Samsung ordered to pay Apple more than $1Billion after jury says they Stole patented iPhone designs

Posted by julias
Samsung ordered to pay Apple more than $1BILLION after jury says they STOLE patented iPhone designs - and now faces having to pull ALL their cellphones and tablets from the U.S.

Source Link

Posted by ILoveBhe
This is a big slap on samsung's face. May weaken android a little bit and maybe just maybe the break stephen elop is waiting for.

[ This Message was edited by: ILoveBhe on 2012-08-25 14:02 ]

Posted by julias
This isn't good news for Samsung or Android as a whole..The iBeast just got even bigger!

Posted by rikken
American court - american judge - american jury all protecting an american company. . . . . . . .

Posted by julias

On 2012-08-25 17:49:20, rikken wrote:
American court - american judge - american jury all protecting an american company. . . . . . . .

SO TRUE!

Posted by Supa_Fly

On 2012-08-25 17:49:20, rikken wrote:
American court - american judge - american jury all protecting an american company. . . . . . . .

Bullshit because Samsung has lot a few battles in Germany, UK, and even in their homeland Korea!
Still it's a BIG smack in the face and kick in the ass for Sammy and NO stone was overlooked no documents missed except the equally purged documents on BOTH sides. There is NOTHING new in proof or details that can be brought to any world court.

Also you have NO clue the nationalities of all the jurers so stating "American" is a fallacy - you don't have to be an American citizen to be on jury duty.

Posted by titus1
Samsung is not only guilty of copying the design. I guess what where they are actually guilty of here was the INTENT of bringing Apple down. I mean...just look at the photos of iP4s & Galaxy Ace side by side, it's no brainer.

[ This Message was edited by: titus1 on 2012-08-25 18:18 ]

Posted by julias
This is very sad because the Smartphone market will just become a one horse race!

Posted by worf1000

On 2012-08-25 17:49:20, rikken wrote:
American court - american judge - american jury all protecting an american company. . . . . . . .

Finely, the Copycat get finally what they deserve.
All more than 12 years Samsung violation of other innovative companies why Samsung is large it is today.

And not to forget that Samsung also has had many years government support.

1.05 billion is way to low, they should at least 20 billion to pay all companies they have copied.

[ This Message was edited by: worf1000 on 2012-08-25 18:46 ]

Posted by Supa_Fly

On 2012-08-25 19:32:53, julias wrote:
This is very sad because the Smartphone market will just become a one horse race!

Melodramatic at best. The same could e said for Nokia's S60 and it was for a time maybe it was. However Samsung, LG, SonyEricsson did quite well in those days. Apple came from NOTHING till now so there will be innovations. Cyomagen mod will be the premier source and I'm super sure those developers are extremely happy of this decision because they'll get paid!!

Posted by Tsepz_GP
Funny enough, the Galaxy Ace was thrown out along with international S2 and S3.
Many of the infringing devices are legacy ones, and with Samsung averaging a good +1.5billion USD in income per month, the damages arent going to affect them that much.

What this will do is force some OEMs out of the US Market, and the US consumers are going to lose out, there's no "real" winner here, in the short term, yes, Apple, long term? By forcing Samsung to innovate Apple have dug themselves a grave, as we've seen over the years, Samsung adapts quickly and is just as cable of creating their own category of device e.g. Galaxy Note, their R&D dep. is on overdrive now im sure.

Posted by admad

Bullshit because Samsung has lot a few battles in Germany, UK, and even in their homeland Korea!

Yeah, and most of them finished with sentence "You can't patent something as trivial as rectangular shape, patent is invalid" Same patents that US court decided Samsung was infringing. Funny isn't it?;]

Posted by titus1

On 2012-08-25 19:49:31, Tsepz_GP wrote:
Funny enough, the Galaxy Ace was thrown out along with international S2 and S3.
Many of the infringing devices are legacy ones, and with Samsung averaging a good +1.5billion USD in income per month, the damages arent going to affect them that much.

What this will do is force some OEMs out of the US Market, and the US consumers are going to lose out, there's no "real" winner here, in the short term, yes, Apple, long term? By forcing Samsung to innovate Apple have dug themselves a grave, as we've seen over the years, Samsung adapts quickly and is just as cable of creating their own category of device e.g. Galaxy Note, their R&D dep. is on overdrive now im sure.

