Judge begs Apple, Samsung to get a room, or trial will end in tears Judge Lucy Koh has urged Apple and Samsung to kiss and make up, and end their bitter legal battles. Judge Koh, who is overseeing the two tech titans' iPhone patent trial in the US, asked the chief execs of Apple and Samsung to talk at least once more on the phone before the jury goes away next week to consider its verdict. …
Another thumbs up from me. But if I was in the judge's shoes I'd also be trying to make noises as to working out how this situation came about in the first place ... ie. the tendancy of the patent office to not reject things based on various grounds, and let the companies duke it out in courts; which will ultimately cost the consumer, either in higher product prices, the suffering of a less competative market, or the general perception that the world is going mad and that no one in authority is taking serious steps to stop what appears to be utter insanity.
I suppose she had to ask even though she probably feels there's FA chance of it happening.
The dispute isn't going to stop at the Jury's verdict though. Both sides have already created the necessary records for Appeal and Samsung has come out and said Apple violates some of its 3G patents.
The lawyers don't want it to end either. They're probably thinking to themselves "this is going to be just like SCO - a f***ing gravy train!!!"
How the hell did you work that out? The judge would have no insight to the jury's thoughts.
The point the judge is making is that the trial is basically a big lottery - a random assortment of people have been told to decide on extremely complicated patent minutia.
Follow the money, Apple brings billions in tax profits to the bay area, they basically pay the judge and her bosses salary. To make her bosses happy the judge's goal is to keep the money flowing into the Bay Area economy and their pockets. A jury trial prevents her from doing anything more than block evidence that favors Samsung - which she has done. She has just heard the best that the Apple lawyers could dish out and it is apperant that they are likely to loose so to protect her salary and those who pay it she is trying desperately to pressure Samsung to pay on these worthless patents. Also, remember that the Bias the judge has shown towards Apple has already established a baseline for Samsung to appeal( and win), so... push Samsung to settle... as in give Apple another income stream( and hence her bosses). But also remember it won't stop here, if Samsung caves and pays on these bogus patents then every other manufacturer will eventually find the same crooked tactics used on them.
@AC
"Follow the money, Apple brings billions in tax profits to the bay area, they basically pay the judge and her bosses salary. To make her bosses happy the judge's goal is to keep the money flowing into the Bay Area economy and their pockets. A jury trial prevents her from doing anything more than block evidence that favors Samsung - which she has done. She has just heard the best that the Apple lawyers could dish out and it is apperant that they are likely to loose so to protect her salary and those who pay it she is trying desperately to pressure Samsung to pay on these worthless patents. Also, remember that the Bias the judge has shown towards Apple has already established a baseline for Samsung to appeal( and win), so... push Samsung to settle... as in give Apple another income stream( and hence her bosses). But also remember it won't stop here, if Samsung caves and pays on these bogus patents then every other manufacturer will eventually find the same crooked tactics used on them."
I'd challenge you to repeat that in the Judge's courtroom...
Actually, Apple doesn't bring "billions of dollars of tax" to the Bay Area. Sure, they employ a few thousand people, and pay them well, and pay Cupertino a nice chunk of cash in property taxes, and that's nice and all... but Apple's corporate profits tend to end up in Nevada (with Braeburn Capital, or possibly Golden Delicious Tax Avoidance, where there's no corporate income or capital gains tax.
So million, sure. Billions? No.
"Previously, Judge Koh ordered the companies to meet back in May with the same endgame in mind. Back then, both Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung and Apple CEO Tim Cook were present while the companies engaged in two days of unsuccessful court-ordered mediation."
--Arstechnica
The whole point of this is Apple showing the world that it has bigger, more expensive lawyers than the rest of them - so keep off what it claims to be its lawn even if others have a valid right to be there - otherwise Apple will cost them more in legal fees than it is worth it. Apple does not really mind if it looses as long as the Samsung legal bill is high.
It is not about who is right, but who is richest.
