecosystem with limited upgrade paths outside brand new purchases, and it’s certainly not a fair business model no matter who the company deals with, be it customers, suppliers or competitors

            • jss21382
            • 7 years ago

            The anti apple sentiment here over this case is insane. They’ve done nothing out of the ordinary. If you have patents or trademarks you have to either protect them or you lose them, they’re choosing to protect them, same as anyone else would. They’ve won an insignificant sum of money, that’ll likely be overturned on appeal.

            Now, as far as phones and tablets go, if you want updates and devices that just work without a needless layer between you and the OS you really have 2 choices, iDevices or the nexus line. I troubleshoot all day long at work..the last thing I want to deal with is a phone that mostly works with the exception of the worthless bloat ware almost every phone has.

            If I was making the jump to smart phones now I’d be seriously temped by google hardware, but at the time they didn’t have their own hardware aside from the odd chrome book here and there. At this point, I’ve used iOS for years, it’s familiar, it just works, and it’s always up to date, I’ll likely stick with apple unless the next iPhone is a disaster, otherwise you’ll see me with a nexus Gphone at the next BBQ.

            In the end, apple isn’t evil, they make quality products and charge a premium for them, if Samsung had beat them to the smartphone and tablet game they’d be suing apple right now and winning, and nothing would change aside from maybe not designing their product to look like the others product to a lay person. If you don’t believe they’re similar, go to Costco and hang out by the galaxy tab display and count how many people call it an iPad.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            The system is broken and the best way to fix it is to punish companies that exploit it.

            And no claiming that Samsung would theoretically do the same thing is not same.

            Also, Microsoft invented the Tablet and I don’t see them suing anyone.

            • heinsj24
            • 7 years ago

            GRiD beat Microsoft to the market with the Tablet by 20+ years.

            Microsoft has nothing… nothing.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Either way, it wasn’t Apple.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            And they were all beaten by Kubrick with [url=http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mission10.jpg<]2001: A Spacey Odyssey[/url<] as far back as 1968.

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]The system is broken and the best way to fix it is to punish companies that exploit it.[/quote<] Please explain. [quote<]Also, Microsoft invented the Tablet and I don't see them suing anyone.[/quote<] That does not mean that Microsoft is not using the patent system. Microsoft has a nice side business making money from patents: [url<]http://goo.gl/Tvx8s[/url<]

            • Decelerate
            • 7 years ago

            It simply means that the market currently prefers the first hand over the second one…

          • A_Pickle
          • 7 years ago

          Thanks for that. I wonder where they got all the money to “go thermonuclear” (sue the crap out of) on the open system (Android)?

          People who mindlessly buy Apple yet never hold them accountable? Naw.

        • Decelerate
        • 7 years ago

        Wait, what? You mean [i<]you didn't vote with your wallet[/i<] before?

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        It would be interested to see Apple product market share in Korea from 2010 to 2014…

        But I dont think in the rest of the world, many people will have pity on Samsung.

          • trackerben
          • 7 years ago

          Nokia and other non-Korean brands including apple were all pretty much locked out of closed SKorean consumer telecomms markets, via government standards-shaping, until very recently.

          [url<]http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/02/editorial-htcs-departure-from-south-korea-proves-a-tough-fight/[/url<] [url<]http://www.businessteacher.org.uk/free-business-essays/south-korean-mobile-phone-market/[/url<] And that's a qualified reverse, given the treatment Apple just received under the aegis of Samsung's mercantilist partners, the government and the rest of the industrial chaebols. [url<]http://www.aim.org/newswire/home-field-advantage-for-samsung-wins-ruling-against-apple-in-south-korea/[/url<]

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      Enjoy your future feature phones.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        there are other companies. nokia actually WON the disagreement with apple, and apple was forced to license.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          Nokia is irrelevant. WP has less market share than Blackberry last time I checked and Nokia’s phones aren’t exactly flying off the shelves.

          Note – I don’t wish Nokia ill, I’ve owned several of their phones, but short of being acquired by MS I don’t see them having a future.