The 1.5B USD is just a bonus. proven guilty in court is something else.

Posted by rikken
Source : http://www.groklaw.net/

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, 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, 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.

Posted by worf1000

On 2012-08-25 19:59:24, titus1 wrote:

The 1.5B USD is just a bonus. proven guilty in court is something else.

1 Billion dollar pay to Apple is not a Bonus, they are guilty!!!
Finely some company take that Korean copycat down, if others do the same instead make a deal Samsung will get down where they belong.

[ This Message was edited by: worf1000 on 2012-08-25 19:04 ]

Posted by Tsepz_GP
titus
Indeed. On the other hand, this whole trial has given Samsung a tremendous amount of brand awareness, its almost as if they are paying Apple for all the marketing.
Consumers will want to try Samsungs even more now that Samsung were found guilty, they want to see what all this fuss is about, why Apple are trying so hard to punish them.

Worf1000
Thanks for making me laugh

do you have any concrete written and proven evidence that Samsung blatantly copied others? or are you just blabbering on about nothing due to your utter hate and dislike of Samsung and their success in the market?

Posted by rikken
Bose opened their first store in 1993:

Apple opened their first store in 2001

Who is copying who ?

Posted by etaab
The latter i reckon.

Apple blatantly copied Android with their version of the pull down notification shade. But these pro-Apple drones forget things like that.

This whole thing is ridiculous and so typical of a US courtroom, no offence to any Americans here on Esato but they're the only country that can strike up court cases for such ridiculous reasons. Anyone ever watched Judge Judy ?

US court, US judge, US citizens regardless of their nativity, there could only be one winner.

Apple tried the same trick in a UK court recently, the judge basically told them to **** off and threw the case out. Over here, we've got our bad habbits but our judicial system has been on the go for hundreds of years. We know whats sensible and whats just showbusiness.

I agree though, i dont think Samsung copied at all. They did obviously took some inspiration, but then so did Nokia, HTC, the lot of them ! And, i do think Samsung will probably turn out to be the better of the two with this loss(?), if you can call it a loss.

Posted by worf1000

On 2012-08-25 21:13:41, Tsepz_GP wrote:
titus
Indeed. On the other hand, this whole trial has given Samsung a tremendous amount of brand awareness, its almost as if they are paying Apple for all the marketing.
Consumers will want to try Samsungs even more now that Samsung were found guilty, they want to see what all this fuss is about, why Apple are trying so hard to punish them.

Worf1000
Thanks for making me laugh

You welcome, here are some links.

This has nothing to do with dislike, i hate copycats thats all. Apple is first company that fight for their case in the future while otrher companies get money from Samsung and Samsung will win in the long term.

Here is how Sammie get big to copies those tech from others.

From Sharp ( http://news.softpedia.com/new[....]t-Wars-Sharp-vs-Samsung-2.jpg/ ) meanwhile solve by Sharp demand Billions of dollars from samsung (stupid from Sharp)

From Ericsson ( http://www.pcworld.com/articl[....]son_settle_patent_dispute.html ) meanwhile solve by Ericsson paid by Samsung (stupid from Ericsson)
Rambus ( http://wirelessfederation.com[....]g-settles-dispute-with-rambus/ )

From Osram ( http://worldgreen.org/enterpr[....]are-off-in-led-patent-war.html )

From qualcomm ( http://translate.google.nl/tr[....]LOKn0QX3koGACw&ved=0CD0Q7gEwAg )

From Apple ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/c[....]to-the-courtroom-play-by-play/ )

From Microsoft ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fi[....]-take-on-Google-and-Apple.html )

From Seagate ( https://www.hightable.com/dat[....]-over-solid-state-drives-23456 )

All those stolen tech is very important for Samsung devisions what we now see.

This has nothing to do with dislike, i hate copycats thats all. Apple is first company that fight for their case in the future while other companies get money from Samsung and Samsung will win in the long term.

There are some more companies at the moment, you know that Sony also give OLED tech to Sammie for producing those panels? Vita screens ring that a bell?

Samsung is big because they are the biggest criminals in the world and i never spent one single Euro or Dollar for their products.

[ This Message was edited by: worf1000 on 2012-08-25 22:39 ]

Posted by chunkybeats
This is pathetic and really makes me hate Apple even more. etaab you are bang on about the Americans they love suing the shit out of each other! Apple tried to do the same thing in Austrailia and ban the galaxy tab 10.1, but people were smart and imported in from hong kong. The. Aussie court reacted the same as the UK. I think there is a bit of political motives behind Apple's intentions, I think it's sick. and really if we all ended up with Apple products the world would be a VERY boring and restrictive place!

[ This Message was edited by: chunkybeats on 2012-08-25 22:35 ]

Posted by worf1000

On 2012-08-25 23:34:42, chunkybeats wrote:
This is pathetic and really makes me hate Apple even more. etaab you are bang on about the Americans they love suing the shit out of each other! Apple tried to do the same thing in Austrailia and ban the galaxy tab 10.1, but people were smart and imported in from hong kong. The. Aussie court reacted the same as the UK. I think there is a bit of political motives behind Apple's intentions, I think it's sick. and really if we all ended up with Apple products the world would be a VERY boring and restrictive. place!

You know, people like you make me really SICK!!! Open yours eye for god sake that Samsung always steal from other companies who invest heavily in their tech.

[ This Message was edited by: worf1000 on 2012-08-25 22:38 ]

Posted by Tsepz_GP
Etaab
+1, nail on the head.

Thanks for that worf1000

Your links only proved that LIKE ANY OTHER tech company Samsung has had its share of lawsuits.

In some of your links it was clear cross licensing deals were struck, showing that those who sued Samsung were also guilty of as you like to say being "copycats", and also violating Samsung patents.

These tech companies have all sued each other at some points, if you are going to call Samsung copycats due to some lawsuits, many of which were either thrown out, landed up in cross licensing or loss here and there, then EVERYONE is a "copycat".

Chunkybeats

Precisely! There's a lot more to this than IP, and im sure it will all soon come to light with time.
The fact that an Oz court, UK court and even Korean court had similar rulings is very interesting.

Another thing to consider is how Samsung won their appeals outside the US.

Posted by titus1
Remember guys...it's not just about copying. There's intent on Samsung's part, malice so to speak.

Posted by Bonovox
Samsung still have a huge fanbase out there who hate Apple. This won't damage them much. If Apple intend on banning the sale of certain goods of Samsung in the US who is that down to the Government or courts?? Apple cannot do that themselves. I think if that happened what limited choice the US will end up with. Think it may cause an Apple backlash. @etaab yes I too think people forget about the pull down notification bar which Apple copied yet nothing happens to them about it. Much as I am not the biggest Samsung fan(prefer Sony) I really hate Apple.

Posted by Supa_Fly

On 2012-08-25 23:04:56, rikken wrote:
Bose opened their first store in 1993:

Apple opened their first store in 2001

Who is copying who ?

Sorry but that is a ver pathetic comparison! Not even close to the same industry! I could say Kresgee, Walmart Kmart etc all opened stores before Bose/Apple - yet what would be the point and how relevant would it be.

Copying is not the issue, willful copying when knowing there is a patent that secures the engineering for the work created in a product THAT is the point if both of us went to the same high school and university courses and profession with you cheating off all my tests & exams, along with getting a higher salary because you scored slightly higher or didn't need to take as long to complete each test - no need to double check the work - you can be sure I'd sue you & kick your ass!

Too many people her don't like apple even long before their lawsuits, and chose with their wallets for Windows as their main OS; that is perfectly fine I did too for many years - but through theft via online downloading of the OS. Many of those same people couldn't care less when Apple was almost 3 myths for bankruptcy and going out of business. here like Microsoft was in their prime (the Gates golden years) Apple is at the top of their game and like a mob salivating for a hanging in Shakespeare's plays, everybody loathes a "king" !!!

Posted by Supa_Fly

On 2012-08-25 23:06:55, etaab wrote:
The latter i reckon.

Apple blatantly copied Android with their version of the pull down notification shade. But these pro-Apple drones forget things like that.

No I'm not a drone! Stop using childish aphorisms display lack of original thought (verbatim from non intelligent Android fans); you're better than this etaab. And no I haven't forgotten about the notification drape, but did Google/Android PATENT THIS?! NO so why use it as an example?!! Its NON-VALID beyond stating "I seen it here first". Apple didn't try to patent this either so it's irrelevant to this rebuttal, court case, or thread. The BIG difference ANDROID fans do NOT see is that the END user can CONTROL WHAT is shown in that Notification bar & drop-down curtain where as Android you cannot have complete control. THAT is innovation and against the common belief that Apple is no the controlling entity in the commercial 1984 (which is always used out of context).

On 2012-08-25 23:06:55, etaab wrote:
This whole thing is ridiculous and so typical of a US courtroom, no offence to any Americans here on Esato but they're the only country that can strike up court cases for such ridiculous reasons. Anyone ever watched Judge Judy ?

LOL I cannot fight THAT! I completely agree, yet lets go back to WWDC 2007 with iPhone announcement 6 months prior to shipping date, a pre-announcement if you will.

On 2012-08-25 23:06:55, etaab wrote:
US court, US judge, US citizens regardless of their nativity, there could only be one winner.

Odd, I see nobody taking this stance with Google vs Apple, or Motorola vs Apple in the USA or vice versa with any Android manufacturer in Germany, S. Korea, or UK vs Apple with their wins/losses there, hmm. All evidence leads to Apple clearly having a majority win against Samsung's willful acts.

On 2012-08-25 23:06:55, etaab wrote:
Apple tried the same trick in a UK court recently, the judge basically told them to **** off and threw the case out. Over here, we've got our bad habbits but our judicial system has been on the go for hundreds of years. We know whats sensible and whats just showbusiness.

Yes that is true. What's odd is the UK court judge didn't seem to have the proper experience to judge such a case and didn't want to "waste the courts time against a valid court". The court made that statement after Apple went for injunction before the court completed proceedings, a wrong & premature act by Apple. Dumb really. That particular judge had no respect for company's fighting over non-essential patents over the length of the past 4yrs, and that is what was meant by wasting the courts time.

On 2012-08-25 23:06:55, etaab wrote:
I agree though, i dont think Samsung copied at all. They did obviously took some inspiration, but then so did Nokia, HTC, the lot of them ! And, i do think Samsung will probably turn out to be the better of the two with this loss(?), if you can call it a loss.

^ really?! REALLY?! Did you fully read all the patents, and the history of Samsung's products? or did you skim the details? You make an obvious claim that the notification ribbon was copied by Apple but you cannot see the violation of so many patents and product design?

To me I see two sides of Patents, like yourself in different industries:

1. Product patents for hardware/software protect companies ability to sell such products/services to end users or other companies, keeping them viable, and most importantly keeping EMPLOYEES, well employed and paid ... it makes the economy go round!!

2. Product patents for medicine: vaccines, remedies, cures, etc. THESE I consider are ESSENTIAL to the livelihood of ALL HUMAN beings - essential to longevity and health of life. From the common cold syrup (costing $4.99 to 7.99CAN) to Athletes foot/ringworm ($9.99-12.99CAN) to HPV/TB/Pocks vaccinations, or the top HIV vaccinations which costs $????.
^ yet we have patent laws globally that even BAYER aspirin could NOT be copied in a generic "brand" form for 5-10yrs!! is that NOT insane?!

In example 1 above I condone NO ACT of a company protecting these types of patents if A) They make NO product/service to use it, no effort to sell the right to use these patents and B) ONLY move to protect them AFTER several years when a company is liable for violating them AFTER making a fortune; example NTP vs RIM/Good Technologies/Motorola! (billions boys and girls, billions & this was 5yrs ago).

In example 2 above I'll NEVER understand the right any company/government has in making money against the deaths, or suffering of human beings! I believe research is valid, I believe a government should be communistic in paying for such R&D and equally paying those that work (at different levels of course) to the creation, producing and distribution of such medicine/remedies for the common good. I feel the United Nations SHOULD make such a move mandatory: but "until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significant than the colour of his eye's" we'll never see commonality for the right to medicine on a global scale.

Peace.

Posted by titus1
To think that even Google warned Samsung...

Posted by admad
Wtf is wrong with You people? This discussion doesn't have sense if You won't accept one simple thing, there are patents and "patents". Apple is using "patents" and that is the point of this whole case...

And no I haven't forgotten about the notification drape, but did Google/Android PATENT THIS?!

So You are saying that stealing is ok when the other side didn't file a silly patent?

willful copying when knowing there is a patent that secures the engineering for the work created in a product

Can You explain me exactly what kind of engineering work is behind rectangular shape?

I'll try images to explain to all of You what is what, because there is some serious misunderstanding here...