"This sort of lawyering sounds hideously dull and unpleasant to me."
And so it is in most jobs. I count myself lucky that, in my employment, I get a feeling of satisfaction from what I do. But at least the lawyers in this case can go home and console themselves with the huge piles of dosh they have earned.
I dont see what you're getting at there, are you saying that if you pay 120000 for training that you will be in that 1% and the other 99% had a cheaper education?
If thats so then Id find that $120000 and pay for the education - after all the education only cost approx 1 months wage at $500 an hour!
:)
"[Judge Koh] said both companies could be in trouble if they leave the decision up to the panel of ordinary folk, who certainly aren't intellectual property experts."
Why do lay juries have to go through what must be mind-blowingly boring hearings?
Why does the US not have a patent court like in UK? Specialised judges and qualified counsel?
Is it one of those barmy states rights things?
The court summons a large bunch of potential jurors. Some are sent home because spending time on the jury would cause undue hardship or because they have a business relationship with one of the parties. They lawyers from each side get to throw out a few potential jurors. Every single time, they throw out the people with experience with technology or law.
The European Patent Office is lobbying hard for a specialist patent court. If they ever get their way, no patent will be too obvious and the concept of non-patentable subject matter will be entirely forgotten. If you ever hear a rumour that the possibility of a specialist patent court will be created, publicise the rumour at once and hope that letters to MEPs will stamp this atrocious idea back into the mud again.
There is a specialized appeals court - the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - for patent matters. Patents are a federal issue not affected by states' rights considerations.
Specialized government organizations like the Patent and Trademark Office and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit present a risk of something like regulatory capture. The PTO exists for the purpose of issuing patents, and in combination with the fact that it is far more costly to reject a patent application than to grant the patent, and granting the patent is easier to measure for employee productivity purposes, it is unsurprising that a good many patents are issued that some might consider questionable or unwarranted. The CAFC exists to decide appeals of patent decisions in lower courts; it has little incentive to draw clear distinctions or reduce the scope of patentable subject matter. And the ever growing population of patent attornies works diligently to increase the workload at the PTO and, eventually, in the courts and at the CAFC.
So we get what we got.
Not sure how it works in the US but a completely and evenly split jury would probably be quite a good outcome here. Would be about the only way for the "lay person" to say: "We are fed up with you corporate titans using the legal system as the latest blunt instrument to attack each other when you could both be getting on with competing fairly and developing the next products because, yes, some of us like iThings and some of us don't but we'd like them _both_ to be available, please. Oh, and while we're on the subject of tech companies wasting time and money, WHERE'S OUR DAMN FLYING CAR?"
Well, that was sort of my point. The current legal process (and here my lack of US legal knowledge doesn't help) may well not be able to cope gracefully with the Jury sentiment of "We don't know (or care)" but a deadlock followed by both sides having to seriously consider if they want to start all over again might be the only way that message can currently be sent. Similar to the Jubilee Line fraud trial here (in the UK) where it went on for about 2 years, the jury was shrinking (due to illness, pregnancies, etc.) and then one day the remaining members basically said to the judge "this is stupid, we don't understand any of it, we're fed up and we want our lives back so we're going home". And the judge, who could have found them all in contempt, said "fair enough, off you go" !
IF the jury are truly in a "a pox on both your houses" mood, the most likely outcome is that they find against both sides: Samsung doesn't infringe Apple's patent, Apple doesn't infringe Samsung's.
It's a preposterous outcome, because it's not actually in question that Apple does infringe Samsung's patent, but juries are good at preposterous!
I don't understand how Apple get away with this theory that because 2 million Samsung products have been sold - they are lost sales?
If someone wanted an iDevice - they would have bought one, it is only a lost sale if for whatever you reason - you cannot provide a service to a customer that wants it (eg someone goes to an Apple store for an iPhone and the Apple store cannot provide one). To claim that you lost a sale because someone bought a competing product is stupid.