            • Corrado
            • 7 years ago

            Not true. WP is actually on pace to have more market than BB by November, and Nokia is selling a LOT of Lumia devices. They’ve sold 6 million Lumias in 1H2012. Its not Apple or Samsung big, but its more than HTC/RIM/LG/ZTE sold.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            I’m not saying you’re wrong but I have looked at a number of articles – and none of them indicate that Lumia is doing particularly well or that Nokia is picking up enough steam to even save the company.

            I would guess that whatever you’re citing for it trending above Blackberry (which is not now) in November says more about the state of Blackberry in NA than the success of WP 7. Of course I could be wrong.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            no, it is increasing market share. there’s no question it’s not android big, but nokia is increasing sales. Nokia’s issue now is the feature phone loss to samsung, and the complete death of symbian. their windows phones are selling better than they anticipated.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            My understanding – and perhaps I am remembering incorrectly – is that it was in fact the Asha feature phones buoying them up in Asia that was helping their sales.

            Perhaps they are selling more than are anticipated but from what I’ve read not enough to keep the company afloat. They’ve also had to slash the prices of the 900 to 49.99 in order to make sales.

            That said I don’t like WP and you do so we might both be somewhat slanted as a result. No matter how much I dislike WP though I want a vibrant market with many vendors and would hate to see Nokia die or be absorbed by MS. Then again I wish Palm hadn’t taken a dirtnap and that RIM wasn’t on the ropes. Somehow I think we’re in the midst of the mid-nineties implosion of OSes and architectures all over again (and it makes me sad).

            • nafhan
            • 7 years ago

            “More market share than BB” and “irrelevant” are not opposites.

            I don’t think WP is irrelevant, but it’s close. MS and Nokia need to step it up if they want to stay relevant.

            • chµck
            • 7 years ago

            Last time I checked, nokia had larger market share than htc.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://www.phonearena.com/news/Nokia-Windows-Phone-US-market-share-still-behind-Samsung-HTC-in-Q2-2012_id32223[/url<] This isn't the exact article I was thinking of but it's close. Unless I parsed that data incorrectly they aren't ahead of HTC. Semi off-topic: Their abandonment of Symbian seems to be hurting them across the board.

            • chµck
            • 7 years ago

            those are numbers for US only.
            Abandonment of symbian was a tragedy. It’s still supported till at least 2016 though.

      • brucethemoose
      • 7 years ago

      Your brainwashed just like Apple fanboys.

      If the next iPhone has a dual A15 with a good GPU, can be jailbroken, and isn’t missing any huge feature other phones have, it’ll probably replace my beloved iPhone 4. If it’s a bogus upgrade, Apple’s not getting my business, just like they don’t with their laptops.

      Claiming you won’t buy an Apple product because of something they did is almost as bad as being dead set on an Apple product. We’re consumers, not some moral version of the “invisible hand”… you buy something based on value, it’s that simple. This Apple “boycott” is feeding the same behavior you’re against.

        • Geistbar
        • 7 years ago

        Many people consider the actions of the producer/seller of a product to be part of the value; they like to know that their money isn’t going to support something that they consider sufficiently unacceptable. It’s why (at least up until recently, where it has died off a bit) people have favored Google fairly heavily, regardless of search quality — they found the “do no evil” mantra to be appealing. It’s also why many people will support a local business over an international one, or why many people don’t buy fur coats. There is a value in knowing that the money you give a company isn’t supporting something you dislike.

        Shambles has found Apple’s method of competing with a rival unacceptable, and don’t want to support them with money anymore. Who are you to say that is a poor reason to not buy something? It’s a hugely different rationalization than a fanboy’s “I blindly think this company’s products are the best, so I will purchase them no matter what” that you compared it to.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          you’re right. To claim that “i just buy based on what’s cheap for me” abdicates all an individuals responsibility in society. you want to be a dumb consumer, i am a [b<] citizen. [/b<] those two things are not the same.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This