# Apple vs Samsung trial



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

The verdict is in, surprisingly, just waiting for it to be read. Word is the jury has never asked for any clarifications or re-reading of testimony. They had to go through 700 individual decisions.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

Big win for Apple, not that they really need another billion bucks. 

So is there an appeal process for something like this or is it finally over with?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't think this is the end of the road. But I think Samsung also just lost in South Korea. Correction, they infringed on each others patents.

Of course Motorola is now suing Apple.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Epic fail of the jury. At the very least it should have been a mutually assured destruction scenario; I find it unbelievable that the double tap to zoom and pinch to zoom patents were upheld.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-reaches-...-trial-court-officials-215605461--sector.html


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> Epic fail of the jury. At the very least it should have been a mutually assured destruction scenario; I find it unbelievable that the double tap to zoom and pinch to zoom patents were upheld.


The patent system, particularly when it comes to software patents, is very broken.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Seems to me the jury already had their mind made up. What a shame...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> Seems to me the jury already had their mind made up. What a shame...


The jury had to fill out questionaires not really give a verdict. However it's been reported many times that Samsungs legal team was not very good at speaking to the jury and trying to convince them about the facts. I think that Samsung was prepping more for the appellate courts than it was for the jury.


----------



## texasmoose (May 25, 2007)

I just got a Samsung Galaxy Note phone yesterday. Does that mean that all the apps, via android, won't work in the future? I guess I should've got the i-Phone4s instead, oh well........Here's a link talking about the ramifications of the verdict.....

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/technology/apple-samsung-verdict/index.html


----------



## texasmoose (May 25, 2007)

Here is a list posted over @ CNET of Samsung's infringing devices:

http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6452_7-10013506.html


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

klang said:


> Big win for Apple, not that they really need another billion bucks.
> 
> So is there an appeal process for something like this or is it finally over with?


did you expect anything else but Apple to win? After all people venerate that company and offer tithes to the grand altar of Apple. Not even sure why they had the court decision, apple was going to win by default of their greatness


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But, did the jury have the ability to say that the Apple patents were invalid? Apple does have the patent for pinch and zoom as an example. Whether they should have been able to get that patent is a valid argument, but they do. 

Software patents are the issue, not Apple. There is a company that has been suing coffee shops and other businesses for offering wifi, because they claim wifi infringes on their patents. We've had companies sue for infringement of patents they hold, but the patent holder doesn't actually have any products of their own. Their business model basically is to sue or scare companies to license their patents. Some of them aren't even things they invented, just patents they bought.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

wingrider01 said:


> did you expect anything else but Apple to win? After all people venerate that company and offer tithes to the grand altar of Apple. Not even sure why they had the court decision, apple was going to win by default of their greatness


Veneration has nothing to do with the verdict.

Do you have some reason to loathe Apple? Have any products of theirs?


----------



## Devo1237 (Apr 22, 2008)

Geez, I'm surprised at all the anger. Apple had some great ideas, which they want to charge a premium for. Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. That's why the patent office exists. I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Devo1237 said:


> Geez, I'm surprised at all the anger. Apple had *some great ideas*, which they want to charge a premium for.


Here's are some contrasting perspectives on that topic:

http://techrealist.wordpress.com/
http://www.transformerforums.com/forum/asus-transformer-news/27364-editorial-now-samsung-found-liable-what-potential-ramifications.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/08/25/160028467/apples-patent-win-could-alter-landscape-of-smartphone-industry


> Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. *That's why the patent office exists.* I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, *that's how our country works*.


I guess so.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Veneration has nothing to do with the verdict.
> 
> Do you have some reason to loathe Apple? Have any products of theirs?


I have mostly all of their products, and IMO, this "win" is a huge loss for consumers. Without Samsung and Google, you don't have notifications on your iPhone right now and don't have built in nav coming with ios6.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

raott said:


> I have mostly all of their products, and IMO, this "win" is a huge loss for consumers. Without Samsung and Google, you don't have notifications on your iPhone right now and don't have built in nav coming with ios6.


I agree that products will cost more due to this verdict. I was inquiring about the vehement bitterness expressed by a few, not you that I've seen.

Not clear on notifications- do you mean the popups?, and while iPhones have employed Google maps in their app, is that really a part of the litigation? Wasn't that done by agreement? And isn't Apple putting in their own mapping systems and database?


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

Nah, Samsung didn't copy anything.


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

My guess is much of the loathing for apple stems from direct statements made by Jobs that he fully intended to kill off Android. Since it would be very difficult for Apple to sue Google for damages they have decided to go after the manufacturers that are delivering Android based devices.

