Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[John Albert]

That foreman's comments clearly betray an insufficient understanding of software engineering to be able to fairly decide this case.

Consider that a single software program made by a single company (Adobe Photoshop, for example) can be engineered to run on multiple platforms (Apple OSX and Microsoft Windows, for example). Both versions are protected under the same patents portfolio, but of course the version engineered for OSX cannot be installed and run on Windows, and vice versa.

Therefore, platform dependence is irrelevant to the question of whether an implementation is derivative or not.

If it were, then there's no way Samsung could have violated Apple's patents because stock Android will not run on Apple iPhones, and vice versa.

 

[This is The End]

And now a ruling from Japan:

Samsung wins over Apple in Japan patent case

That's 1 for Apple, 1 for Samsung, and 1 Tie.... for August 2012 (I'm so not counting the hundreds of other trials between Apple and Samsung over the past couple of years).

+1 more for Samsung:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rt-ruling-against-samsung-in-patent-suit.html

Apple Inc. lost a court ruling against Samsung Electronics Co. in Germany regarding claims the South Korean company’s Galaxy devices infringed patents on the iPhone maker’s touch-screen technology.

The Mannheim Regional Court ruled that Samsung didn’t violate Apple’s patents on features related to touch-screen technology, Jason Kim, a Seoul-based spokesman for the Suwon, South Korea-based company said in an e-mailed statement today. Joachim Bock, a court spokesman, confirmed the ruling.

 

[WildCat]

So one US jury using faulty legal reasoning ruled for Apple, everyone else ruled for Samsung.

 

[WildCat]

Uh-oh, looks like the Swiss Federal Railways copied Apple's clock design on the iPad. Sure, the Swiss clock came out many years before the iPad but with the right jury that shouldn't be a problem.

Pay up you Swiss copycats!

http://www.slashgear.com/swiss-federal-railways-accuses-apple-of-copying-its-clock-design-21248837/

 

[chulbert]

So one US jury using faulty legal reasoning ruled for Apple, everyone else ruled for Samsung.

No.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/german-court-hands-apple-rubber-banding.html

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So one US jury using faulty legal reasoning ruled for Apple, everyone else ruled for Samsung.

No

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/14/us_itc_judge_rules_apple_does_not_violate_samsung_patents

Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod touch product lines were cleared of accusations of infringement from Samsung, according to Reuters. Specifically, ITC Judge James Gildea's preliminary ruling found that Apple did not violate four patents owned by Samsung.

 

[WildCat]

No.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/german-court-hands-apple-rubber-banding.html

That's an article about a court victory over Motorola, nor Samsung.

No

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/14/us_itc_judge_rules_apple_does_not_violate_samsung_patents

Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod touch product lines were cleared of accusations of infringement from Samsung, according to Reuters. Specifically, ITC Judge James Gildea's preliminary ruling found that Apple did not violate four patents owned by Samsung.

I'm talking about the Apple lawsuits, not Samsung's.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's an article about a court victory over Motorola, nor Samsung.


I'm talking about the Apple lawsuits, not Samsung's.

"everyone else ruled for Samsung" is pretty nebulous. Sorry I didn't get the context correct. Carry on.

 

[WildCat]

"everyone else ruled for Samsung" is pretty nebulous. Sorry I didn't get the context correct. Carry on.

Nebulous is all you'll get from me before 7 am.

 

[chulbert]

That's an article about a court victory over Motorola, nor Samsung.

Fair enough; I jumped the gun. I read your statement as, "The only legal success Apple has seen is a single case against Samsung in the United States." So I provided evidence that Apple is winning patent infringement suits globally (in addition to losing them).

Limiting the discussion to Samsung alone, you are right to my knowledge. However, I would point out that the patents are different in each case and country. It is inaccurate to infer or imply the US verdict was wrong because the "rest of the world" found in favor of Samsung.

Which maybe you weren't doing either, but a lot of people do.

 

[This is The End]

Has no one really posted this yet? It's been 2 days.

I call it: "Can I have a monopoly and a billion dollars? Please?!"

Here comes the hammer. The Apple hammer, that is, as attorneys representing the company filed a motion late Friday requesting a U.S. sales ban against Samsung devices and an additional $707 million in damages as a result of last month's ruling against Samsung in the two companies' patent showdown.

The sales ban would effectively make Samsung a non-competitor to Apple in the United States, as Apple is requesting that it cover 26 smartphones and three tablets, in addition to, "any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products."

Yes you read that right, they want a ban on basically all Samsung phones and tablets.

[DrEvil]Oh, and one billion dollars.[/DrEvil]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410065,00.asp

 

[BenBurch]

A patent IS a monopoly.

 

[This is The End]

A patent IS a monopoly.

You're equating "getting rid of their only big competitor" with "having a patent on X"???

Even if Samsung violated a patent, it doesn't mean Apple should be handed a monopoly as reward....

 

[a_unique_person]

A patent IS a monopoly.

It doesn't have to be. Samsung patents technology that Apple licenses, Apple patents technology it refuses to share, even at a price.

 

[This is The End]

Either way, my post that BenBurch was "responding" to clearly talks about a monopoly on an entire industry, not about a monopoly on a patent.

1 jury in 1 trial deciding that Apple has a "monopoly on" (as BenBurch put's it) a few patents does not mean Apple should be handed a monopoly on the entire industry.

 

[kevsta]

interesting developments.

outflanking: Apple's Foxconn launching its own stores meanwhile elsewhere workers riot at Apple / Foxconn production facilities

 

[chulbert]

You're equating "getting rid of their only big competitor" with "having a patent on X"???

Even if Samsung violated a patent, it doesn't mean Apple should be handed a monopoly as reward....

Samsung could be litigated out of existence and that still wouldn't "hand" Apple a monopoly.

 

[This is The End]

Samsung could be litigated out of existence and that still wouldn't "hand" Apple a monopoly.

It would be a huge start. And the biggest step.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

interesting developments.

outflanking: Apple's Foxconn launching its own stores meanwhile elsewhere workers riot at Apple / Foxconn production facilities

I like how it's referred to as Apple's Foxconn, as if foxconn didn't manufacture technology for dell, HP, motorola, etc.

I guess you don't get as many pages views without apple in the title

 

[John Albert]

I like how it's referred to as Apple's Foxconn, as if foxconn didn't manufacture technology for dell, HP, motorola, etc.

Maybe it has something to do with the coincidence of the riots with the US release of the new iPhone?