If Film A comes out at the cinema and I have no interest in watching it, but then a few weeks later Film B comes out and I go and see it - Film A has not lost a sale - as I would never have gone to see it.
If however I had wanted to see Film A, but the cinema was full and couldn't take any more customers - then Film A has lost a sale.
However - were Apple not (in my personal opinion) bullies who on the one hand say things like "we don't care about money, we just want to create products people love to use" while on the other hand moaning about hypothetical "lost sales" - and much more importantly - if they would acknowledge that if you pay money for a lump of hardware - you own the hardware. I do not want to buy a device - but still not really own it (and yes I know some Android manufacturers are just as bad - but the big difference is - the Android manufacturers did not try to get it made illegal to "Jailbreak" the device you bought) - if these things were different - then I might have considered an iDevice - in this way - they have lost a sale - but not due to competing devices.
"I don't understand how Apple get away with this theory that because 2 million Samsung products have been sold - they are lost sales?"
It's the same logic that says one illegal download equals one lost sale. The RIAA/MPAA have got away with it, and now it's being applied to other fields.
Yes, a percentage of Samsung owners might have bought an iPhone; but it's a long way from a 100%.
The problem there though is that it's still not the same - the only way it would become the same would be if I robbed an Apple shop to get an iPhone (that I didn't want in the first place).
For the record in case any wondered - I don't have a Samsung phone either - I think Touchwiz is the most god awful thing they ever created. I have a HTC One X and before that I had a HTC Desire. Please note though - I like Stock Android, Sense is alright but it feels like running Linux on a Windows machine in a VM. It's sluggish and a resource hog. But the HTC One X has a pretty good camera and the camera app is good. The Sense weather clock (essentially the trademark of Sense) is nice but has many free and paid replacements for it in the market, however the Sense Dialer is a joy and is the only reason I put up with Sense - there are replacement dialers in the market but none of them have ever been able to win me over.
That being said - I might ditch the HTC One X and get a Samsung S3 which I really don't want to do - but the HTC One X was rushed to market and the build quality (and failure rate) is a bit crap.
Firstly passing off/brand dilution, which says that by designing devices very like Apple's Samsung were trading on the brands that Apple had established. Salesmen (who tend to sell whatever they get the biggest bonuses/margin on) will push people who might have bought Apple to buy Samsung instead. There isn't an easy way to quantify the numbers here, but passing off is something you get damages for if proven.
Secondly design/patent infringement, which says that even if the buyer had never considered Apple kit, Samsung were using designs and patents that they hadn't paid for, and Samsung owe Apple for their use. You CAN quantify the numbers here. The number of sales of infringing devices multiplied by the worth the jury assign to each infringed patent. Samsung's counterclaim is allong this line also.
and if the same argument applied to apple,remembering that johnathan ives has admitted in print in public that he copies braun designs,i would have thought using your logic that braun could bankrupt apple very quickly,i wonder somtimes if braun just waiting in the wings for their turn in court.
It isn't an offence to sell devices in other markets in the STYLE of a company. If Samsung were to imagine what a phone styled by BMW would look like then that isn't passing off. There is no existing BMW phone to confuse it with.
If Samsung were however to sell a CAR that looks like a BMW then that's passing off (give them chance, I'm sure they'll give it a go).
Although Ive admitted that he copied Braun designs, you'd be hard pushed to find an Apple product that looked anything like a Braun product.
I've just spent a hour going through my History of Braun Design books and the only things I can find that are remotely Apple looking are a table-top cigarette lighter from 1970 and a loudspeaker from 1975 (both designed by Dieter Rams)
What I think Ive actually meant was that he copied Braun (and Rams in particular) design ideals.
Rams is quoted as sayimg " To us designers, there is nothing of secondary importance. No impressive fronts and negligently designedbacks. There is nothing which seemingly doesn't matter. Every detail is important. Even insignificant ones will at ometime be perceived, used and experienced."