This is definitely bad news for the consumer. It will not be the last lawsuit coming from Apple as you can bet preparations are already being made to sue others in the same way. If this is allowed to continue the only competitive options will be triangular shaped phones with mechanical push buttons. 

Apple did not invent the rectangle with rounded corners, touch screen interface or even soft icons on a screen. They did not invent the portable mp3 player, cell phone or tablet computer. Saying that the ipod, iphone and ipad are completely new and unique devices not based on any previous technology or idea is completely bogus. If they are allowed to continue the methodical destruction of competition in the marketplace through patent litigation our system is not just broken it is a joke.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jdskycaster said:


> Saying that the ipod, iphone and ipad are completely new and unique devices not based on any previous technology or idea is completely bogus. If they are allowed to continue the methodical destruction of competition in the marketplace through patent litigation our system is not just broken it is a joke.


Has Apple or its lawyers made that contention?

Are they methodically destroying competition? No doubt putting a dent in it, but enforcing patents has long been a part of capitalist America, as well as the United Kingdom, perhaps other countries.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

This may actually be good for consumers in the long run as Samsung and others will have to invent new designs that don't infringe on Apples patents. 

I don't necessarily agree that some of this stuff deserves a patent but the system needs to be changed to stop it.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Veneration has nothing to do with the verdict.
> 
> Do you have some reason to loathe Apple? Have any products of theirs?


have 200 Ipads and about 130 iphones in service for myself and other people, I absolutely detest the company, but the technology works for what we need so we use it. when something comes along that is more suitable they will be shreded, until then we will use them. I doubt that the jurors where unbiased


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

wingrider01 said:


> have 200 Ipads and about 130 iphones in service for myself and other people, I absolutely detest the company, but the technology works for what we need so we use it. when something comes along that is more suitable they will be shreded, until then we will use them. I doubt that the jurors where unbiased


Literally shredded?? That's quite a monetary hit!

But why do you detest the company, if I may ask.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Devo1237 said:


> Geez, I'm surprised at all the anger. Apple had some great ideas, which they want to charge a premium for. Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. That's why the patent office exists. I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.


ever wonder how many hundreds of million dollars go into the development of the drug and the additional hunreds of millions of dollars that go in for the acceptace testing by the fda for new drugs?

A single pivotal human subject study by a cro for their company can run 1 - 2 million dollars for the single study, that is the first human testing that is done, prior to that there are numerous other test that are trun. As far as generic the lipitor patent ended in 2011, generics where testing back in 2009 - the cost to develop the generic and human testing of the drug is a lot cheaper then the development of the new drug. Sorry comparing Apple's development to a drug released for human consumption is invalid, although a lot of peple believe the apple is as addictive as some of the drugs onthe market. Apple just has to deal with the patent office, drug companies have to deal with fda regulations, which make everything else look like a piker in cost


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Literally shredded?? That's quite a monetary hit!
> 
> But why do you detest the company, if I may ask.


yes, shredding, the devices is use in biohazardous conditions, they cannot be resused or resold, they have to be disposed of

The reason I detest the company and their attitudes are personal and date back to when they where second in releasing a home computer for normal use


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ah, thanks, I didn't imagine that scenario. 
And sorry for your long ago experience that still bugs you. I have a few, but fortunately the companies are all in descendency now.


----------



## Fluthy (Feb 9, 2008)

One positive of the ruling is that we probably won't see Touchwiz for awhile. All the phones with vanilla android were considered to not infringe.


----------



## Devo1237 (Apr 22, 2008)

wingrider01 said:


> ever wonder how many hundreds of million dollars go into the development of the drug and the additional hunreds of millions of dollars that go in for the acceptace testing by the fda for new drugs?
> 
> A single pivotal human subject study by a cro for their company can run 1 - 2 million dollars for the single study, that is the first human testing that is done, prior to that there are numerous other test that are trun. As far as generic the lipitor patent ended in 2011, generics where testing back in 2009 - the cost to develop the generic and human testing of the drug is a lot cheaper then the development of the new drug. Sorry comparing Apple's development to a drug released for human consumption is invalid, although a lot of peple believe the apple is as addictive as some of the drugs onthe market. Apple just has to deal with the patent office, drug companies have to deal with fda regulations, which make everything else look like a piker in cost


Who cares about the cost of development? In this case it's more about the intellectual property (the idea). I doubt it cost Walt Disney anything to come up with intellectual property of Mickey Mouse, but I think it's safe to say his company should be protected from people blatantly copying it. If anything, I think people are giving Samsung too much credit. They (and Google) were obviously trying to steal from a popular game-changing product, and they got busted for it.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Devo1237 said:


> Who cares about the cost of development? In this case it's more about the intellectual property (the idea). I doubt it cost Walt Disney anything to come up with intellectual property of Mickey Mouse, but I think it's safe to say his company should be protected from people blatantly copying it.


Not anymore it shouldn't.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> Not anymore it shouldn't.


A character like Mickey Mouse should not be used by anyone without Disney's permission. If anyone could use him, the average consumer would think that Disney was involved. They should have the right to protect an iconic character like that. Someone should not have free reign to have Mickey do whatever they want for their purposes.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Walt Disney didn't sue Izzy Klein because Mickey and Mighty were both meeses. 
However Apple was sued and lost over a mouse. ;-)


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> The patent system, particularly when it comes to software patents, is very broken.


+1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Interview with a juror. I haven't looked at all the reports during trial, but if there literally were emails within Samsung about what Apple features to copy, there is little room for the jury to think they didn't violate the patents.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Devo1237 said:


> Who cares about the cost of development? In this case it's more about the intellectual property (the idea). I doubt it cost Walt Disney anything to come up with intellectual property of Mickey Mouse, but I think it's safe to say his company should be protected from people blatantly copying it. If anything, I think people are giving Samsung too much credit. They (and Google) were obviously trying to steal from a popular game-changing product, and they got busted for it.


follow the response in context, the patent protects the drug company and allows them to recoup their losses, after a specifc amount of time - set forth by the fda other companies can capitalize on the original development by the company and bring a generic to market and a lot less development cost then the original developer. for the comparision to be accurate then the patent law for "apple" needs to be the same.



Devo1237 said:


> I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer *charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years*. Like it or not, that's how our country works.


this is the only accurate statement made



dpeters11 said:


> The patent system, particularly when it comes to software patents, is very broken.


given the simple fact of the short time between relase and reposnes, I really doubt that any of the jurors spent more time figuring what they wanted for dinner then going over the evidence. hopefully the appelas are in the works already


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

dsw2112 said:


> Seems to me the jury already had their mind made up. What a shame...


so very true


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> A character like Mickey Mouse should not be used by anyone without Disney's permission. If anyone could use him, the average consumer would think that Disney was involved. They should have the right to protect an iconic character like that. Someone should not have free reign to have Mickey do whatever they want for their purposes.


Yes, they absolutely shoul. I don't give a (pardon the pun) mouse's hind end about who it is, copyright is MEANT TO END. It is not a LICENSE IN PERPETUITY. Mickey would have been in the public domain years ago.

That really grinds my gears.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> Yes, they absolutely shoul. I don't give a (pardon the pun) mouse's hind end about who it is, copyright is MEANT TO END. It is not a LICENSE IN PERPETUITY. Mickey would have been in the public domain years ago.
> 
> That really grinds my gears.


I'm fine with a book going out of copyright, but not sure any company should be able to use an iconic character to sell whatever product they want (knowing that federal law prevents Mickey from hawking cigarettes), or being used in some weird type of porn.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> Yes, they absolutely shoul. I don't give a (pardon the pun) mouse's hind end about who it is, copyright is MEANT TO END. It is not a LICENSE IN PERPETUITY. Mickey would have been in the public domain years ago.
> 
> That really grinds my gears.


From the Copyright website


> For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, copyright is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.
> For more information, check out the PDF file of Circular 15a on the length of copyright protection.


Mickey was created in 1928. Do the math. Mickey's copyright has a few good years ahead of him.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Though I think Disney had a large part in the extentions, particularly the Sonny Bono 1998 act.

But thinking about it more, when he does expire, it would probably be the Steamboat Willie version, not the more recognizable modern look.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Interview with a different juror.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idUSBRE87O09U20120825


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Though I think Disney had a large part in the extentions, particularly the Sonny Bono 1998 act.
> 
> But thinking about it more, when he does expire, it would probably be the Steamboat Willie version, not the more recognizable modern look.


Exactly my point. Disney fought and won copyright extension expressly so Mickey Mouse wouldn't pass into public domain. It's insane.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> Interview with a different juror.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/25/us-apple-samsung-juror-idUSBRE87O09U20120825


Yep, that was the jury foreman. Some of his quotes from the article:



> We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict.





> We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.





> All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand by our verdict and that we have a clear conscience in that we were totally not biased one way or another," Hogan said.


Since when did jurors find that it was their job to send a message? We had a name for folks like this in the Navy; sea lawyers :lol:


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

"wingrider01" said:


> hopefully the appelas are in the works already


The appeal will go through the 9th Circuit, which overturns less than 10% of jury verdicts. From there, the numbers get worse.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

"dsw2112" said:


> Since when did jurors find that it was their job to send a message? We had a name for folks like this in the Navy; sea lawyers :lol:


Statements made by jurors after the fact can be used to prove misconduct at appeal.

