Apple's "innovation" lols.
Which obviously includes India, most of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, etc.ROGUEDD wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
no, they are from the great proud best korea.ROGUEDD wrote:
So....Asians?
Yeah, right. Replace girl with spoiled bully who can buy anything he wants and doesn't share.-Sh1fty- wrote:
because before the iphone there was a product like it on the market.Cybargs wrote:
Apple's "innovation" lols.
I actually know a former Samsung EVP. He said the company was blown away by the original iphone release. Samsung completely missed the boat. So did Nokia. Around the time of the original iphone launch, mobile companies had no clue how to innovate and market a consumer smartphone. Again, you demonstrate your ignorance on a continuous basis via one sentence mouth feces.
How are companies abusing patents?
Recent uk case ruled that Apple have to run 6 months of adverts stating that Samsung have not copied their design.
Completely different rulings in every country.
Completely different rulings in every country.
And one that made Xerox do his homework in gradeschool.Ilocano wrote:
Yeah, right. Replace girl with spoiled bully who can buy anything he wants and doesn't share.-Sh1fty- wrote:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor … 2510525390
Late in the process yesterday at the Apple v. Samsung trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury's verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here's the jury's Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here's the original [PDF]. Here's the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked? "Please let the jury know," they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, "of the inconsistencies we are supposed to deliberate on."
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing - $219,694 worth - but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million
Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.
Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
That's why I don't think this jury's ruling will stand, among other reasons.
I thought it wise to highlight this, because I saw this morning that some missed seeing it. For example, James Niccolai at PCWorld quotes a "legal expert" who clearly didn't:
"It's surprising they came back so quickly, given that it was a complicated case and very complicated verdict form, but that said, it looks like they were thoughtful about it and they did their job," said Roy Futterman, director at DOAR Litigation Consulting and a clinical psychologist who works on trial strategies and the mindset of jurors.
"One sign of that is that the verdicts were consistent, they held together -- they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity; it all tells the same big story," he said.
Late in the process yesterday at the Apple v. Samsung trial, when the parties and the judge were reviewing the jury verdict form, Samsung noticed that there were, indeed, inconsistencies in the jury's verdict form, a possibility Samsung anticipated [PDF]. Here's the jury's Amended Verdict Form [PDF], amended to fix the mistakes. Here's the original [PDF]. Here's the note [PDF] the jury sent to the judge when told to fix the inconsistencies. What are they, they asked? "Please let the jury know," they wrote in the only note ever sent in their deliberations, "of the inconsistencies we are supposed to deliberate on."
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, 1 down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing - $219,694 worth - but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million
Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.
Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
That's why I don't think this jury's ruling will stand, among other reasons.
I thought it wise to highlight this, because I saw this morning that some missed seeing it. For example, James Niccolai at PCWorld quotes a "legal expert" who clearly didn't:
"It's surprising they came back so quickly, given that it was a complicated case and very complicated verdict form, but that said, it looks like they were thoughtful about it and they did their job," said Roy Futterman, director at DOAR Litigation Consulting and a clinical psychologist who works on trial strategies and the mindset of jurors.
"One sign of that is that the verdicts were consistent, they held together -- they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity; it all tells the same big story," he said.
I'm all for trial by jury... But it falls flat on its face under highly technical cases such as this...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
2 cents says, Foreman told everyone else that he holds a patent, is familiar with patents (so he says), so his interpretation is "gospel". So, basically, an entire room of people with no root understanding of patent law basically followed the foreman like lemmings. Less than 22 hours of deliberation, BTW.
Shit like this should honestly go to arbitration.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
fuck:
Update 5: The foreman has now given an interview with Bloomberg News, which seemed to be giving him an opportunity to answer some of the above criticisms, among others. It's a video on YouTube, and in discussing the first patent on the list, they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:
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.
--- the fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By his logic, the features on Android that mimic iOS features are not patent infringing, because the code can't run on iOS.
"Another witness, Benjamin Bederson, presented as prior art his Launch Tile invention, a system of icon tiles in an interfact allowing users to zoom in and out. It had a snapback feature. They don't count as prior art because you can't run Apple software on them? This is, to me, the biggest goof of them all."
--- there goes that snapback patent.
Update 5: The foreman has now given an interview with Bloomberg News, which seemed to be giving him an opportunity to answer some of the above criticisms, among others. It's a video on YouTube, and in discussing the first patent on the list, they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:
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.
--- the fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By his logic, the features on Android that mimic iOS features are not patent infringing, because the code can't run on iOS.
"Another witness, Benjamin Bederson, presented as prior art his Launch Tile invention, a system of icon tiles in an interfact allowing users to zoom in and out. It had a snapback feature. They don't count as prior art because you can't run Apple software on them? This is, to me, the biggest goof of them all."