Rams made many statements about design, and If you read them you will see where Ive got his inspiration. It wasn't from the products that Braun made (food blenders, hair-dryers, shavers, stereos and the like) but from the philosophy behind the design of those products.
Sorry, I can't see that there would be any chance that Braun could challenge Apple for copying.
Going through your previous posts, can I just ask - how much do Apple pay you exactly? Or are you really that blinkered? I think you need professional help if you still cannot see past Apples propaganda despite all your arguments having been shot down in flames repeatedly with well reasoned responses.
I must have missed those among the hail of Fandroid ranting.
It's pretty much been in this form of late:-
Fandroid #1: How dare Apple claim X (where X is some ridiculous simplification)
Me: They aren't claiming that. They are claiming Y and Z, which has the following basis.
Fandroids #2-37: RAAAGE
This thread is a classic example. Feel free to RAAAGE now.
Quite apart from the fact that a black rectangle with rounded corners and a chrome egde with a single button at the bottom and a slit for a speaker at the top is actually a pre-iphone Samsung design which they have the right to use, none of that nonsense answers the question of why every Samsung sale is an apple lost sale, when sales were made to people who would not have bought an apple product.
The F700 would have given apple too hard a job in court, so they were allowed to pretend it didn't exist and that Samsung's design department since 2005 has consisted of an iphone and a photocopier. But in the real world we're allowed to talk about it. Why do you bother with this apple fanboy apologetics when you know you're wrong and everyone else knows you're wrong?
Oddly enough the designer of the F700 was quoted as saying that NON of the devices that Apple were claiming infringed their design was based on the F700. Given that and the fact that the F700 wasn't under dispute how was her testimony going to make a huge difference in the case?
Even if one Samsung black rectangle with rounded corners and a chrome egde with a single button at the bottom and a slit for a speaker at the top wasn't based on another Samsung black rectangle with rounded corners and a chrome egde with a single button at the bottom and a slit for a speaker at the top, that doesn't mean apple should be allowed to claim that there was nothing between the 2006 Samsung phones and the 2009 Samsung phones which were black rectangles with rounded corners and a chrome egde with a single button at the bottom and a slit for a speaker at the top other than the Iphone. Nor should it preclude Samsung from making black rectangles with rounded corners and a chrome egde with a single button at the bottom and a slit for a speaker at the top.
Shirley the reasoning will be:
Someone untechnical wants an iPad (Bearing in mind that a good proportion of the population consider iPad and Tablet to be the same thing)
They buy a samsung because it is a tablet has rounded corners etc and looks like their friends iPad, it does what they want so they have an iPad in their mind... in this case apple lost a sale because the person was going to buy someting that looked and functioned like the tablets that they have seen apple advetising, that their friends have...
However Im with you, apple shouldnt get away with it, no one should, its anti competitive and a huge waste of everyones time.
Anyone with half a brain can avoid jury service. (Likewise anyone with a super brain will not get past jury selection). When jury decisions are suprising, the first places to look are the evidence and the reporting. Some reporters like to emphasise the evidence that is contrary to the jury's decision to create some controversy. Some just paraphrase the press release from the losing side. Remember that we see evidence that the jury does not.
The biggest slice of evidence we got to see is about 950 examples of prior art Samsung does not get to show the jury. Apple complained that Samsung did not specify for each example whether the example demonstrated obviousness or prior art. Samsung did not get a response in by the deadline. I think that example of Apple lawyering speaks volumes about how weak they think their case is, but the jury is not allowed to know about it.
Which have made it blatantly obvious that she is an Apple fan and will side with them every time, it looks like Samsung have presented a strong enough case that she knows Apple have no chance. She now doesn't want to have to make a judgement based on the decision of the Jury as the result will show how questionable her earlier actions were.
let me take on the roll i like most, that of a fervent Apple hater.
