Jury: Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion

**jdoggivjc** · 08-24-2012, 06:56 PM

Jury: Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion - CNN.com

1. Clearly going to be appealed.

2. Apple has just opened itself to being sued for patents it has infringed upon (I don't think you can get away with "we improve upon everyone else's products while they're suing other companies for doing the very same thing)

3. They may very well have to find another supplier for their Retina displays, considering it was Samsung that made those for them.

**Clonehomer** · 08-24-2012, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Jury: Samsung should pay Apple more than $1 billion - CNN.com

1. Clearly going to be appealed.

2. Apple has just opened itself to being sued for patents it has infringed upon (I don't think you can get away with "we improve upon everyone else's products while they're suing other companies for doing the very same thing)

3. They may very well have to find another supplier for their Retina displays, considering it was Samsung that made those for them.

I'm surprised on this. It seemed Samsung demonstrated pretty obvious prior art on most of Apple's patents which should have made them null and void.

**alarson** · 08-24-2012, 09:58 PM

700 item suit, jury discusses for 21 hours. Hmm. Yeah, they really went over the merits of each one there. A jury trial all is incredibly flawed for something as technical as this.

Plenty of prior art.

The patent system is a joke for even allowing a lot of these things to be patented to begin with.

**Let's Go State** · 08-24-2012, 10:00 PM

Hey.... Any chance that apple would be interested in bowling in the SEZ? I think that would cover it....

**AirWalke** · 08-24-2012, 10:09 PM

I blame it all on Microsoft for ******* Apple off in the 80s.

**Clonehomer** · 08-24-2012, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by alarson

700 item suit, jury discusses for 21 hours. Hmm. Yeah, they really went over the merits of each one there. A jury trial all is incredibly flawed for something as technical as this.

Plenty of prior art.

The patent system is a joke for even allowing a lot of these things to be patented to begin with.

I wonder how much the jury even discussed nullifying Apples patents versus just seeing whether the products infringed on them. I was actually surprised that a jury trial was the appropriate forum to fight their validity. Wouldn't that be handled by the patent office.

On a similar note, perhaps Palm is paying attention and preparing for their comeback with a nice cash infusion from Apple. Most of the designs and styles that Apple won this lawsuit on were on a complete knockoff of Palm's PDA's.

**MaccloNe** · 08-24-2012, 10:26 PM

It takes about 30 seconds to know that Samesuck copied Apple. The 21 hours was to calculate the damage. This is spare change to these companies. Having to pay license fees is where the money is. Maybe they should have accepted the license deal offered by Apple in 2010.

**jdoggivjc** · 08-24-2012, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Clonehomer

I wonder how much the jury even discussed nullifying Apples patents versus just seeing whether the products infringed on them. I was actually surprised that a jury trial was the appropriate forum to fight their validity. Wouldn't that be handled by the patent office.

On a similar note, perhaps Palm is paying attention and preparing for their comeback with a nice cash infusion from Apple. Most of the designs and styles that Apple won this lawsuit on were on a complete knockoff of Palm's PDA's.

That's what I'm saying. Apple can't say in one breath "we're improving upon our competitors' products" and then sue their competitors in the next breath for doing the exact same thing. They've just opened Pandora's box.

**jdoggivjc** · 08-24-2012, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by MaccloNe

It takes about 30 seconds to know that Samesuck copied Apple. The 21 hours was to calculate the damage. This is spare change to these companies. Having to pay license fees is where the money is. Maybe they should have accepted the license deal offered by Apple in 2010.

You mean just like how Apple copied everyone else?

**alarson** · 08-24-2012, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by MaccloNe

It takes about 30 seconds to know that Samesuck copied Apple. The 21 hours was to calculate the damage. This is spare change to these companies. Having to pay license fees is where the money is. Maybe they should have accepted the license deal offered by Apple in 2010.

I would expect no less from our resident apple troll.

Are there similarities? Absolutely. But that's because technology tends to move in general directions as things build on one another. The fact that apple (and its fanboys) like to think that a company should have exclusive right to 'flat rectangular screen with a black bezel' (hey, that sounds like 80 million different devices) shows how ridiculous our patent system has become.

We're damn lucky the patent system wasn't where it is now back when cars were getting going. A company like apple would sue for things like having the steering wheel be in front of the driver, or even being a wheel at all.

**Clonehomer** · 08-24-2012, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by MaccloNe

It takes about 30 seconds to know that Samesuck copied Apple. The 21 hours was to calculate the damage. This is spare change to these companies. Having to pay license fees is where the money is. Maybe they should have accepted the license deal offered by Apple in 2010.

That's my point. I can not imagine that the jury even took a serious look at the validity of the apple patents within that amount of time. That was samsung's defense. There wasn't much argument in the similarities between the two. The question was whether what apple claimed to own was their design or a copy of a previous design.

**CycloneYoda** · 08-24-2012, 10:38 PM

Bow down to the Apple overlords, you fools. ON YOUR KNEES!!!!!!!!!!

**acoustimac** · 08-24-2012, 10:54 PM

Hoped this would happen. Samsungs documents clearly showed they had intent in copying the iPhone. When Jobs said he wanted to kill Android...he meant it. CNN article states they believe this could actually benefit end users through forced innovation by companies like Samsung. This wont affect Apples product line as they are also Samsungs biggest customer.

**MaccloNe** · 08-24-2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by alarson

I would expect no less from our resident apple troll.

Are there similarities? Absolutely. But that's because technology tends to move in general directions as things build on one another. The fact that apple (and its fanboys) like to think that a company should have exclusive right to 'flat rectangular screen with a black bezel' (hey, that sounds like 80 million different devices) shows how ridiculous our patent system has become.

We're damn lucky the patent system wasn't where it is now back when cars were getting going. A company like apple would sue for things like having the steering wheel be in front of the driver, or even being a wheel at all.

Did you read any of the documentation or trial proceedings? Samsung admitted that they copied. Get over it. Oh, and you should look up the definition of troll before you use it again.

**Clonehomer** · 08-24-2012, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by MaccloNe

Did you read any of the documentation or trial proceedings? Samsung admitted that they copied. Get over it. Oh, and you should look up the definition of troll before you use it again.

And Jobs admitted that Apple copied designs from other companies. Why does our patent system allow for one company to steal ideas from another and patent them, only to then sue another for doing the exact same thing?

I really wonder how this will affect the future supplier relationship between Apple and Samsung. Samsung currently makes the best screens in the world (otherwise Apple probably wouldn't be buying them). What would happen if Samsung terminated that contract? Was this lawsuit worth having an inferior screen on future iphones?