Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#2Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#3Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#4Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
I'd rather have them differentiate on cost and quality (as I suspect most HNers would) but well, it might not be in their best interest business-wise.
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#5This quote really bugs me:
"Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error."
That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#6Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
I think you're both wrong!
I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II.
But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen" aware apps.
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#7Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
On Samsung devices you can programmatically configure the hotspot without being punished too hard.
(oh well)
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
I think you're both wrong! I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II. But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen" aware apps.
The problem is that when Samsung customise Android, they do so to (a) differentiate, and (b) to ensure you can't upgrade.
On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty much said "prior art can not be ignored".
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
I'd rather have them differentiate on cost and quality (as I suspect most HNers would) but well, it might not be in their best interest business-wise.
This is exactly what they want to avoid doing.
Re: Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict
#10This quote really bugs me: "Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so…
Here is his full answer:
"Prior art was considered.
But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.
And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.
So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.
And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art."
It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.