6 ms·
This is one of the best critiques so far of the decision. There are two sides to this trial. On the one side is the emotional appeal: Samsung copied Apple, an
by algolicious 14y ago
This is one of the best critiques so far of the decision.
There are two sides to this trial. On the one side is the emotional appeal: Samsung copied Apple, and documents detail the extent to which Samsung imitated the iPhone. On the other side are the various technical ways in which Apple claimed that Samsung copied them. But just as Apple engineers slaved for years over the technical details of the iPhone, it is incredibly important for the future of mobile innovation that all of the technical parts of the trial are correctly decided. If the jury finds no infringement but finds that infringement was induced, this indicates that technical mistakes were made. But in particular, I wonder if the jury was so swayed by the emotional appeal that sufficient attention was paid to the substantial prior art demonstrated regarding capacitive touch screen phones and multitouch displays.
- hahainternet 14y agoAccording to the comments in the post, this is one of the infringements: http://androidheadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/thumb_550_ip4-vs-captivate.jpg http://androidheadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/thumb... If this is true, then it's hard to give this decision much weight at all. These two phones are vastly different and one literally says SAMSUNG on the front.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoIf my old HP iPaq had a black, not silver bezel and had less hardware buttons, I imagine it would have looked something like that. Hmm.
- esolyt 14y agoJust to remove all doubts about whether the jury was smoking crack or not, this phone is found to be infringing the iPhone's design patents: http://androidspin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/samsung-galaxy-s-epic-4g-sprint-front-landscape.jpg http://androidspin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/samsung-ga...
- mbreese 14y agoClose the keyboard, then look at it. The jury, apparently, decided what their criteria were for infringement and then applied those criteria to all of the phones. The extra fact that this model had a keyboard wasn't one of the criteria. Let's not assume that we have the whole story behind the way the jury decided anything, one way or the other.
- eridius 14y agoAlso, I thought the design of the home screen (a grid of icons with labels) also had something to do with it? Both of the linked phones have a grid very much like the iPhone.
- magicalist 14y agoicon grids predate the iphone, of course (windows mobile, palm pilot, newton?). I think Apple's claims were more specific, dealing with particular icons, colors, and the favorite apps at the bottom.
- DanBC 14y agoDid 16x16 (and then 32x32, and etc etc) icons get patents? Because someone, somewhere, lost a lot of money - and I got consistently sized icons for many years. EDIT: This isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. See this 2002 article. BT registered a patent in 1976 for "double clicking hyperlinks" (or somesuch), and then in 2000 they realised that they owned this patent, and a bunch of people were clicking hyperlinks on the WWW, and they started suing people. They lost. (http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/BT-patent-case-raises-e-commerce-planning-issues http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/BT-patent-case-raises-...) (http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/hyperlink/ http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/hyperlink/)
- vacri 14y agofavorite apps at the bottom Quicklaunch bars certainly predate the iphone
- 14y ago
- seanalltogether 14y agoThe Samsung Gem was also listed with a $4 million infringement. http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/sc/hi/10/schi100zkavzw/i100_400x400_large1_cf.jpg http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/sc/hi/10/s... edit - The Replenish was also granted 3.3 million http://www.prepaidreviews.com/podcast/SamsungReplenish.jpg http://www.prepaidreviews.com/podcast/SamsungReplenish.jpg These are just laughable