Sunday, August 26, 2012

Apple Samsung: The Verdict Was Unfair

Apple, Samsung Verdict: Implications?
Apple, Samsung, And The Circus
Samsung Galaxy S III Design Story
Apple, Samsung: It's About Android
It Is About Google As Much As Samsung
Apple Samsung Trial: Big Implications
Hello Samsung, Hi Apple
Samsung Deserves Room To Play
Hello Apple, Hi Samsung
Samsung Galaxy S III
The Smartphone Is A Frying Pan
Apple Acting Soviet
Fighting Over Rectangles
Google Is Not Fighting Back Hard Enough On Android

Apple-Samsung juror speaks out
Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed, Damages Reduced -- Uh Oh. What's Wrong With this Picture?
If the jury instructions are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures? .... If this jury thought they knew the right result without instructions, and if they hurried so much they made glaring mistakes, and they did, and all in Apple's favor, something isn't right in this picture. ..... Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin? ....... How did the Galaxy Tab escape design patent infringement? This was the only device to be preliminarily enjoined (on appeal no less), and yet it was the one of the few devices to be spared the sledgehammer. And, by the way, it looks an awful lot like an iPad. Yet the Epic 4G, a phone I own (uh oh, Apple’s coming after me) — which has a slide out keyboard, a curved top and bottom, 4 buttons on the bottom, the word Samsung printed across the top, buttons in different places (and I know this because I look in all the wrong places on my wife’s iTouch), a differently shaped speaker, a differently placed camera, etc. — that device infringes the iPhone design patents....
Relatedly, the ability to get a design patent on a user interface implies that design patent law is broken. This, to me, is the Supreme Court issue in this case. We can dicker about the “facts” of point 2, but whether you can stop all people from having square icons in rows of 4 with a dock is something that I thought we settled in Lotus v. Borland 15 years ago. I commend Apple for finding a way around basic UI law, but this type of ruling cannot stand. ........ This is the second lawyer I've seen predicting this case will go all the way to the US Supreme Court. ..... Now the jurors are contradicting each other. Lordy, the more they talk, the worse it gets. I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages, they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. ....... Samsung, the global leader among smartphone makers, vowed to fight. Its lawyers told the judge it intended to ask her to toss out the verdict....... "This decision should not be allowed to stand because it would discourage innovation and limit the rights of consumers to make choices for themselves," Samsung lead lawyer John Quinn said. He argued that the judge or an appeals court should overturn the verdict....... Apple lawyers plan to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages from $1.05 billion to $3 billion....... U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues, along with Samsung's demand she overturn the jury's verdict, in several weeks. Quinn said Samsung would appeal if the judge refuses to toss out the decision....... Samsung said after the verdict that it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."....... "This is by no means the final word in this case," Quinn said in a statement. "Patent law should not be twisted so as to give one company a monopoly over the shape of smartphones."
Sweeping Apple win, but Samsung set for bounce-back
The U.S. ruling, read out to a packed federal courtroom in San Jose, just miles from Apple's headquarters, came less than 24 hours after a Seoul court found that while the iPhone and Galaxy look very similar Samsung hadn't violated Apple's design. .... it could take "many years" for Apple and Samsung to settle the case whatever the result of this round, leaving the two firmly in control of the $200 billion-plus global smartphone market. .... "The impact on Samsung will be quite limited, as affected models are mostly legacy products and its new products did make some design changes to avoid potential litigation" ..... Samsung's flagship Galaxy S III phone was not involved in the trial ..... "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'." .... Samsung also looks to be staying ahead of the curve - by reviving the stylus function, derided by Apple's Steve Jobs, in its latest tablets and by creating the hybrid phone-cum-tablet, or phablet, category, with its 5.3-inch Note.
Apple Cleared Of Infringing Two Google Patents By ITC
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: