By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Stupid jury kills innovation/competition and hands Apple a monopoly

 

Describe the Jury's decision.

Smart: Apple did it first... 47 17.67%
 
Stupid: You can't patent... 216 81.20%
 
Total:263
Scoobes on 27 August 2012
famousringo said:
Scoobes said:

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.


Right. Patents get invalidated. They also get upheld. That's up to the jury and the judge, all of whom are much more much more familiar with this matter than the average forum poster, having done nothing but sit through both sides' legal arguments for a couple weeks now (while hopefully being insulated from melodramatic press headlines).

Samsung certainly tried to invalidate Apple's patents. The jury was not persuaded. There's still some chance that the judge was. There's also a chance that the judge thinks the jury didn't go far enough, and she decides the Galaxy Tab also infringes on Apple's design and trade dress.

Also, if Samsung felt that particular juror's patent experience biased him against them (which in itself implies that Apple is on the stronger side of patent law than Samsung), they had their opportunity to have him removed.

And Jury's can get things wrong, as seems very likely in this case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 27 August 2012
Scoobes said:
famousringo said:
Scoobes said:

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.


Right. Patents get invalidated. They also get upheld. That's up to the jury and the judge, all of whom are much more much more familiar with this matter than the average forum poster, having done nothing but sit through both sides' legal arguments for a couple weeks now (while hopefully being insulated from melodramatic press headlines).

Samsung certainly tried to invalidate Apple's patents. The jury was not persuaded. There's still some chance that the judge was. There's also a chance that the judge thinks the jury didn't go far enough, and she decides the Galaxy Tab also infringes on Apple's design and trade dress.

Also, if Samsung felt that particular juror's patent experience biased him against them (which in itself implies that Apple is on the stronger side of patent law than Samsung), they had their opportunity to have him removed.

And Jury's can get things wrong, as seems very likely in this case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390


Wooooow.  Why in the world didn't Samsung boot that guy off?

His patent is hilarious.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7352953.html


Good to see Groklaw is as great as ever, even under new management.



kljesta64 on 27 August 2012

there is only one thing more stupid then mankind and that is a jury...i mean common i cant believe no one realize this ?



Tsubasa Ozora

Keiner kann ihn bremsen, keiner macht ihm was vor. Immer der richtige Schuss, immer zur richtigen Zeit. Superfussball, Fairer Fussball. Er ist unser Torschützenkönig und Held.

Scoobes on 27 August 2012
Kasz216 said:
Scoobes said:
famousringo said:
Scoobes said:

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.


Right. Patents get invalidated. They also get upheld. That's up to the jury and the judge, all of whom are much more much more familiar with this matter than the average forum poster, having done nothing but sit through both sides' legal arguments for a couple weeks now (while hopefully being insulated from melodramatic press headlines).

Samsung certainly tried to invalidate Apple's patents. The jury was not persuaded. There's still some chance that the judge was. There's also a chance that the judge thinks the jury didn't go far enough, and she decides the Galaxy Tab also infringes on Apple's design and trade dress.

Also, if Samsung felt that particular juror's patent experience biased him against them (which in itself implies that Apple is on the stronger side of patent law than Samsung), they had their opportunity to have him removed.

And Jury's can get things wrong, as seems very likely in this case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390


Wooooow.  Why in the world didn't Samsung boot that guy off?

His patent is hilarious.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7352953.html

 

Tell me about it. It was 3 years after TiVo too, lol.

I am beginning to wonder about Samsung's legal team... or was it really stacked against them?




Get your Portable ID!

famousringo on 27 August 2012
ultima said:
famousringo said:

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.

1. Like I said, that's irrelevant. Besides, a grid of icons on a black background seems like patentable idea to you? Physically, the Galaxy S was very different from iPhone too. Have you ever held one in your hand? It was much larger and thinner than the 3GS. And the materials used felt noticeably different. 

2. Okay, my bad. But Apple should've never been granted a patent for such an obvious and unoriginal design. How about LG, Sony, Samsung each suing and countersuing each other because their TV's look pretty much the same?

3. If you do a quick search for yourself, you'll find that they didn't indeed invent those things.

4. Screw the broken (or at the very least disgustingly inefficient) patent laws and give me an answer that you think is fair. Should Apple be fined billions for copying things from Android? My answer is no. Because everyone benefits from the idea of "borrow and improve". These lawsuits have to stop. Apple is by far the greatest culprit here, and if they stop, I'm sure everyone will drop their countersuits against them. They really are hurting innovation.


