| 11:47 pm on Aug 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
| 11:47 pm on Aug 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Next ... 12 years of appeals :-)
| 12:21 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm wondering if Samsung will have to halt sales of their phones pending an appeal.
| 12:54 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If they, Samsung didn't halt sales in the USA ( if they appeal ) would the "apple tax" on continuing sales, cost them more than the damages awarded..and what of the repercussions for other phone makers / Google ..
What will happen to unsold inventory that uses tech covered by this decision..liable to an "apple tax" per phone, as "infringement" exists even if the phone is not sold..
What does the "apple tax" do to "get the phone free and pay whatever per month for the call and data service deals" already sold by the telcos..
This could get more complex than "soap"..
| 4:55 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Does the outcome surprise anyone?
Being sued in a California court by a jury consisting of all US residents.
The outcome just proves one thing. The US court system is a joke.
| 5:30 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
isn't it still a win for Samsung? i mean, with all these sales they are now number 2 biggest mobile company out there, the money they made over all those phones which infringe Apple's patent is way too much from what they are suppose to pay up for fines.
| 6:36 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
More from the article...
|The jury said that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's patent for tablet design. It did uphold Apple's validity for all its patents, and Samsung's validity for all its patents. |
The overall tablet design is not infringing on Apple's patents and so minor tweaks are likely in order to circumvent the legal speak. No matter what happens however the case will continue for another decade and the lawyers are getting stinking rich in this high stakes game. In court a loss can be a very powerful win sometimes, give it time.
| 10:20 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps this is off-topic, but I remember giving OS X a test run when it first came out and a lot of the 'new' features and gimmicks resembled those already available in many open source desktop environments like Gnome, KDE and other free environments and widgets. Do these open source developers have any recourse?
Another thing: How can you patent icons? They are nothing more than miniature images. The transitions used also existed previously on the desktop environments mentioned above, way before Apple got into the game of using a *nix-based operating system.
| 12:47 pm on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Is there a statute of limitations on these things or can Xerox really sue Apple for "everything"? Afterall, they have Steve Jobs on video admitting that the Macintosh was based on an OS they saw at Xerox Meno Park.
| 1:29 pm on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The Samsung thing is a proxy hit on Android.
| 1:53 pm on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
1. They were sued in California because that is where Apple is HQ'd
2. This was a case about U.S. patents so that is why it was all U.S. jurors
3. What court system cannot be considered a joke by anyone that feels that a verdict is wrong?
4. On the same day, Apple lost a similar battle in Samsung's home country.
5. There are numerous similar court battles around the globe that have yet to be settled
| 2:02 pm on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|...the lawyers are getting stinking rich... |
Spot on. (Like fighting a patent on the wheel: there was one, in Australia, in 2000. With employment of not only lawyers but also their supporting IT, office, janitorial, and other support staff, it's part of a new government program to boost national employment. :P /sarcasm)
| 6:24 pm on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|The Samsung thing is a proxy hit on Android. |
| 1:45 pm on Aug 27, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Samsung has asked that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban in the US be overturned and is demanding damages for lost sales from Apple, after the tablet was deemed not to infringe on any patents. Apple secured a preliminary injunction against the 10.1-inch Android tablet back in late June, with Judge Lucy Koh describing it as “virtually indistinguishable” from the iPad and iPad 2. The Apple vs. Samsung jury did not agree, however, ruling that the Tab 10.1 did not in fact overstep the mark on any of the Cupertino firm’s IP, potentially giving Samsung a chance to grab at least part of the $2.6m bond its rival posted to secure the sales block. [slashgear.com...] |