Stupid jury kills innovation/competition and hands Apple a monopoly

[Scoobes]

famousringo said:

ultima said:

famousringo said:

Superman4 said:

It's funny to see so many people claim that this image has been doctored or cherry-picked by Apple and isn't representative of the Galaxy S.

The image was cherry-picked by Samsung's own marketing people, precisely because that screen looks more like an iPhone than any other Android phone screen:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/samsung-announces-galaxy-s-android-smartphone/

 

1. That doesn't change the fact that you must follow a whole bunch of steps to make your Galaxy S look like that. A stock Galaxy S looks much better anyway. In any case, that's irrelevant. 2. You cannot patent look and feel. 3. Slide to unlock was not invented by apple. Neither was bounce-back. 4. Should Apple be sued for the ability of iOS to have a custom background, ability to access the camera from lock screen, multitasking, taskbar notification system, plus a shitload of other things just because Android had them first?

1. And Samsung took those steps in their press and marketing materials. What does that tell you about Samsung's intent?

2. Yes, you can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

3. So far, the entire US legal system from the patent office to the nine jurors in this case disagrees with you.

4. If anybody owns patents on those technologies, they certainly deserve their day in court.

You know, a huge number of patents get granted but a large number of them are shot down when challenged (as should have occured in this case). Do you know how many patent trolls have tried to claim patents on the most ridiculous and obvious of ideas? Just because a patent gets granted doesn't mean it should hold up.

The basic idea of a patent is that it's useful, new and non-obvious. Apple's patents in this case were neither new or non-obvious and therefore this case should have been thrown out (as should be the case for Samsung's patent on MP3s playing on a smartphone). Samsung's intent in this case should have been a moot point when the patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

As for the jurors, the jury foreman has this as a patent:

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/7352953

He's basically describing TiVo-like device or a Home Theater PC in a patent which again, should not have been granted (he filed 3 years after the first TiVo device). If this was the primary "expertise" for the jury then it's little wonder the outcome is so ridiculous.