[Alexko]

Originally Posted by Mize

Seriously? You actually believe this? Apple is the world's and history's only patent troll evah!

They're not the only company that does this by any stretch, but they do it on a pretty massive scale.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

The Ars article is interesting but not relevant at this point: Androjd was not the key issue on trial here. Samsung copying Apple's design was. That may be a too subtle point for some but I think it was very important one to this jury, otherwise they would found all Samsung device as infringing.

Samsung's Galaxy-series for example evolved from Samsung F700, Apple managed to debunk Samsungs tries to get it's designer to testify though, calling it "irrelevant"
Wether F700 was "copied from Apple" is another thing, but IIRC Apple never claimed it was.

If Galaxy-series are copies of iPhone, iPhone is copy of LG Prada, Prada came first, iPhone is pretty much just as close to it as Galaxy-phones are to iPhone (aka, not really that close, given the limited possibilities you really have when doing touchscreen phones)

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

Samsung's Galaxy-series for example evolved from Samsung F700, Apple managed to debunk Samsungs tries to get it's designer to testify though, calling it "irrelevant"
Wether F700 was "copied from Apple" is another thing, but IIRC Apple never claimed it was.

If Galaxy-series are copies of iPhone, iPhone is copy of LG Prada, Prada came first, iPhone is pretty much just as close to it as Galaxy-phones are to iPhone (aka, not really that close, given the limited possibilities you really have when doing touchscreen phones)

Yup and there were about 3 months between the prada being shown and the iphone being shown so if Samsung had enough time to rip off the iphone in 3 months then surely apple could have ripped off the prada.


Not to mention alot of evidence benfitial to samsung was not allowed in the case. Next go around it shoul be an easy win for samsung

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

Samsung's Galaxy-series for example evolved from Samsung F700, Apple managed to debunk Samsungs tries to get it's designer to testify though, calling it "irrelevant"
Wether F700 was "copied from Apple" is another thing, but IIRC Apple never claimed it was.

I guess the whole crisis of design (and the flower icon ) simply never happened.

If Galaxy-series are copies of iPhone, iPhone is copy of LG Prada, Prada came first, iPhone is pretty much just as close to it as Galaxy-phones are to iPhone (aka, not really that close, given the limited possibilities you really have when doing touchscreen phones)

If you really believe that, it doesn't make much sense to discuss any further.

[silent_guy]

It really boggles my mind that people don't think Samsung deliberately tries to copy as much as they could get away with. If you want to argue that they should be allowed to do so, fine, you may even be able to convince me that it should be allowed. I'm not at all happy with the verdict.

But to argue that Samsung didn't do it? It's been their modus operandi since their very beginning.

[AlphaWolf]

Apple clearly invented the black rectangle.

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

Apple clearly invented the black rectangle.

Insightful, thoughtful, and, let's not overlook it, funny. You win, sir!

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

I guess the whole crisis of design (and the flower icon ) simply never happened.

Are you serious with this? Apple uses a flower for gallery-icon = no-one else can use any flower for gallery icon, ever?
Apple uses tons of really generic looking icons which can be find on pretty much any phone before and after iPhone, wtf makes that "flower" so special that no-one else can use any flower-icon for similar app? The only thing common between the two is the fact that they're flowers, not even same looking ones ffs.

If you really believe that, it doesn't make much sense to discuss any further.

Let's take a look:
Samsung F700


Samsung Galaxy S:


Apple iPhone:


LG Prada:


Are you seriously claiming that...
...Galaxy S is copy of iPhone more than iPhone is of LG Prada and that Galaxy S is based on iPhone look, not F700 (since Apple apparently never claimed F700 copied them)

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

Are you serious with this?

Samsung said there was a crisis in design...

Apple uses a flower for gallery-icon = no-one else can use any flower for gallery icon, ever?

You're switching the arguments again: I'm arguing that Samsung blatantly copied, to the smallest inconsequential detail: the icon for a photo collection. If that not allowed by law (note the conditional), then they deserved what they got.

Just to clear this once and for all: Are you claiming that it's pure accidental that their first major phone after the iPhone happens to have the flower icon? Can you say that with a straight face?

No? Good. They copied even that. Should they be allowed to do that? Different question completely. Go change the law. I'll support you.

Are you seriously claiming that...
...Galaxy S is copy of iPhone more than iPhone is of LG Prada and that Galaxy S is based on iPhone look, not F700 (since Apple apparently never claimed F700 copied them)

Absolutely. At least you got that right.

[Kaotik]

They didn't copy Apple's icon, no matter how in crisis they were, they used same theme (ie a flower) for similr application, but the icons aren't even close to each other:
Here's a picture to refresh your memony


What features of Samsung Galaxy S resemble more iPhone than they resemble F700?

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

Starts to look like the jury's decisions won't stand based on quick read

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

They didn't copy Apple's icon, no matter how in crisis they were, they used same theme (ie a flower) for similr application, but the icons aren't even close to each other:
Here's a picture to refresh your memony

Samsung had the foresight to not walk into a copyright claim. They may be sleazy, they're not idiots.

Do you think Google was wrong to point out to Samsung that they were copying?

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

Starts to look like the jury's decisions won't stand based on quick read

This whole thing will play out in courts for years. Federal court overrule lower courts routinely.

[arjan de lumens]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

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

Starts to look like the jury's decisions won't stand based on quick read

The damage awards in that decision were broken down by model. According to that jury, the Epic 4G phone was evidently similar enough to iphone to warrant a $130M damages award alone:



Makes perfect sense ...?

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by arjan de lumens

The damage awards in that decision were broken down by model. According to that jury, the Epic 4G phone was evidently similar enough to iphone to warrant a $130M damages award alone:



Makes perfect sense ...?

And the Galaxy S I linked image of apparently wasn't, only it's 4G model was, even though Apple only has one iPad with 4G/LTE support, and 0 iPhones with it, if I'm not mistaken
(The Galaxy S & Galaxy S 4G aren't even same looking - the 4G model that DOES infringe something doesn't have the big "home button" that the basic Galaxy S has for example)

[rpg.314]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

The question in front of the jury was not whether or not they think the US patent system is sensible. It was whether or not Samsung violated the patents and trade dress of Apple with the current set of rules.

The question in front of jury obligated them to consider prior art. If prior art was significant, then damages should have been reduced. They apparently threw out prior art because it was bogging them down.

The jury was explicitly instructed to not award punitive damages. They decided to send a signal.

Samsung sure looks like they copied stuff. But there's a lot of stuff that looks like shouldn't have made past the patent examiner. Punishing for copying that portion when told not to sure looks like a bad job to me.

IANAL.