Thing is that Apple started this battle, Samsung simply picked up the glove and is obviously more then willing to see it through to the end. Samsung didn't start this war, but i certainly hope they finish it.
bah, apple, spending years whining about how they're treated unfairly, but as soon as the tables are turned, they do the exact same thing. Shameless hypocracy.
When she opines that Apple and Samsung should cross-license when Samsung's case is that Apple's patents are invalid.
Not bias, practicality. Once a patent is issued, it's assumed to be valid until proved otherwise. Samsung's got a very high bar to reach, especially with a jury involved.
It can often be better (from a business perspective) to license an invalid patent* than lose a huge chunk of your business for sticking to principles.
* Not that I believe Apple wants to give them a license anyway.
Love you too. Kiss Kiss.
quote: "If you sold sandwiches under your own brand in distinctive packaging, which a competitor proceeded to imitate closely then you could sue them for passing off. They were trading on your brand and that's a civil offence for which you can receive damages."
Except of course, the product is the sandwich. Samsung have not been taken to court for the packaging, they have been taken to court for the product. So if Devious_Dan got a design patent on the sandwich, he could indeed take other sandwich sellers to court for infringing his sandwich design, regardless of how different their packaging is.
I also noted this gem from Steve Knox: Not bias, practicality. Once a patent is issued, it's assumed to be valid until proved otherwise.
Fine in and of itself. However I seem to recall a statement on one of the earlier articles along the lines of "the patent office doesn't check for validity of patents (prior art etc.), leaving it to the courts to decide" (paraphrased as I can't recall the article, and I'm also a lazy bugger).
Put them together: the patent office doesn't check for validity of patents, leaving it to the courts to decide. Once a patent is issued, it's assumed to be valid until proved otherwise.
I don't like the cycle of logic there. If patents have been effectively approved unchecked (a look at the current crop of spats would seem to imply that this is the case, I nearly pissed myself laughing at the Apple "design patent") then I wouldn't call it practical to assume their validity. I would instead call it highly impractical to assume validity when appraising claims of infringement, and suggest that patent validity checking be part of the due diligence process prior to coming to trial.
Wouldn't make nearly as much money for lawyers and patent trolls though :/
Samsung have been taken to court for both Trade Dress (the packaging and appearance), plus design/UI patents (to continue the metaphor, probably beyond breaking point, the patented sauce that makes your sandwiches so yummy). Nothing stops your competitors from making their own sandwiches providing they don't infringe those two things.
You didn't invent bread, meat or the slicing of either, and putting meat in bread has been done before. But if it hasn't been patented before then under the first-to-file rules you could prevent innovators from selling their goods. It would indeed be an apple style patent.
They've made a sandwich with lots of old fillings not found in the same sandwich before, and now want to ban others from using any of the fillings in differently shaped sandwiches (even with shapes created before apple entered the sandwich business), with different packaging and brand names, which do not pretend to be apple's sandwich nor want to be confused with apple's sandwich. Meanwhile apple pays nothing for the use of the slicing machine which makes all this possible.
Has Samsung ever branded their devices intentionally in a misleading way? Like, not put their name on it and have a logo on the phone/tab/package that an unwary customer might mistake for an Apple logo? I seem to remember that the 'German court tab comparison picture' had the 'Samsung' logo removed from the face of the tablet* , but usually you can't miss it.
Well, all the Samsung devices I've seen had Samsung written in bold capitals on front and back. I don't think that a customer could mistakenly pick the wrong one.
So, if this is about misleading design and lost sales, then it's a no-brainer in my opinion: The customer is aware what he or she bought and obviously made his decision.
Does Apple actually believe that a customer enters a shop, asks for an iPhone and gets given a Samsung Galaxy and doesn't notice? Or says something like: 'oh, must be the same thing...' and that's it?
*Which I would have regarded as cheating.
