absolutely stupid - If no judge has the stones to stand up to this idiotic behaviour I can see future product choices for the consumer being defined by which dated device was able to avoid getting banned. These companies have become too big and too powerful and they need chopping down to size before they start setting laws about what we can and cannot buy!

The court won't penalise apple for attempting it though, so they have nothing to lose from that POV.

Ditched my last apple product this week. Looking forward to lots of Samsung purchases. I won't support this type of behaviour.

Samsung and other Android makers should just leave the US alone and let them have a Apple only culture. The the fact the US courts are entertaining Apple's wishes and siding with them just shows that this won't end until Apple is dominant. Screw the Americans, let them be ripped off with Apple products if they are going to be complete trats ..

I wonder how many of the jury are Apple share holders….

If I were Samsung, I'd tell Apple to go get it's screens and other stuff elsewhere as soon as the contract runs out.

bobfoc
I wonder how many of the jury are Apple share holders….

If I were Samsung, I'd tell Apple to go get it's screens and other stuff elsewhere as soon as the contract runs out.

Although this would also cost Samsung a lot of money and unless the components are based on Samsung-held patents, would cause a temporary disruption to apple while they found another supplier. Similarly, charging apple more for the components would short-term make money but long-term encourage them to switch supplier.

Over on this side of the pond, patents like Slide-to-Unlock have already been well and truly invalidated, in a case Apple launched against HTC, with clear proof of a prior implementation and, failing that, we suspect absurd simplicity may have been a consideration for the courts. In the US, however, these patents still pack a lot of punch; often US court will not take into account prior implementations/art from areas outside of the States.

Seriously? I thought “prior art” wasn't limited by geography - or are the US courts so xenophobic/isolationist these days that they can't see further than the 50 states? FFS, use some common sense! Oh, and patenting something for which clear prior art exists elsewhere demonstrates a clear lack of business morals/ethics.

This quote from the Foreman indicates that the jury dismissed Samsung prior-art demonstrations such as DiamondTouch, for reasons such as the system using a projector instead of a display or that the touch software wouldn't recompile onto an iPhone.

Hmm, where did they get this idiot from? Perhaps they would have been better served by someone with less technical knowledge - the old cliche of “a little knowledge being a dangerous thing” obviously applies here. Apart from anything else I thought patents applied to a way of doing something, not a particular implementation. Heck, if that was the case then how come Samsung lost - after all surely iOS wouldn't recompile onto a Galaxy S2, so by the same yardstick they're distinct implementations!

Surely Samsung have a pretty strong case for appeal on the basis of mistrial?

Oh, and I'm not so sure about Google's “intimidation” - as the article itself says, a lot of what Apple's bitching about is Android itself, so if you're faced with an unreasonable bully surely the only way to get some sense into the situation is to produce a bigger threat. If in the (very unlikely) event that they get Apple to see sense then as far as I'm concerned they (Google) can go in all guns blazing.

I'm beginning to think that the US legal system - and especially the patent-related bit - was designed by a cadre of village idiots, (or the dregs of the B Ark if you're a Douglas Adams fan).

Brewster0101
Samsung and other Android makers should just leave the US alone and let them have a Apple only culture. The the fact the US courts are entertaining Apple's wishes and siding with them just shows that this won't end until Apple is dominant.

I'm sure that there's folks in Samsung who are considering this - after all you've also got that CDMA nonsense to contend with, so surely it's a (needlessly?) expensive market. It'll be interesting to see how Motorola's case against Apple fares - after all, that's two US companies, so ‘home advantage’ doesn't figure. And I'd also be interested to understand how the US carriers view this - after all with Samsung potentially out of the way, doesn't that give Apple even more of a “whip hand” than they reputedly do at the moment?

Personally though, I'm not going to get too agitated - after all I'm lucky enough to live in a country that (demonstrably!) has a less moronic legal system. In which case I'm going to continue to enjoy my S3, and also look to ditch my remaining Apple products.

I don't care how good Apple products are I just won't buy any on principle (even if they were cheap as chips).