Inflicting pain, just not unreasonable pain? Sounds strange to this non-lawyer.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

braven said:


> Nah, Samsung didn't copy anything.


Yeah, I get that. But why is this a Samsung problem and not a Google/Android problem? To me this would be like suing Dell because Windows looks too much like OSX.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Herdfan" said:


> Yeah, I get that. But why is this a Samsung problem and not a Google/Android problem? To me this would be like suing Dell because Windows looks too much like OSX.


Not a good comparison. Dell sells systems that use the UI designed by Microsoft. Samsung Android phones use TouchWiz which was designed by Samsung. Thy don't use the Google Android UI.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

dualsub2006 said:


> The appeal will go through the 9th Circuit, which overturns less than 10% of jury verdicts. From there, the numbers get worse.


this one just might make the 10 percent - given the biased juror interviews that are appearing.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

"Herdfan" said:


> Yeah, I get that. But why is this a Samsung problem and not a Google/Android problem? To me this would be like suing Dell because Windows looks too much like OSX.


Because, aside from the bounce back patent, the claims against Samsung were all Samsung. Google has nothing to do with the design of Samsung devices and has nothing to do with their TouchWiz UI. These were the primary targets in the suit. 
Google "demanded" that Samsung make their devices less iPhone like and Samsung did their own thing.

This had very, very little to do with Google or Android.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

"wingrider01" said:


> this one just might make the 10 percent - given the biased juror interviews that are appearing.


That's possible, but Samsung can't challenge the finding of facts by the jury unless it is a matter of law. I don't understand that entirely, but from what I gather that's going to be a tall mountain to climb over.

A couple of biased comments from jurors might be good enough to get it done, but I don't see it happening.

Samsung had a choice when they decided that they wanted to be the top Android OEM. They made their choice, and it's probably going to cost them a billion US.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> Not a good comparison. Dell sells systems that use the UI designed by Microsoft.


Hmmmm. I wonder what influenced Microsoft's gui?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Not a good comparison. Dell sells systems that use the UI designed by Microsoft. Samsung Android phones use TouchWiz which was designed by Samsung. Thy don't use the Google Android UI.





dualsub2006 said:


> Because, aside from the bounce back patent, the claims against Samsung were all Samsung.


Thanks for the info. Not being an Android user I didn't realize the Samsung interface was markedly different than other Androids.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

dualsub2006 said:


> Because, aside from the bounce back patent, the claims against Samsung were all Samsung. Google has nothing to do with the design of Samsung devices and has nothing to do with their TouchWiz UI. These were the primary targets in the suit.
> Google "demanded" that Samsung make their devices less iPhone like and Samsung did their own thing.
> 
> This had very, very little to do with Google or Android.


Uh...the patents that were upheld included pinch to zoom, double-tap to zoom, and a grid of icons.

This has a lot to do with a lot of things.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> Uh...the patents that were upheld included pinch to zoom, double-tap to zoom, and *a grid of icons.
> *
> This has a lot to do with a lot of things.


Being able to patent "a grid of icons" seems like a big stretch to me. Even the other two items seem like a small stretch.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Hmmmm. I wonder what influenced Microsoft's gui?


And what influenced Apple for the Macintosh GUI? It's rare for there to be a totally new idea.

I doubt a phone could even have a circle of icons, and you rotate them to get the one you want. Too close to the old iPod wheel design.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I'd sure like to know how this will impact the Android world in general.

If my wife's phone (not a Samsung) has to change very much, she'll kill me.

I guess no one knows for sure just yet.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

dualsub2006 said:


> That's possible, but Samsung can't challenge the finding of facts by the jury unless it is a matter of law. I don't understand that entirely, but from what I gather that's going to be a tall mountain to climb over.
> 
> A couple of biased comments from jurors might be good enough to get it done, but I don't see it happening.
> 
> Samsung had a choice when they decided that they wanted to be the top Android OEM. They made their choice, and it's probably going to cost them a billion US.


hopefully with the backing of google and the other android phone manufacturers a consortium will be formed to fight the "unbiased findings"


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

RasputinAXP said:


> Uh...the patents that were upheld included pinch to zoom, double-tap to zoom, and a grid of icons.
> 
> This has a lot to do with a lot of things.


Very true, one thing that really bothers me about all this documentation that was shown to the jury was that it always contains a picture of the Android device's App Drawer or a home screen completely filled with app icons. For those that don't / haven't used Android this is not the default home experience. I think Samsung should have had the opportunity to show devices with Widgets, live wallpapers, etc. - they look a lot different under those (more typical) circumstances.

