Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 212 posts

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

#101

Post by lostmsu »

stouset wrote: post #74
prepend wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how you think the p800 looked anything like the iPhone, https://goo.gl/images/t3XvMA Yes, they are both rectangles. But there were massive differences aside from the capacitive touch.

There’s an image out there of what phones used to look like imminently before the iPhone’s release and what phones looked like immediately afterward. It tends to bring this pointless debate to a quick end. Edit: found them. Before: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsu... After: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsu...

Yes, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Touch And waaay before that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_LOOX

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

#102

Post by CamperBob2 »

krustyburger wrote: post #67
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…

This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. And I’m not at all convinced that it was such an obvious idea given the development of multitouch. I think it only seems obvious after the fact.

Sorry, but the idea is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that an iPhone-like device isn't inevitable once capacitive multitouch tech appears.

Or do people think Apple invented that, too?

And make no mistake, it's ideas, and not implementations, that are behind these ludicrous half-billion dollar patent judgments. Patents were not supposed to work that way, but they do.

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

#103

Post by CamperBob2 »

scarface74 wrote: post #99
frankietwenty9 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The LG Prada had a touch screen. But did it have A full HTML browser? A music/video store ecosystem? Would LG have been able to create an operating system on par with iOS? Within a year would they have had a development environment and a platform to create what became the App Store? Would they have been able to dictate to the carriers that they were going to upgrade their own OS and not be beholden to them?

None of those things were the subject of this patent suit.

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

#104

Post by loa-in-backup »

asdfologist wrote: post #5
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.

It doesn't matter if they're original. No company should have exclusive rights to rounded corners.

It's the rounded corners with a rounded rectangle button in the middle under rectangle screen layout.

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

#105

Post by scarface74 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #103
scarface74 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LG Prada had a touch screen. But did it have A full HTML browser? A music/video store ecosystem? Would LG have been able to create an operating system on par with iOS? Within a year would they have had a development environment and a platform to create what became the App Store? Would they have been able to dictate to the carriers that they were going to upgrade their own OS and not be beholden to them?

None of those things were the subject of this patent suit.

The original statement that I was replying to was:

The iPhone was always going to happen as soon as capacitive multitouch technology became feasible at the consumer level.

The LG Prada being a touch screen and therefore would have evolved into the iPhone is as unrealistic as thinking whatever the knock off touch screen phone that Sprint released in late 2007 was going to evolve into an iPhone.

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

#106

Post by berti »

lostmsu wrote: post #101
stouset wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an image out there of what phones used to look like imminently before the iPhone’s release and what phones looked like immediately afterward. It tends to bring this pointless debate to a quick end. Edit: found them. Before: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsu... After: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/samsu...

Yes, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Touch And waaay before that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_LOOX

That Touch was announced on 5 June 2007... the iPhone was announced on 9 January 2007.

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

#107

Post by c22 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #49
threeseed wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commercially developed both Windows Mobile and Palm apps. None had exactly the same design nor look & feel as the iPhone. Which phone are you referring to ?

I think maybe he is talking about the general IDEA, not necessarily the look and feel. You're right in asserting that there really was nothing like iPhone before iPhone, but the IDEA was there from way back with HP Jornadas and the older BREW phones. (I do concede that the UI of all of those devices was, in PRACTICE, much different than the iPhone UI. That much is undeniable when you look at old pictures of them. Bac…

You could look further back, all the way to 1992. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon

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

#108

Post by legulere »

denzil_correa wrote: post #14
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.

There's a book which explains this phenomena : "Everything is Obvious ... Once you know the answer" http://everythingisobvious.com/the-book/

Also known as the egg of Columbus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

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

#109

Post by bitmapbrother »

tooltalk wrote: post #94

There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsu…

Today’s decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages

This case is far from over and will be quickly appealed as the award makes absolutely no sense and goes against the Supreme Court ruling.

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

#110

Post by xeromal »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #63
GeekyBear wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the Android engineers (back when Android was going to be a Blackberry knockoff) made a similar comment about his reaction to the iPhone unveiling. >“As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’” What we had suddenly looked just so . . . nineties,” DeSalvo said. “It’s just one of those things that are obvious when you see it."…

That's because Apple had a touchscreen, and Google had a keyboard at the time.

ala a blackberry knockoff
Post reply on HN