--- there goes that snapback patent.
how in 22 hours? didn't they have some hundreds of questions to answer?Ilocano wrote:
2 cents says, Foreman told everyone else that he holds a patent, is familiar with patents (so he says), so his interpretation is "gospel". So, basically, an entire room of people with no root understanding of patent law basically followed the foreman like lemmings. Less than 22 hours of deliberation, BTW.
I work with computer users all day everyday. They will believe 99% of what you tell them about technology, and remember about 1%. I believe it would be hard to find 12 random people off the street and consider them "peers" to tech heavy corporations. You would need 10 years of I.T. experience and a law degree to make heads or tails of half the crap they rattled off. End result: "Well, that lawyer said it was bad, and they are both electronics... And we all know Apple was the original inventor of all electronic devices... So someone must have copied them. Afterall, Apple invented music players and the internet, and those other devices use both of those. Let's just give them a lot of money."Jay wrote:
I'm all for trial by jury... But it falls flat on its face under highly technical cases such as this...
Last edited by HITNRUNXX (2012-08-30 05:48:13)
Yes, 22 hours total. First day, they were questioning prior art. Following day, foreman had an "aha" moment and basically dismissed every evidence about prior art and convinced everyone else that his "understanding" was correct. In a matter of three days, with all the technically understanding required, they came up with the verdict. Yeah, jury by the ignorant.jsnipy wrote:
how in 22 hours? didn't they have some hundreds of questions to answer?Ilocano wrote:
2 cents says, Foreman told everyone else that he holds a patent, is familiar with patents (so he says), so his interpretation is "gospel". So, basically, an entire room of people with no root understanding of patent law basically followed the foreman like lemmings. Less than 22 hours of deliberation, BTW.
Irony though, if the jury justification stands (which it hell won't), but just playing devil's advocate, means that anything developed outside of iOS (like android and W8), will not infringe on anything Apple iOS. Because based on the foreman's interpretation, Android and W8 apps unmodified could not run on iOS.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6321|Graz, Austria
I'm gonna build a Ferrari and throw in a Diesel engine.
Because the Diesel fuel won't run an (unmodified) Ferrari, I won't infringe any Ferrari designs.
Because the Diesel fuel won't run an (unmodified) Ferrari, I won't infringe any Ferrari designs.
Logic?? I don't think he has even heard of the word, let alone it's meaning. How the hell are people that stupid allowed to sit on juries?!!Ilocano wrote:
fuck:
Update 5: The foreman has now given an interview with Bloomberg News, which seemed to be giving him an opportunity to answer some of the above criticisms, among others. It's a video on YouTube, and in discussing the first patent on the list, they got into a discussion about the prior art that was presented at trial. Here's why they discounted it:
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.
--- the fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By his logic, the features on Android that mimic iOS features are not patent infringing, because the code can't run on iOS.
"Another witness, Benjamin Bederson, presented as prior art his Launch Tile invention, a system of icon tiles in an interfact allowing users to zoom in and out. It had a snapback feature. They don't count as prior art because you can't run Apple software on them? This is, to me, the biggest goof of them all."
--- there goes that snapback patent.
When you have an idea for a product, you'll typically make some sort of mockup or design, and turn it into a product. You don't run code on a piece of paper.
Were there any programmers on that jury? Do they even know what a computer is?
http://www.informationweek.com/mobility … /240006568Apple used a dysfunctional U.S. patent system to gain excessive control over technologies it did not invent. If you value innovation, don't cheer Samsung's punishment.
I have no sources for any of these but they're funny nonetheless
But they aren't prior art because they don't run on iOS. Everything afterwards is a copy though.
Just a follow-up:
The judge threw out almost half of the monetary award
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ … 0820130301
The judge threw out almost half of the monetary award
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ … 0820130301
The money isn't the big part. The precedent is.
Its pretty clear there is no precedent. Half of the infringements got thrown out and I'm sure most will get reviewed and appealed to no end. Most of the world seems to be siding with Samsung though.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/?new … ;olo=email
Apple's iCloud email service deletes all emails that contain the phrase "barely legal teen" it was revealed today.
Macworld has tested this by sending two test emails from a personal iCloud account. The message read "My friend's son is already allowed to drive his high-powered car. It's ridiculous. He's a barely legal teenage driver? What on earth is John thinking."
The second email amended the phrase "a barely legal" to "barely a legal". This second email was delivered fine, whereas the first is still undelivered. Upon further testing we discovered that the phrase is not blocked by Siri or iMessages, both of which can search and send messages containing the term: "barely legal teen"
....