Samsung v. Apple

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

I cannot say with certainty that there is or isn't, but I think its very likely though because Apple puts a lot into R&D.

If there was something original wouldn't you be able to see it? Apple put effort in getting a patent for device with rounded corners, that doesn't mean that devices with rounded corners didn't exist before.

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

But some here are saying that iPhone and pad are only a shined up copy of past gadgets. I ask if anything at all in it is new, and they won't answer, not even to say 'probably' or 'probably not'.

Who are they, the ones who won't answer? The people who "are saying that iPhone and pad are only a shined up copy of past gadgets" already gave the answer.

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If there was something original wouldn't you be able to see it?

Not an expert on interior of cell phones, sorry.

And you said rounded corners and left off other specifics that have to be included to make rounded corners valid.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

is it consensus here that there is not a single new Apple technology that is wholly their own in the iPhone and or iPad line?

Your question is a red herring. It is not the issue at stake in this trial, which boiled down to a few key technical patents and a more nebulous design patent.

The court upheld Apple's technical patents to do with bounce back, pinch to zoom, and double tap to zoom. So this court believes that Apple invented those technologies. Given that these were upheld then Samsung's devices clearly infringed them.

The court also upheld Apple's design patent and judged which Samsung phones infringed. (Note, ignore the sites saying "Epic 4G, it's got a keyboard!" It was the Epic 4G Touch which basically looks like a rebadged Galaxy S.)

But the point is that given the jurors' statements about 'skipping the prior art evidence' and starting out from a position of 'how can we defend this patent', an appeal with a different jury who perhaps take more time and are more thorough may well produce a different result.

Invalidate the patents on the basis of prior art and it doesn't matter if Samsung infringed them.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

And you said rounded corners and left off other specifics that have to be included to make rounded corners valid.

This is one of the more bizarre outcomes of the trial. I agree with you that the full set of specifics needs to be included.

First, the jury ignored the fact that the devices that they ruled infringed the design patent had more buttons than a single rounded one. Not sure why you only count the first against the patent.

Apple: "I've patented a design with one button".
Samsung: "But my device has three."
Apple: "One of those three is the one button in my patent."

However, skipping that oddity, the jury ruled reasonably on a set of Samsung phones that infringed, which were basically the variants of the Galaxy S and S2 series.

Yet they decided that the Galaxy Tab didn't infringe the same design patent vs the iPad.

If the Tab didn't infringe, then why did the phones?

Could it be because the Tab didn't have a button at all?

Graham

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Graham

Your question is a red herring.

herring aren't even red.

No, it's a (you sure?) question directed at those who say Apple does nothing but copy and steal.

[TimW]

I see Apple has a list of phones they want the court to ban (from the shelf). They don't appear to be the newer phones. (image from Engadget)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by TimW

I see Apple has a list of phones they want the court to ban (from the shelf). They don't appear to be the newer phones. (image from Engadget)

Oh wow, they want to ban stuff over a year old.

In this fast moving industry, stuff that old is bordering on obsolescence.

[RichL]

All I can say is when I first saw the iphone with them rounded corners and all... I thought it was a Sony Clie. :-)

[vishcompany]

Originally Posted by RichL

All I can say is when I first saw the iphone with them rounded corners and all... I thought it was a Sony Clie. :-)

Actually, I did VOIP-calls with a Sony clie before there was an iphone. Sony should sue apple for producing a touch device that can do telephone calls.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Not an expert on interior of cell phones, sorry.

What about the exterior?

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

And you said rounded corners and left off other specifics that have to be included to make rounded corners valid.

Rounded corners are made valid by the fact that they are hand-held devices.

Did you even see samsung phone designs from before the iphone?

[wyndslash]

this just makes me want to buy from Apple's competitors even more :|

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Rounded corners are made valid by the fact that they are hand-held devices.

no....

[ScotiaBurrell]

At an emergency meeting in Seoul early on Sunday following the damning U.S. legal defeat, the South Korean group's post mortem was led by vice chairman Choi Gee-sung and the head of the mobile business JK Shin, rather than by CEO Kwon Oh-hyun, whose primary role is in charge of the components business.

The clear message from Samsung is that a strict internal firewall between its handset business and its components operations remains intact.

While it plans to appeal the U.S. verdict, and a damages bill for $1.05 billion for copying critical features of Apple's popular mobile devices - a sum that could be trebled - Samsung will not want to put at risk its Apple supply contract which is worth billions of dollars.

As well as being the only supplier of micro processors for the iPhone and iPad, Samsung also supplies DRAM and NAND-type memory chips and flat screens used in the popular Apple gadgets. Samsung products comprise 26 percent of the component cost of the iPhone, Samsung's lead counsel Charles Verhoeven was quoted as saying in the media.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87Q06N20120827

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

no....

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

no....

Well, they really need to pull their litigation fingers out then and sue Panasonic for having rounded corners on a rectangular form, because rounded rectangular form hand held communication and information devices have been around for a bloody long time.



Good God, might as well add PDA's to that mix as well.