Now a little explanation:

Picture 1: This is a copy, notice the look of the phone and the name is like iPhone, to confuse customers into buying their product. Now this is bad, and this should be excluded from market. Note that Apple didn't sue sciphone

Picture 2: This is not a copy, the look of the phone, the dimensions it's different (Notice the scale is about 99,9% right, not like the shit comparision on internet where SII has the same height as iPhone...). Now it might look alike, but it's still not a copy...

Picture 3: Just to show a real difference between patents and "patents".

Posted by Bonovox
@hardened you need to calm down. @ahmad well pointed out there. Since when was rectangular shape of a device a patent?? So,what happens if the next iPhone is more square in shape or has even more curves?? My HTC Mozart has the same 4 corner curved chassis as the iPhone. All mobile screens,laptops,tablets,TVs etc have a rectangular shape. Did Appple invent that shape?? Nope. Apple never invented icon based OS or voice activation either.

Posted by lsl6213
I thought is about software like the scrolling bounce back effect and not the shape of the phone??

Posted by Bonovox
No it's about both. Looking at the icons on GS2 & GS3 they don't look like Apple's icons or are they the same size either. Can I ask somebody here did Apple invent pinch to zoom or not?? I wouldn't mind but double tap to zoom in text does not feature on many Samsung devices it never worked on any Samsung I had. If I build a house,can I not make any window rectangular cos Apple iPhone is that shape?? Come on people it's pathetic

Posted by skblakee
Bonovox - from the beginning of the case I have always felt that Samsung was guilty of the tap to zoom and pinch to zoom as Apple's yes came up with that but I did not know they didn't license it to Samsung.
All the others are hogwash.

Posted by Bonovox
I just don't get the rectangular shape bull shit. Nearly all touch screen phones have a rectangular shape with a home button. I cannot believe a court judge passed that.

Posted by admad

Bonovox - from the beginning of the case I have always felt that Samsung was guilty of the tap to zoom and pinch to zoom as Apple's yes came up with that but I did not know they didn't license it to Samsung.

Wrong, Apple didn't came up with this, they just stole it and made a "patent" for using this in a mobile devices.

Here's a video of some dude presenting multi-touch http://www.youtube.com/watch?[....]=player_embedded&v=ac0E6deG4AU

And here's an article in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

Apple wants You to believe they invented something, and that would be fine with me as long as they don't sue other companies making false claims.

[ This Message was edited by: admad on 2012-08-26 13:53 ]

Posted by rikken
What have Apple "invented" besides shapes and colors ? Screens ? Prosessors ? Memory ?
Does anyone have a list ?

Posted by Bonovox
What?? Rikken,come on,didn't you know Apple invented the wheel too

Am I gonna be sued tomorrow if I make a keyboard for a computer with the same key layout??
_________________
Material things don't matter,but Rock n Roll does!!!!

HTC Mozart

[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2012-08-26 17:00 ]

Posted by worf1000

On 2012-08-26 16:21:08, rikken wrote:
What have Apple "invented" besides shapes and colors ? Screens ? Prosessors ? Memory ?
Does anyone have a list ?

Tell me, what have Sammy invent?

Posted by djin

I'll try images to explain to all of You what is what, because there is some serious misunderstanding here...

If picture 2 is very different due to dimensions, then so is picture 1.

sciphone vs iphone - sciphone has smaller screen, greyish speaker, Placement of front facing camera is different. Fonts used are different, the dimensions are NOT the same, etc. But overall the phone looks like a rip off by a low budget chinese company.

S2 vs iphone - s2 has bigger screen, similar center button, Icons look similar. In fact the docked icons have the similar colors as the default docked icons in iphone. Diffrent placement of speaker and front facing camera. Overall, the phone's look and ui feels like a rip off.

There are many more differences in sciphone if you look at it properly, just as you have been used to looking at s2. One of the reasons why I never bought s1 and s2 is because they always looked to me as a knock off even before they got popular.

Anyways this will not matter in the present and future, Samsung's already become very successful and s3 is something more original from them which is unaffected by this ruling. Tbh i see all this propoganda as apple's loss. It used to be apple vs microsoft in the headlines, now its apple vs samsung. So samsung gets to be in the headlines for free and even without throwing in any money for advertisements, they will sell s4 alot.

