Apple v Samsung Aftermath; Google Statement; Juror Speaks Out & More

[Androidatic]

Was talking about the Samsung and Apple lawsuit, and everyone was talking about how Apple "invents" all this stuff and people copy it. Then someone said Apple invented the smart phone.

I died a little bit inside.

You're right, they didn't invent it. But what they did do is take it mainstream and make it popular for the masses. Before the iPhone we were stuck with Palm and Blackberry. We may not even have Android if the iPhone didn't come along. It sucks, I know, but step back and look at the whole picture. Android and Apple killed Palm and Blackberry (almost) off and, IMO, we're all better for it.

 

[cush2push]

It doesn't matter Google has a patent. You can't call something open source and not share it with people because they don't share with you.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

They can and they could take that feature out of the source if they want to it isn't licensed under the Apache 2.0 license

"note that proprietary trademarks and brand features are not included in that license. Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license"

The patent protects one of androids core features and if misused they can sue

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bilgediver]

You're right, they didn't invent it. But what they did do is take it mainstream and make it popular for the masses. Before the iPhone we were stuck with Palm and Blackberry. We may not even have Android if the iPhone didn't come along. It sucks, I know, but step back and look at the whole picture. Android and Apple killed Palm and Blackberry (almost) off and, IMO, we're all better for it.

Actually htc was Making decent strides with windows mobile, i know i had the vx6800 (either mogul or tytn, i think mogul) with Verizon.
Sent from My Droid RAZR MAXX with Tapatalk.

 

[MissionImprobable]

It doesn't matter Google has a patent. You can't call something open source and not share it with people because they don't share with you.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Others have already spoken to the facts about the patent issue. Besides that, do you think Google would sit back and let Apple attempt to patent it down the road and end up having the face the same idiocy Samsung has had to deal with, especially considering that things like Siri already fall under patents owned by Moto yet Apple still went ahead with its suit. It would be foolish not to protect your true inventions with a monger like Apple out there.

 

[jroc]

You're right, they didn't invent it. But what they did do is take it mainstream and make it popular for the masses. Before the iPhone we were stuck with Palm and Blackberry. We may not even have Android if the iPhone didn't come along. It sucks, I know, but step back and look at the whole picture. Android and Apple killed Palm and Blackberry (almost) off and, IMO, we're all better for it.

The thing abut that....the LG Prada was launched around the same time. If the Prada had better marketing, execution, more polished.....we might be talking about the Prada instead of the iPhone. Companies were starting to go in the direction of the Prada and iPhone. Apple was just the first to do it very successfully.

 

[kodiak799]

It doesn't matter Google has a patent. You can't call something open source and not share it with people because they don't share with you.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

There's still a license/terms of use associated with the software. Also, Android isn't "open" in the truest sense of the word.

 

[nikecar]

Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors | Techdirt

You guys did see this right? The juror stated that they completely ignored the prior art portion when considering which way to vote. A patent is not valid if prior art existed, the jurors saw almost no possibility that prior art didn't exist, but then put that aside on the advice of the foreman who admitted that he saw this as a way to punish Samsung as though they had violated a patent that he held. There is pretty much zero chance that this verdict stands up on appeal. The jury cast aside important instructions and was clearly swayed by one member whom they saw as an expert though he was never determined to be so.

Here is more indepth reporting about the same issue.
Why the Apple v. Samsung Ruling May Not Hold Up

The point of the suit wasn't to punish Samsung, it is to "right" the revenue loss from infringement. To state they did so to "punish" and to make it more than a wristslap means they didn't do their job. If they took less time to go through the instructions than a law professor has stated he would expect and has done, then this whole joke was a bigger joke than we expected. I hope the jurors keep taking.

 

[kodiak799]

Yeah, but are juror comments admissible on an appeal if it relates to direct evidence they ignored instructions and/or considered evidence not presented? I have no idea.

I still don't see how a "rectangle with rounded edges" avoided disqualification from prior art, even without Samsung's display showing their own history of development.

I think if they can show a strong likelihood of winning a reversal on appeal that they would get an injunction on any bans.

 

[MissionImprobable]

Yeah, but are juror comments admissible on an appeal if it relates to direct evidence they ignored instructions and/or considered evidence not presented? I have no idea.

I still don't see how a "rectangle with rounded edges" avoided disqualification from prior art, even without Samsung's display showing their own history of development.

I think if they can show a strong likelihood of winning a reversal on appeal that they would get an injunction on any bans.

Yes, the jurors statements outside of the courtroom can be considered when reviewing a decision. There was a case in which a juror performed an experiment which he thought would "replicate" the conditions as described by the prosecution in one case and his results swayed the rest of the jury. As the jury was give specific instructions not to do so and to only consider the evidence at hand once he revealed this after the trial the verdict was thrown out.