1. It absolutely is relevant. Samsung is accused of essentially stealing Apple's designs to make fake iPhones, not unlike a watchmaker making fake Rolexes or an automaker making fake Porche 911s. Samsung made a UI not just with a grid, but with the same 4 x 4 grid, with a dock below that, with a similar page indicator. Then they filled that grid with icons that have similar shapes and colours to Apple's icons. They framed that UI with hardware that had a similar speaker grille, a similar home button, and a nearly identical metal frame around it. There are a lot of touchscreen phones being made with grids and rounded corners, but Samsung is the only one being sued by Apple, because they're the only one which has gone out of its way to copy Apple designs, to make Touchwiz Android more like iOS. Samsung makes sure their work is highlighted in their marketing materials because that's the point of selling knock offs.

2. To qualify as trade dress, attributes of a product must be found to be "distinctive". Obviously what qualifies as "distinctive" and what attributes violate that distinctiveness is murky, that's why these things get argued in a court of law. If TV manufacturers think their distinctive designs are being violated to a competitors advantage, of course they also deserve their day in court.

3. I don't need to do a quick search. USPTO issued the patents, and those patents have been tested in the court of law and found valid (so far). What more proof could Apple possibly have that they did invent such technologies? Sorry, the law has more authority on this matter than raging internet nerds.

4. My answer stands. If Google wants to bring a lawsuit to Apple over patents it holds that it feels Apple ripped off, of course it's entitled to do so. Oh look, it just has. Now Apple faces the same choice Samsung did. It can decide to stop infringing and settle or it can decide to keep infringing and fight it in court.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network
ultima on 27 August 2012
famousringo said:
ultima said:
famousringo said:

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.

1. Like I said, that's irrelevant. Besides, a grid of icons on a black background seems like patentable idea to you? Physically, the Galaxy S was very different from iPhone too. Have you ever held one in your hand? It was much larger and thinner than the 3GS. And the materials used felt noticeably different. 

2. Okay, my bad. But Apple should've never been granted a patent for such an obvious and unoriginal design. How about LG, Sony, Samsung each suing and countersuing each other because their TV's look pretty much the same?

3. If you do a quick search for yourself, you'll find that they didn't indeed invent those things.

4. Screw the broken (or at the very least disgustingly inefficient) patent laws and give me an answer that you think is fair. Should Apple be fined billions for copying things from Android? My answer is no. Because everyone benefits from the idea of "borrow and improve". These lawsuits have to stop. Apple is by far the greatest culprit here, and if they stop, I'm sure everyone will drop their countersuits against them. They really are hurting innovation.


1. It absolutely is relevant. Samsung is accused of essentially stealing Apple's designs to make fake iPhones, not unlike a watchmaker making fake Rolexes or an automaker making fake Porche 911s. Samsung made a UI not just with a grid, but with the same 4 x 4 grid, with a dock below that, with a similar page indicator. Then they filled that grid with icons that have similar shapes and colours to Apple's icons. They framed that UI with hardware that had a similar speaker grille, a similar home button, and a nearly identical metal frame around it. There are a lot of touchscreen phones being made with grids and rounded corners, but Samsung is the only one being sued by Apple, because they're the only one which has gone out of its way to copy Apple designs, to make Touchwiz Android more like iOS. Samsung makes sure their work is highlighted in their marketing materials because that's the point of selling knock offs.

2. To qualify as trade dress, attributes of a product must be found to be "distinctive". Obviously what qualifies as "distinctive" and what attributes violate that distinctiveness is murky, that's why these things get argued in a court of law. If TV manufacturers think their distinctive designs are being violated to a competitors advantage, of course they also deserve their day in court.

3. I don't need to do a quick search. USPTO issued the patents, and those patents have been tested in the court of law and found valid (so far). What more proof could Apple possibly have that they did invent such technologies? Sorry, the law has more authority on this matter than raging internet nerds.

4. My answer stands. If Google wants to bring a lawsuit to Apple over patents it holds that it feels Apple ripped off, of course it's entitled to do so. Oh look, it just has. Now Apple faces the same choice Samsung did. It can decide to stop infringing and settle or it can decide to keep infringing and fight it in court.