Apologies for diving off topic but it does seem related. I know there are many reasons why this isn't necessarily an ‘American courts favouring American company’ situiation but seeing as this is now reguilarly being bandied about on this and many other forums - anyone know at what point this officially becomes US protectionism by stealth and if so, if the WTC could get involved and what they might be able to do?

Also - re: the iPad mini article (but posted here to avoid crudding up another thread with the patent-related stuff)

If Samsung were to win a patent case in the Chinese courts* and get the iPad etc blocked from China… (okay - so they'd still get them as they ‘fell off the back of a factory’ but without official sales, that'd have to hurt).

*I'm aware of the irony of this, but wouldn't it be a glorious moment when a Chinese diplomat got to hold up the banning of Apple products as evidence of their commitment to IP/copyright protection that the US has been slating them for for so long.

Tpyo
If Samsung were to win a patent case in the Chinese courts* and get the iPad etc blocked from China… (okay - so they'd still get them as they ‘fell off the back of a factory’ but without official sales, that'd have to hurt).

*I'm aware of the irony of this, but wouldn't it be a glorious moment when a Chinese diplomat got to hold up the banning of Apple products as evidence of their commitment to IP/copyright protection that the US has been slating them for for so long.

That'd be awesome :)

The us patent system is simple.

It's not a matter of he who comes up with an idea, then develops a devices that implements said idea.
But he who thinks to patent the idea first no matter how widespread the technology is in the first place.

I still think there should be an exponential cost based on number of patents held at the parent company level (to stop apple creating off shoot patent only companies).

There should also be a maintenance fee based on how many of these patents are held.
Apple might change there mind about patenting everything under the sun if they have to start forking out $1bn a year in patent fee's.

It would make the us gov' a tidy sum and help out their budget deficit as well.

This sort of thing is already in place in the uk, though perhaps it goes a bit too far as I recall dyson had to surrender his original patent on the bagless vacuum concept because the costs out weighed the competitive advantage.

I pretty much posted the same as you Crossy its silly :( http://forums.hexus.net/general-discussion/255261-samsung-vs-apple-case-moves-jury-8.html

The whole reason they won was that the guy with this patent “knowledge” screwed the court when he didnt understand it himself! Prior art is acceptable and he should have bloody listened, instead of coming up with a silly idea that he could defend Apple with a different point of view and then let Apple attack Samsung with a different one :(.

Madness! And adding the S3 and tablets is certainly all his fault cause now Apple know hes a complete tool and will do their bidding.

Cant wait for America to get slapped by someone at some point, their patent office needs a complete rebuild.


Now another thing I have to ask is if I understand it correctly, I am no real expert or anything (merely reading headlines and some reports) on patents but my understanding is a patent is a design which is normally hardware but can be software, and then you have copywrite which is for protecting creative works, so why has Apple been able to kick off that Samsung copied their icons in a patent case when its meant to be copywrite? Or have I totally got confused ? :P

bobfoc
I wonder how many of the jury are Apple share holders….

If I were Samsung, I'd tell Apple to go get it's screens and other stuff elsewhere as soon as the contract runs out.

it does not matter if Apple were the last mobile phone maker … i still wouldn't by their c*appy hardware … they are even bigger bullies than microsoft and Intel ever were

Brewster0101
Samsung and other Android makers should just leave the US alone and let them have a Apple only culture.

A bit unfair on the many Americans who DON'T want Apple products, though! There is clearly a market for Galaxy units in the States, so clearly not all of them are sheeple…

The real solution is to overturn this cretinous decision, fine Apple a vast sum (certainly more than $1bn) for its disgusting behaviour and hear no more of these unfathomably stupid lawsuits from any party.

But they won't do that, because it's far too much like common sense.

Apple should stop now or be slapped in the face with an Anti-trust case like Microsoft was by Europe for the IE browser.

Brewster0101
Samsung and other Android makers should just leave the US alone and let them have a Apple only culture. The the fact the US courts are entertaining Apple's wishes and siding with them just shows that this won't end until Apple is dominant. Screw the Americans, let them be ripped off with Apple products if they are going to be complete trats ..