"the complexities of intellectual property law are not easy for even judges to understand"
Which is how lawyers like it. But in fact the issue here is not complex at all. Apple says that Samsung copied their ideas but any fool can see that the copying was of the sort that every big company engages in and has done for decades (remember when Ford bought a Mini and stripped it down to see how it worked? They didn't do that as a hobby) and is in any case nothing more than fiddling with colours and some shapes. Because, these particular shapes and these particular colours is all Apple brought to the table.
If Samsung copied any actual inventions it's a safe bet they weren't Apple's because all Apple is is a company that paints new colours on old ideas and sells them to mugs for obscene prices. There's no "Intellectual property" there to steal, and never was.
If the Jury are just Average Joe, they'll go with Apple regardless. The brand they'll have heard most and even if they know nothing about them they'll know plenty of people who have an 'i' something. To them a phone is an iPhone, and MP3 player is an iPod and tablet is an iPad, and asked for equivalent products they may not know of any. Which is what Apple are trying to protect, not the devices themselves but that identity that goes beyond just a brand where the entire generic function is tied to one of their products.
So this one will go one to appeal. More money wasted, more arguments.
I agree, though interestingly, many people will have one or more Samsung products - they're an incredibly successful company with a huge range of diverse products in different markets. The problem is though the RDF - most people don't care about using a Samsung product, but Apple users get fanatical about it. And the fact that there's far more awareness - as you say, Apple products are always referred to by their brandname, whilst other products are just generic.
It's not just indivduals talking about their own products - it's painful everytime I see this in the media, e.g., an article about the police taking a suspect's devices, or an article about what product someone owns: it'll be "Iphone and mp3 player" or "Ipod and phone" or "Ipad and laptop" or "tablet and iMacProBookBMP" - even though one would hope the journalist has no interest in the brands, and it's irrelevant to the story, we always get told everytime it's an Apple product, but not if it's anything else.
Apple are indeed a marketing company - they get sales, where people buying them are completely unaware of alternatives, both better ones, those that were there first, or those that are more popular. And it's sickening that they are helped by the media and the shops, constantly advertising "Ipads, Ipods, Iphones and Macs", whilst everything else is a tablet, mp3 player, phone or PC, laptop or computer. To have the legal system helping them too is even sadder.
"The problem is though the RDF - most people don't care about using a Samsung product, but Apple users get fanatical about it. And the fact that there's far more awareness - as you say, Apple products are always referred to by their brandname, whilst other products are just generic."
That seems to be in direct opposition to the rabid Galaxy/Android fans in this and many other forums. The Galaxy branding effort by Samsung has been quite effective. "Should I get a Galaxy or an iPhone?" is an oft heard question for people in the purchasing process. Samsung are a very well respected global. Curiously, despite there mammoth presence in the tech field, they don't seem to be facing too many copying lawsuits.
You statement is disingenuous, innaccurate bullshit.
Disclaimer. I own 3 Samsung TVs and 1 iPhone.
I think Samsung got more from my wallet.
The latest D8xxx series TVs are fabulous and I like the unique take on TV design. Samsung has a design department, they were just lazy early on in the tablet/smartphone race and confused inspire with copy
You can almost see the panic setting in. She's pissed off both sides and their lawyers to the point they're making minimum effort to comply with her running of the trial and occasional seem to be deliberately trying to provoke her.
It's going to appeal, something most judges hate and the only way to stop it is to badger Apple&Samsung into a settlement - I could almost believe her treatment of Samsung was a heavy handed and misguided attempt to pressure them. Most judges try that right at the start of the case, before tempers rise.
The only available pressure she has left is on Apple, by threatening to lift the injunctions. Waiting 2 years for an appeal with injunctions still in place means Apple won't bother settling while Samsung are being hurt. Ready to provoke and anger Koh all over again...
Well, in this case Judge Koh should not have done every possible effort to toss out a huge amount of Samsung evidence. Like for instance the fact that the jury is not supposed to hear that Steve Jobs has sworn to destroy Android or to be shown a clip from a SF movie showing users of rectangular table-like devices, which caused the Samsung lawyer to ask the judge what's the point of having a trial in these conditions ?