Also as a designer of iphone, they have all the rights to protect it. No matter how simple it is. The thing is, if it was that simple as being claimed, why was it so hard to be made? Anything that's been done will always look easy. If apple sued sony over xperia T, htc over one x, and samsung over s3, there is no way they could ever prove they looked similar. But with s1 and s2, they had their point.

Posted by jplacson

On 2012-08-26 19:20:13, djin wrote:
If apple sued sony over xperia T, htc over one x, and samsung over s3, there is no way they could ever prove they looked similar. But with s1 and s2, they had their point.

I so agree with this. I'm glad Apple won. I was never fond of the iPhone 1-3 design so I couldn't get why Samsung had to copy those. Sony, Motorola, Lumigon all have very unique (and better, but that's subjective. I prefer their designs over Apple's) designs... WTH did Samsung have to copy the iPhone?!?!??!

Anyway, I just wanted to share this amusing article.

Congrats to Apple for their $1B court win!

Congrats to Samsung for their successful $1B ad campaign!

Posted by Supa_Fly
admad,

WHERE have I ever stated that stealing is ok for one and NOT the other?! Please go ahead and quote that in ANY of my posts DIRECTLY and we'll talk.

WHERE is the argument about a freakin RECTANGLE?! Seriously WHERE is the proof to back up this absurdity?! Again dribble from a fool that spits verbatim from common thought to reduce a valid statement that means a HELL of a lot more than that by those that just dislike a company protecting their designs. Again WHERE is the rectangle claim from Apple coming from; FACTS! Not dribble for verbatim please.

The patents argue: Icon design blatantly copied (more than a few), design being TOO highly similar - with Samsung's own staff, and other experts that have NOTHING to gain by Apple nor Samsung winning this case full agreeing too similar! This was with the FULL hardware design and does NOT included the SGS III models > so where is this dribble about "a rectangular shape with rounded edges" ? OR was this a statement in a paragraph taken completely out of context.

Again I challenge you to PROOF with links (more than one in reference to this recent court case or previous from Apple against Android/Samsung.

EDIT:

http://www.mobileburn.com/203[....]atents-says-south-korean-court
http://online.wsj.com/article[....]4812704577608242792921450.html

Apple and Samsung each enjoyed a victory and suffered a loss in their legal battle over smartphone patents. A South Korean court ruled that both companies sold products that infringe on each other's intellectual property, leading to damage awards and the banned sale of their products.
A three-judge panel ruled that four Samsung products infringe on Apple's "bounce back" patent, which deals with a screen that bounces back to a visible area when a user attempts to scroll beyond the edge of a document or photo. The panel ordered Samsung to pay 25 million won ($22,000), and banned the sale of its Galaxy S II, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 in South Korea. The court also ruled that Apple violates patents Samsung holds for mobile data transfer. Apple must now pay Samsung 20 million won ($17,650) and stop selling the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 in South Korea.
Apple and Samsung have concluded their patent fight in South Korea, but litigation between the two companies is far from over. A jury is now deliberating an Apple v. Samsung case in the U.S., and similar lawsuits or complaints to regulators are active in nine different countries.

^ so much for the argument US Court, US Judge, US jurors. Only the last part differs.

[ This Message was edited by: Hardened on 2012-08-26 22:29 ]

Posted by Bonovox
The GS2 does not look similar. The home button is different shape for a start off and the body is thinner with no sides looking the same or the back. As for a screen looking the same now that's going too far.

Posted by rikken

On 2012-08-26 19:19:15, worf1000 wrote:

On 2012-08-26 16:21:08, rikken wrote:
What have Apple "invented" besides shapes and colors ? Screens ? Prosessors ? Memory ?
Does anyone have a list ?

Tell me, what have Sammy invent?

Great answer

I ask because I do not know what Apple has invented themself. . . . .

Posted by Supa_Fly

On 2012-08-26 14:51:00, Bonovox wrote:
I just don't get the rectangular shape bull shit. Nearly all touch screen phones have a rectangular shape with a home button. I cannot believe a court judge passed that.

hmm. No you know that NOT to be fully true.
WinCE devices: HP Jornada, Sharp, etc.
WinMobile 6: Compaq iPaq (no center home button)
WinMobile 6.5: SE Xperia X1 and X2, HP iPaq series (plenty models), Samsung qwerty models, Motorola Q9h/m, etc.

yes all had simple home buttons but non used for multitasking, that I'm aware of, nor used for voice input, nor too similar in design. put aside the hate for Apple and re-read all details of patents argued, statements made by both and then decide.