:rolleyes:

And, who do you think would benefit from that? The losers are plentiful, and it isn't Apple. The winner is not Samsung, nor Android for that matter.

But this is exactly the kind of posts that makes me doubt accusations of the US bias.

I actually think Apple's stance on this can go along way to alienating even some of the most fervent apple fanboys. They really do appear to be trying to win an award for the most unpopular company of the year. I just wonder how much damage they could be doing to themselves.
Certainly any neutral is now on the side of Samsung.

Samsung FTW.

I for one shall not be continuing with the iPads in our household, I genuinely hope they fall from grace in the most public fashion possible.

Amen to that.

rox0r
I for one shall not be continuing with the iPads in our household, I genuinely hope they fall from grace in the most public fashion possible.

Amen to that.

1) Yes! 2) Absolutely! 3) Indeed… there should be penalties for the attempt, though. :( 4) Me, too. 5) LOL YES!

keithwalton
I still think there should be an exponential cost based on number of patents held at the parent company level (to stop apple creating off shoot patent only companies).

There should also be a maintenance fee based on how many of these patents are held.
Apple might change there mind about patenting everything under the sun if they have to start forking out $1bn a year in patent fee's.

That wouldn't fly - in term's of patent's filed per annum I seem to remember that Apple's pretty far down the pecking order, certainly behind the traditional giants like HP and especially IBM. Unless your metric is “boneheaded and just plain trivial” patents in which case Apple's starting to look like an industry leader. ;)

So any such arrangement would no doubt be strongly protested by the tech companies - “stifling innovation”. I'm kind of in agreement with Hicks12 - that some of what Apple is “patenting” is actually “copyright” instead - e.g. the look of an icon set isn't an invention (like the vacuum cleaner example you used) but instead a “look and feel” thing like the Coca-Cola logo and typeface.

I think a government (WTO?) examination of Apple's tactics is long-overdue - their single-minded pursuit of Samsung does start to smack of persecution rather than prosecution, (and I don't count myself as a Samsung fan by any means - my S3 is my first and only Samsung device - other than the odd CD drive). As to Apple themselves, iPhone's and iPad's are off my purchase list anyway (because there's alternatives that suit me better out there), but I can't see myself buying (or recommending) anything iPod or from iTunes anytime soon.

Apple will regret this stance when samsung limit the pips they need to actually manufacture apple products…..

More like; Apple requests permission to expand court case to monopolise the smartphone market.*

bendabanga
More like; Apple requests permission to expand court case to monopolise the smartphone market.*

True - why do you think that Apple's (so far) only targetted Samsung and HTC for persecution, sorry “prosecution”? ;) As you say, it's little to do with IP protection and much to do with protecting market share.

Actually, this is one reason that I'm hoping that Nokia does a very good job with the new Lumia's - figuring that if they become too much of a threat then Apple will try and go after them. Given Microsoft's reputedly got a “no sue” deal on WP8, then it'll be Nokia-specific features that'll be the bone of contention, and I'm looking forward with glee to see Nokia's counter-suit. If Apple wanted to “go thermonuclear” on Android, then I suspect Nokia could probably unleash a supernova-sized suit if they wanted to.

Boooo Apple!!

Crossy - One day i would like to take you and the UK judge who did the Apple vs HTC case for a beer :)

It seems that Samsung has sold 20 million Galaxy S3 phones.

Wont pass.
Galaxy S3 doesn't look remotely like an iDevice and is too crucial to Samsung's mobile business.

Camoxide
Wont pass.
Galaxy S3 doesn't look remotely like an iDevice and is too crucial to Samsung's mobile business.

AFAIK, they're going to argue that since the S3 bears some “family resemblance” to the S2 - and the S2 was found to be infringing. Also the S3 uses the latest version of TouchWiz, and the S2 version of TW was judged to be infringing.

It's the US legal system so plain old common sense doesn't figure!

And personally I too think it's a complete crock of s**t of a court case anyway.

What I don't understand is why Apple's allowed to put in this request while Samsung still has an appeal against the original (hopelessly flawed) decision pending? Doesn't this show a bit of contempt for the appeals court?