Samsung vs Apple case moves to jury

[SixFeet]

This is a mess:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...12082510525390

More that's found out about the case and the jury the more it just looks like some scripted comedy. Foreman sounds like he'd basically decided his verdict prior to the trial even starting.

[K1LLER HORNET]

This trial is a joke.

I can't believe how absurd it is!

[Biscuit]

Not sure if serious:

https://plus.google.com/110619855408...ts/NPTWKSQEHLi

W-o-w

Just goes to show the level of intelligence of people who will buy in to the whole apple 'it shiny and just works' environment.

[Unique]

Isn't there quite a large difference in the screen size between those two phones?

looks the same in that photo, and when looking at photos in print ad's or on the tv they just look the same too. so when you see the items for the first time with the prices next to them, and the android phones usually given away free on contracts, whereas you have to pay for apple, how many millions of people will think there's nothing in it and get the cheaper phone? and that takes money from apple and gives it to their competitor

[TooNice]

Hmm, to be fair, that picture has been resized. In the actual product, the earspeaker of the iPhone only reach the top "bar" of the Samsung's screen.

However, I think that the argument could be made that "larger" by itself is (subjectively) not enough to make it sufficiently dissimilar.

A lot of things can take money from Apple and give it to the competitor fairly. Apple also tries to pass itself as a luxurious product, so a portion from the sales may come from people who think that pricier is better, balancing out.

[...]Also your example is not comparable as Samsung never tried to pass it off via naming/brand etc as the same product as in your example. I mean a touch screen phone is a very basic device styling wise as the screen is pretty much the entirety of the phone. Just think it sets a dangerous precedent, where will the line be drawn exactly?[...]

That is exactly something I would hate having to decide. Though I do think that a line will need to be drawn somewhere.

And the in the example I gave you, I included 3 points of differentiation. It's not a "real" counterfeit, the type that are meant to pass for the real thing.

But yes, I intentionally picked an example that is a very dark shade of grey to point out that it does not need to be identical to be viewed as dodgy by most (a few may find my example acceptable).

Anyway, this is just one of many battles that is currently being played. The good thing is that there is quite a lot of information about the case for people to analyse and scrutinise if they are inclined.

[TheAnimus]

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-winner...ft-7000003165/

Well if this is the start of the dead jobs attempt to kill andriod, it may well benefit Microsoft!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-winner...ft-7000003165/

Well if this is the start of the dead jobs attempt to kill andriod, it may well benefit Microsoft!

I hinted at that in my 5* cartoon earlier!!

BTW,I would beware of reading Foss Patents - it seems the chap might have a conflict of interest! He does consulting work for Microsoft and Oracle:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-paid-bloggers

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20817151150419

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-574...ncol;morePosts

[aidanjt]

looks the same in that photo

The dimensions of the Galaxy S was doctored to make it fit side by side and look even more iphonish, even distorting the aspect ratio. Apple's lawyers were called out on it, even though the judge pretty much ignored that.

[watercooled]

looks the same in that photo, and when looking at photos in print ad's or on the tv they just look the same too. so when you see the items for the first time with the prices next to them, and the android phones usually given away free on contracts, whereas you have to pay for apple, how many millions of people will think there's nothing in it and get the cheaper phone? and that takes money from apple and gives it to their competitor

Yeah it's called competition, of course Apple would love to be the only option but thankfully for consumers that's not how the market works. As I've said before, just because something is a rounded rectangle doesn't mean it's a copy of some iTat; looking on my desk, some paper, the front of my speakers and a flash drive match that description too - are they copying Apple, despite existing way before them?

[mikerr]

Of course the LG Prada came quite a while before the iphone:

[Biscuit]

do we really need to keep rehashing old points made over and over and over in every single thread?

[cptwhite_uk]

That's unbelievable, Apple laid out the numerical buttons in the exact same order.

[Spud1]

do we really need to keep rehashing old points made over and over and over in every single thread?

Of course we do Apparently anyway..we're all guilty of it.

Time for me to be called a troll again - I'm glad that the case is finally resolved (well, until appeal), and also that the legal process was followed and Apple won the case (as they rightly should have done).

Yes it's true that it's debatable whether or not Apple should have been granted the patents that they were, but that is not what this trial was about. Samsung clearly made mistakes and now they are paying for it - the morals are irrelevant imo.

Good news for Apple and hopefully this will help to speed up the other, related cases towards conclusion.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Of course we do Apparently anyway..we're all guilty of it.

Time for me to be called a troll again - I'm glad that the case is finally resolved (well, until appeal), and also that the legal process was followed and Apple won the case (as they rightly should have done).

Yes it's true that it's debatable whether or not Apple should have been granted the patents that they were, but that is not what this trial was about. Samsung clearly made mistakes and now they are paying for it - the morals are irrelevant imo.

Good news for Apple and hopefully this will help to speed up the other, related cases towards conclusion.

You must be upset they didn't win much in the UK.



BTW,your Apple gear looks pretty old,you need an update. The newer stuff I have used from them is much nicer.

[Unique]

Yeah it's called competition, of course Apple would love to be the only option but thankfully for consumers that's not how the market works. As I've said before, just because something is a rounded rectangle doesn't mean it's a copy of some iTat; looking on my desk, some paper, the front of my speakers and a flash drive match that description too - are they copying Apple, despite existing way before them?

but competitors copying someone elses design isn't competition. the customer loses out. if they had to come up with something new, the customers would get more choice and it would increase competition

[Unique]

Of course the LG Prada came quite a while before the iphone:

have you ever used the prada phone? it's a peice of crap. the idea was great but in practice the phone was crap. i looked into buying one when they first came out, but the sales person advised against it, that's how bad the phone was

prada announced the phone in december 2006 and apple announce the iphone at the start of january 2007. apple had been working on the iphone and ipad for years before so they couldn't have copied each other

the lawsuit isn't just about a rectangular shape, it's a number of other things and samsung got too close. there's nothing stopping anyone making a rectangular shaped phone