That said there was obviously some copying of the trade dress going on, especially with the first Galaxy with the single home button. On the other hand the trade dress stuff is way too vague if an Epic 4G (which has a slide-out QWERTY) was found to infringe it.

I also think (from reading the juror interview) that it doesn't sound like they really spent an appropriate amount of time debating the prior art arguments for the Touch Screen, Pinch Zoom, etc. patents. In fact I find it hard to believe they spent enough time on most of the items given how complex this trial was and the relatively short deliberation time.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Interview with a juror. I haven't looked at all the reports during trial, but if there literally were emails within Samsung about what Apple features to copy, there is little room for the jury to think they didn't violate the patents.
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-samsung-juror-speaks-out/


I don't think this document helped Samsung:

Samsung's 132-page internal report on why the Galaxy should be more like the iPhone



Herdfan said:


> Thanks for the info. Not being an Android user I didn't realize the Samsung interface was markedly different than other Androids.


When I got a smartphone, I wanted an iPhone 4, but Verizon didn't have it... so I got a Fascinate... one of the reasons is because I had used a Captivate and thought it was nice, and the other reason is because it reminded me very much of the iPhone. While there are similarities between other Android devices and the iPhone, I don't really feel they were attempting to copy the iPhone. I do however feel that Samsung, especially earlier models like the Fascinate/Captivate were intended to copy the look of the iPhone.

Heck... look at some of these icons...

~Alan


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> I don't think this document helped Samsung:
> 
> Samsung's 132-page internal report on why the Galaxy should be more like the iPhone
> 
> ...


1. That's a strategic dissassembly of the thing, post-Galaxy S. It's a red herring.

2. You got it because it reminded you of the iPhone...and because the iPhone wasn't on Verizon...but did you think you were buying an Apple product and you got fooled? That was the crux of the court fight.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> 1. That's a strategic dissassembly of the thing, post-Galaxy S. It's a red herring.
> 
> 2. You got it because it reminded you of the iPhone...and because the iPhone wasn't on Verizon...but did you think you were buying an Apple product and you got fooled? That was the crux of the court fight.


Is the issue that people actually thought they were getting an iPhone or that they thought they were getting something just like the iPhone? I can see the second one happening. A customer walks in, and a rep says "we don't sell those, but this is just like it." If the rep tells them it does the same thing, or is just like it, that could be an issue. I don't think someone actually gets a box that says Samsung but thinks its an Apple.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> Is the issue that people actually thought they were getting an iPhone or that they thought they were getting something just like the iPhone? I can see the second one happening. A customer walks in, and a rep says "we don't sell those, but this is just like it." If the rep tells them it does the same thing, or is just like it, that could be an issue. I don't think someone actually gets a box that says Samsung but thinks its an Apple.


I hope not more than one or two! 
:lol::nono:


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

The 'evidence' in the case is that some people "returned a Samsung product because they thought they were getting an Apple product."

I'm not quite sure how that works.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

RasputinAXP said:


> 2. You got it because it reminded you of the iPhone...and because the iPhone wasn't on Verizon...but did you think you were buying an Apple product and you got fooled? That was the crux of the court fight.


Personally?! No....

I imagine the carries like Verizon who didn't agree to Apple's terms at that time point was probably glad to have a phone whose UI was similar to the iPhone though... and it's possible that Apple may have lost out on some sales for the iPhone on AT&T when subscribers could get a phone that appeared similar for less money.

I've read multiple stories regarding the trial from different sources, and had not heard any statement referring to people thinking they were getting an iPhone. I don't have much pity for the people who would be so easily fooled...

I do however believe that Samsung borrowed HEAVILY from Apple for their UI... so I personally do not believe they wanted to discourage that from happening...

~Alan


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

billsharpe said:


> Being able to patent "a grid of icons" seems like a big stretch to me. Even the other two items seem like a small stretch.


true - kind of like harley trying to patent the sound of their v-twin... and they tried.

Intersting things coming out about the unpartial jury and the speed in their turn around

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...s.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

This is far from over. Fairly good summary of how the jury botched this one and a judge who appears to have done little to stop it.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/27/technology/apple-samsung/


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

round 2 - HTC vs Apple

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2012/09/08/2003542211


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> round 2 - HTC vs Apple
> 
> http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2012/09/08/2003542211


I hope HTC wins


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

More on the jury foreman messing things up royally in the Apple-Samsung case:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120904190933195


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

JACKIEGAGA said:


> I hope HTC wins


Me to, would be interesting to see if the Judge decides to order a temporary stop until it is settled


----------