Some old dead dude who had something to do with revolutions and such a long time ago... ;-)
"A man has a right to use a saw, an axe, a plane, separately; may he not combine their uses on the same piece of wood? He has a right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject? Such a law, instead of enlarging our conveniences, as was intended, would most fearfully abridge them, and crowd us by monopolies out of the use of the things we have."
How about we put all the lawyers and top execs from both companies in a caged death match? Last one standing wins. Then shoot that one.
Invalidate all the patents from both companies that are being contested here and prohibit them being reassigned.
Then disband the USPTO and do it over with out any previous employee/manager/political halfwit appointee being allowed in the new office.
Quit poking me, I'm having a nice nap here.
Having sat on a jury recently, the less the jury 'knows' about IP the better. The jury is told to disregard everything on the matter at hand except what has been presented at trial, and the instructions given to them by the judge (including most importantly the elements of the law in question).
The role of the jury is to determine if the evidence presented meets the requirements of the law.
You don't need to be an IP expert, you don't need to be an IT expert. You DO need to be able to understand the testimony, but if the lawyers aren't smart enough to present an understandable case to a lay jury, they deserve to fail.
Poor Apple.
Awwww, diddums.
A Dell netbook looks more like an ipad than a Samsung tablet does. I just randomly googled some images.
http://content.dell.com/uk/EN/gen/d/campaigns/windows-upgrade-offer_gbp.aspx?c=UK&l=EN&s=gen
http://www.mobilegazette.com/samsung-galaxy-tab-2-101-12x02x26.htm
http://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/02/is-apples-ipad-3-already-leaving-china-for-the-united-states
Someone who can't tell them apart should get a yellow armband with 3 dots, astick and a dog. And won't be able to use any of these because they don't do Braille.
"Samsung only had real success when they copied everything,"
Garbage. I bought a Galaxy (when I already owned an iphone) *because* of the differences between the two. Only a total moron couldn't tell them apart. The "SAMSUNG" in chrome all caps on the front is just a small clue that it wasn't made by Apple.
The packaging was a rectangular cardboard box with a picture of the product on the front. Like every phone since forever...
I doubt you've seen a Galaxy Power adapter - they look nothing at all like an iphone one - the Samsung one is far more compact, a completely different shape a different colour, and has an industry standard micro-usb connector. Again, there is a rather large "SAMSUNG" label molded into the back of it!
I'm still yet to see a single comment from anyone here stating "I bought an iphone, but when I got home I had this galaxy thing".
Apple lost sales because Samsung were significantly cheaper, had a far better screen and was massively more customisable (especially when the custom ROMS came onto the scene).
This case reeks of using the court system as a means to keep your competitor's products off the shelves.
What I find amazing about this thread, is the waytha android fans , try and reduce the arguments to avoid a clear cut case os samsung caught copying.
Apples arguments is not that sumsung can't do a phonewith rounded corners, has HTC et all would have been sued into nothingess years ago, so why the hell do you keep repeating this claptrap?
What Appl is sueing for , is the fact that samsung has created a clone of the iPhone that is close enough to get appeal from Apple's superb marketing, and be bought by those people who can't afford to buy an iPhone but would like something like it.
You guys keep going on about rounded corners, etc etc , becuase in theend you would be forced to admit, that for all the slagging off of the iPhone, you went ahead and got an Andriod copy! lol
As much as I don't like it, I'm pretty certain that Samsung is going to lose this.
Why? I've just skimmed through 20 pages of jury verdict form. If the jury does not contain more than 50% professional patent lawyers with additional masters degrees and doctorates in English language and software design, then they're just going to put 'Y's and 'N's in the place that will feel right.
<sarcasm>
How likely is it that the local company will feel grateful around Christmas? Those chinks* don't even know about Christmas!
*Korean, Taiwanese, Cambodian, whatever: they shot at our boys in Da Nang, time to pay back.
</sarcasm>
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
