Samsung vs Apple case moves to jury

[TooNice]

Bahahahahaha:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzinga...f-smartphones/

It could well be that those who were going to buy an S3 sooner or later anyway decided to do it sooner just in case. As the article acknowledged, I doubt that there are many people who will decide to dump Apple for Samsung solely on the basis of not agreeing with the verdict.

For those on the fence (probably the main target of both Apple and Samsung) I can see justification both ways. One might want to buy it for the same fear that they'll lose the chance to do so if it gets banned. But one may also decide to either defer or give up on the idea (of getting a Samsung) on the basis that if they are forced out of the market, support may be cutback and suffer as a result (also, if a banned phone dies pre-maturely, would it be possible to secure a replacement?).

Another article mentioned that there has been a spike in listing of Samsung phone on Ebay (? - might've been somewhere else) after the verdict. Again, I am reluctant to read too much into it.

[Larkspeed]

The quickest way to boost the sales of anything is to threaten to ban it.

All apple are doing by publicly going through this junk to ban some Samsung phones is pushing Samsungs sales figures up.

@TooNice I think you would be surprised just how many people do vote with their wallet. As a consumer your only real way of showing displeasure with a product to to stop purchasing it.

Wallet voting has destroyed lesser companies than Apple, now I don't think you can destroy Apple in this way, they are too big, but I certainly do think they will find that the more they keep pulling these lawsuits the more they are going to see it effect their bottom line.

[Smudger]

Originally Posted by foreman
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.

See, you couldn't load Samsung's OS onto an iPhone and vice versa, to therefore, the iPhone is not the same...

Edit: Someone probably could, but in vanilla terms...

[peterb]

In this case I don't think it is the implementation that was the subject of the patent, but the design and concept.

[nibbler]

Not sure if posted yet but: http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sam...-5-cent-coins/

If that's real, then it's brilliant.

[Larkspeed]

Not sure if posted yet but: http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sam...-5-cent-coins/

If that's real, then it's brilliant.

Totally fake story.

A: No company would pay in cash

B: 1 billion dollars in nickles is considerably more than 30 truck loads (closer to 3500 trucks)

C: No bank would be able to issue that much in nickles (20 Billion of them)

And most importantly Samsung is appealing the decision so they would not be paying anything anyway until the result of the appeal is known

[Biscuit]

Not sure if posted yet but: http://www.zurmat.com/2012/08/29/sam...-5-cent-coins/

If that's real, then it's brilliant.

Thats hillarious but yeah... pretty sure its BS

[nibbler]

Yeah thinking about it it would be a bit ridiculous. Not quite the same as paying a £100 parking ticket in pennies.

[directhex]

Yeah thinking about it it would be a bit ridiculous. Not quite the same as paying a £100 parking ticket in pennies.

Not technically acceptable either. 21 or more 1p coins in the same transaction are not legal tender.

[watercooled]

I've had a refund consisting of more than that when I visited a shop early morning. I think they thought I'd not bother as I'd have to carry bags of coins about, not a problem though a bank was round the corner with a coin pay-in machine.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=26567

[Hicks12]

What I find rather funny is that this Velvin Hogan seems to contradict himself so much, reading the interview over here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052

The crucial part being this:
"There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents were invalid since prior art existed showing similar ideas?

Prior art was considered.

But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other."

The issue I have is why is he using this methodology only to suite apple? I understand what hes saying but hes implemented it wrongly. So Apple patents are ok because the 'prior art' is based on different hardware and software, if you took apples software and shoved it on the older devices it wouldnt work, thats why they dont count. So why does Samsung infringe if we arent patenting ideas but actual implementations of these ideas? The OS is different... even funnier is this

"There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.

What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable.

And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true."

LOL worthy, he says Samsungs patents arent valid as the technologies cant be run on Apples O/S or hardware! Yet Apple has been awarded $1 billion for patents like bounce and pinch to zoom which is implemented in a totally different way as its two different flipping operating systems.

God damn it why cant they work both ways!.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I wonder if the damages awarded will be reduced:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20911200055143

Looks like the iPhone5 will be targeted by both HTC and Samsung:

http://www.firstpost.com/tech/iphone...ed-450923.html

It seems the new iPod Nano looks very similar to the Nokia Lumia phones in shape:

http://mynokiablog.com/2012/09/12/re...a-twitter-too/

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Apple is now trying to make the judge order Samsung to give them $3 billion:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=27737

[ste852]

Flippin heck!! are Apple seriously trying to ruin their reputation with this Apple VS Samsung case?

[Biscuit]

Apple is now trying to make the judge order Samsung to give them $3 billion:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=27737

Is the story anywhere else? Smells funky to me!