1. First of all, heard of Ruf Autos? There's a "fake Porsche" for you.

So now the Galaxy S was a fake iPhone? Seriously dude? If Samsung wanted to fool people like you're trying to say, they'd make something out of the same material, and perhaps of the same size. Like I said, the Galaxy S was quite a bit larger and quite a bit thinner than the 3GS. Even if you scale the two phones to the same size, there are quite a few differences. First of all there is no front camera on the 3GS. The middle button is different. The grill is at a different position. There's a conspicous SAMSUNG logo. Etc. The only true physical resemblence is in the silver bezel. And the UI similarities are not as dramatic as you're professing. All Androids have a dock. The page indicators are at a different position, and on the S there is actually a page number. 4x4 grid is due to the screen resolution and icon size. All Androids of the time had 4x4 spaces on screens. Icon shapes are different (besides, seriously icon shapes?); no rounded corners on the S, and the designs are substantially different; plus, Galaxy S icons have solid colour backgrounds. Samsung is not the only one being sued. They have lawsuits against pretty much every Android manufacturer out there. I really hate to go into such a detailed analysis of something irrelevant (and it is irrelevant regardless of your feelings), but it seems like you're seeing a carbon copy.

2. When was the last time you stepped into an tech store? The point was that pretty much all TV's look the same. They're not suing each other, because it's unreasonable to expect competition to come up with something other than that classic TV shape. Same here. There's nothing specifically distinct about the iPhone design. Plus, as much as I hate to keep repeating myself, the size differences between the two phones are tremendous.

3. That shows that you're not willing to look at evidence. I really don't want to lubricate your throat and spoon feed you, but it seems like that's what you need done. Here's the proof that Apple indeed did not invent those two things you were talking about:

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-unlock-even-though-it-existed-2-years-they-invented-it

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

Good enough for you? Google's your friend if you need more info.

And like previously stated in this thread, one of the dudes of the jury is actually a funny guy with his apple-esque patent. Don't have so much faith in the righteousness of this jury.

4. You're still not answering my question. Forget about patents. Apple copied the notifications from Android. It was Android's invention, and Apple copied it. Should such behaviour be banned somehow? Just answer this as a consumer.

And I'm aware of the other lawsuits going on. Like I said, "these lawsuits have to stop". I also said that Apple is the biggest culprit and that them dropping these ridiculous accusations will be followed by others doing the same.



           

ultima on 27 August 2012

According to a PDF from Groklaw, Samsung wasn't even handed a fine as a result of the Galaxy S! Galaxy S 4G on the other hand resulted in a >$73M fine. Funny, eh? No way this verdict will stand.



           

.:Dark Prince:. on 17 September 2012
ultima said:
Superman4 said:
disolitude said:

WTF are you people talking about?

Do some research and look at the phones which were sued and patents that Apple sued them with. Looking at the phones in question, Samsung "willingly" copied the Iphone and its features.

People that know me know that I don't like Apple but I hate seeing lack of common sense.


Actually if someone that knows about both phones looks at them they would realize the pictures are doctored.  The home page for the Android based device looks nothing like that. They are purposly in the apps menu to make it look similar. Notice the Home button on the Samsung. The phone itself looks nothing like the Iphone either. Yes the speaker is at the top.....like any other phone, it has a touch sensitive middle button, back button and menu button, none of which the Iphone have. Apple is just pissed that their phones are garbage and they are getting whooped on by Android OS since it is far and above the better OS. They are going after Samsung because the Touchwiz interface puts four icons on the bottom and Samsung is the largest seller of smartphones.....they are butt hurt.

LOL! That IS the Galaxy S homescreen! You can tell by the strip on the bottom. That's just blatant fabrication by whoever made that image. First, they had to make a black image and upload it to their phone. Then they had to set their background to that picture. Then they had to move shitload of app shortcuts to their homescreen. No sentient consumer would take all those unnecessary steps to make their phone's user interface look that fugly.


This is definitely not accurate. The screen on the Galaxy S is not the homescreen, it's the app drawer. And on that version of TouchWiz (dunno if it's any different now) the app drawer had a black background that couldn't be changed. That's exactly how my Galaxy Ace was, which IMO looks even more like an iPhone clone.



 

.:Dark Prince:. on 17 September 2012

Sorry for the double post but can't edit for some reason, anyway while I do love my newly-bought 4S, Apple as a company is despicable to say the least.

Just take this as an example of their ridiculousness

Apple Sues Polish Grocery Store

(I love the last sentence of the article, "So now the question is: does Apple have the right to all apple-looking logos, even those outside of the consumer electronics market?")