Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#81

Post by tooltalk » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:33 AM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #32

zik wrote: post #4

They patented "a grid of icons" when it's literally the first way you'd think of doing the UI - basically the definition of an "obvious patent". Not to mention that it'd already been done that way many times before and was the standard thing on smartphones by that point. So both obvious and massive prior art. For instance here's a Nokia phone from 2005: https://phys.org/news/2005-03-nokia-3g-imaging-smartphone-sh...…

Hmm I'm not convinced. If the iPhones home screen was so obvious why didn't others do it before? Those examples you listed are fairly different from iPhone at the time in a way that the Samsung phone wasn't.

They did, but Apple's hometown court judge didn't allow prior arts to stand in that case. Apple's design cases elsewhere failed because of the obviousness (and prior arts).

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#82

Post by scarface74 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #51

sjwright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that comment being voted down? It's exactly on point.

The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it. Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not. As a result, Apple was (properly) rewar…

Who was going to do it?

Microsoft was stuck on making Windows Mobile a small PC.

RIM was poo pooing the touchscreen two years after the iPhone came out.

Google was aping the Blackberry with the Android and completely started over after the iPhone came out.

Nokia didn't have the OS or the platform to make a full fledge smart phone. But they were the most likely.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#83

Post by tooltalk » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #76

stouset wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a component of the design patents Apple claims are being violated. They are much more specific than you appear to believe. If it were truly as simple to show prior art as you think it is, this case would have been thrown out a decade ago.

Nonsense; I generally find that dismissive drive-by comments on Hacker News are better much thought through than actual court decisions made at the conclusion of a court trial. /s

Well, I think average HN'er has much better judgement over average Joe jury in Apple's hometown on technical design and patent issues. The role (or problem) of non-technical jury in highly technical patent litigation is also often debated in academia too.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#84

Post by scarface74 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:38 AM UTC

kumarm wrote: post #30

mi100hael wrote: post #3

To everyone saying "these are basic phone designs," try and remember reactions to the original iPhone release keynote. The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple.

As someone who developed for Mobile Phones pre iPhone era, I can say they are people who never worked on software for Mobile before iPhone :). There were number of Phone that existed with several of those styles. How many people know Verizon Had a decent app store (Apps developed with Brew) in US before iPhone? This included similar testing that you see for AppStore TODAY.

I developed for Windows Mobile before and slightly after the iPhone. Windows Mobile was slightly ahead of the iPhone as an app platform until around 2009.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#85

Post by stouset » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:46 AM UTC

tooltalk wrote: post #77

stouset wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a component of the design patents Apple claims are being violated. They are much more specific than you appear to believe. If it were truly as simple to show prior art as you think it is, this case would have been thrown out a decade ago.

Actually Apple's design cases were thrown out everywhere, except Apple's hometown court. The only difference is that Apple's hometown judge Koh and magistrate judge Grewal didn't allow prior arts in the courts.

They might have lost them in the end, but they were certainly not “thrown out” as would have happened if they simply patented a grid of icons with trivially-obvious prior art. Regardless of your belief in the overall merits of their case, it’s very obviously a much more nuanced issue than people here apparently believe.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#86

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:47 AM UTC

staunch wrote: post #8

Steve Jobs' friend Bill Gates cloned the Macintosh with Windows and his other friend Eric Schmidt cloned the iPhone with Android. I'm sure that felt bad but his primary feeling should have been pity. He created a company so much better than his competitors that their biggest successes are poor clones of his next-generation products. He showed Gates the future of PCs and he showed Schmidt the future of smartphones. Bu…

I thought Jobs borrowed the GUI from Xerox.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#87

Post by sangnoir » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:47 AM UTC

tooltalk wrote: post #77

stouset wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a component of the design patents Apple claims are being violated. They are much more specific than you appear to believe. If it were truly as simple to show prior art as you think it is, this case would have been thrown out a decade ago.

Actually Apple's design cases were thrown out everywhere, except Apple's hometown court. The only difference is that Apple's hometown judge Koh and magistrate judge Grewal didn't allow prior arts in the courts.

Apple also had it's home-country's executive intervene when the Obama administration blocked the import ban Samsung won against Apple. Yet snarky HNers act like there were no fingers on the scale.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#88

Post by camhenlin » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #29

denzil_correa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I forget, did Braun ever sue Apple for all of those stolen designs? Did reasonable amount of people confuse a Braun Pocket radio with the Apple iPod?

Has anyone ever accidentally bought a Samsung phone when they thought they were buying iPhone?

Yes, and I assume this anecdotal story of mine is not unique: phone salespeople do this. My grandmother (in her late 70s at the time) was sold an “iPhone” at a Verizon store, after her and I discussed which phone for her to get. It was a Samsung galaxy. At the time, she had an iPad and a MacBook so it made sense for her to get an iPhone when upgrading to her first smart phone. The salesperson explained to her it was essentially the same and did all of the same stuff, and called it a Samsung iPhone and explained that it was better than the Apple one. You can guess at my confusion trying to walk her through how to use her new iPhone over the phone, when it wasn’t actually an iPhone and did not work quite the same as her iPad. I assume the salesperson made a better commission on the Samsung phone than the Apple one. It was definitely a bit of a hassle after the fact to go turn that phone in and replace it with an iPhone.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#89

Post by frankietwenty9 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:31 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #82

CamperBob2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it. Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not. As a result, Apple was (properly) rewar…

Who was going to do it? Microsoft was stuck on making Windows Mobile a small PC. RIM was poo pooing the touchscreen two years after the iPhone came out. Google was aping the Blackberry with the Android and completely started over after the iPhone came out. Nokia didn't have the OS or the platform to make a full fledge smart phone. But they were the most likely.

LG Prada?

Don't get me wrong - the iPhone was ground breaking. It's the hundred little details that made it special.

But would someone else have done it? Yes. Is this relevant? No

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#90

Post by macintux » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:40 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #51

sjwright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that comment being voted down? It's exactly on point.

The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level. It was never going to happen a minute earlier, and it was absolutely inevitable a minute later. It was just a question of who was going to build it. Apple kept their eye on that particular ball, while Microsoft, Nokia, Blackberry, Samsung, and others did not. As a result, Apple was (properly) rewar…

Which explains the incessant mockery Apple received when they revealed it.

Many things Apple does seem obvious in hindsight, but that doesn’t mean the industry would have converged there without them. Look at how awful Windows was for years. Or beige PCs. Or 20lb laptops.

The tech industry likes to sell what’s already selling. Apple tries to sell what people don’t know they want yet.