On 2012-08-26 16:21:08, rikken wrote:
What have Apple "invented" besides shapes and colors ? Screens ? Prosessors ? Memory ?
Does anyone have a list ?

Apple inventions:
Glass starcase
FireWire (400/800)
ThunderBolt (in partnership with Intel, yes they did, or at least improved networking through TB)
Aluminum unibody PCs (not sure of a patent on this).
H.264 Codec,
1979 - Introduces first printer, the Silentype

Notably, Apple has been sued for:

1999 - Sued over use of OS 9 name
http://news.cnet.com/Software[....]9-name/2100-1001_3-230627.html

1989 - Sued by the Beatles' Apple Corps over music.
1989 - Sued by Xerox over GUI.
2003 - Tibco sues Apple over trademark.
http://news.cnet.com/Tibco-su[....]emark/2100-1035_3-5069154.html

Oh and to clarify ANY potential common misconceptions about the GUI theft from Xerox PARC or about HOW both company's met, I submit exhibit A.

2005 - Raskin dies at 61
February 27, 2005 2:05 PM PST

http://news.cnet.com/Jef-Rask[....]at-61/2100-1045_3-5591858.html

Raskin, who named the Macintosh after his favorite fruit, joined Apple in January 1978 as employee No. 31. The Macintosh was launched in 1984, but Raskin left Apple in 1982 amid a well-documented dispute with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

Raskin was an assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, and a visiting scholar at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the 1970s when he first visited Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, or PARC. (Apple is often accused of copying Xerox's graphical user interface--GUI--into the Macintosh operating system).
"When PARC was in its first few years I was often a visiting academic there, taking part in discussions and viewing with delight some of the developments going on there; I trust that people there also took pleasure in finding in me someone who was already on much the same user-interface wavelength," Raskin later wrote. "I didn't have to be sold on the idea that UI and graphics were of primary importance to the future of computing."
Raskin said he told Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Apple's other co-founder, about what he had seen at Xerox the first time he met them in their garage in 1976, but that he stopped visiting Xerox when he went to work for Apple "to avoid any possible conflicts of interest."

Posted by Supa_Fly
Patents awarded to Steve Jobs.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/68180085/Steve-Jobs-Patent

somone joked about the keyboard ... take a look at the source above.
10 D641,021 Keyboard
11 D640,695 Keyboard
28 D633,498 Keyboard
32 D633,093 Keyboard
55 D625,310 Keyboard
73 D621,402 Keyboard
90 D616,886 Keyboard
13 2D604,736 Keyboard
133 D604,300 Keyboard
153 D598,451 Keyboard

That is just a taste of why Gates invested in Apple when it was near death for non-voting shares (sure he wanted voting shares but Microsoft was already in a LOT of deep trouble with 26US states in supreme court battles over monopolism and such tactics. If you're REALLY keen to learn more dig for what is specified in all those patents Steve Jobs is awarded for and that Apple solely owns.

Posted by chunkybeats
hang on hang on theres a pull down menu in IOS 5.1, who invented that?? Google mount a lawsuit!

Posted by Bonovox
@hardened I'm sure you an Apple employee.

Posted by chunkybeats
even the old dinosaurs Xperia X1 & X2 / Satio / Aino / P1 could multitask, the original iphone couldnt even do that lol

Posted by Bonovox
I'm bored now on Apple v The World. Not commenting anymore.

Posted by chunkybeats
I agree bono mate it's boring and im happy to still have my superior xperia anyway! my next jump will be the next true Sony, theres still the Ericsson influence in the handsets of this year. I'll just wait and see!

[ This Message was edited by: chunkybeats on 2012-08-27 08:16 ]

Posted by jplacson

On 2012-08-27 00:48:32, chunkybeats wrote:
even the old dinosaurs Xperia X1 & X2 / Satio / Aino / P1 could multitask, the original iphone couldnt even do that lol

Don't forget Steve Job's own smartphone of choice pre-iPhone... the SonyEricsson P800.

And the original one the Ericsson R380 and Quartz prototype had quite original designs that I wouldn't mind seeing in an Android today (Sans the antenna of course, unless they can make a tiny stub antenna for satellite service)