Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

Forums › Android › Samsung is getting nailed... live update as it happens on the Verge

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

524 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#679638 31-Aug-2012 11:17

kiwitrc: Samsung fires back http://phandroid.com/2012/08/30/samsung-threatens-to-sue-apple-if-next-iphone-has-lte/

For all those Apple fans out there eagerly waiting on the next release, if Apple hadnt really thought of this and gone ahead with implementing 4G-LTE.. then this would have made them rethink and possibly delay the announcement and shipment which may result in it the Apple fans waiting even longer..

Or if they are bold enough.. which they probably think they are.. they would go ahead with the release anyway..

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#679682 31-Aug-2012 12:23

ibuksh:
kiwitrc: Samsung fires back http://phandroid.com/2012/08/30/samsung-threatens-to-sue-apple-if-next-iphone-has-lte/

For all those Apple fans out there eagerly waiting on the next release, if Apple hadnt really thought of this and gone ahead with implementing 4G-LTE.. then this would have made them rethink and possibly delay the announcement and shipment which may result in it the Apple fans waiting even longer..

Or if they are bold enough.. which they probably think they are.. they would go ahead with the release anyway..

They may release but what if Samsung go for market bans like Apple have done in the past. At least it is hardware patent based this time. Still, it is the consumer that will suffer in the long run. An interesting comment about LTE and industry standards though. Things like Dolby Digital are industry standards but Dolby Labs still get royalties. So maybe Apple are happy to pay for licenced use of the LTE technology. More money for the lawyers I guess.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

nzgeek

619 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 52

#679709 31-Aug-2012 13:00

kiwitrc: Samsung fires back http://phandroid.com/2012/08/30/samsung-threatens-to-sue-apple-if-next-iphone-has-lte/

I guess it will all come down to whether the LTE patents have to be issued under FRAND terms, seeing as how they're part of a standard. There are only 2 ways I can see Samsung getting away with this: the LTE standards group don't have a FRAND clause on their patents, allowing each holder to assert them individually; or LTE is not seen as an essential technology in the same way that UMTS is, and therefore not subjected to FRAND licensing at all.

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#680886 3-Sep-2012 15:08

The idea of using a device to communicate on GSM cell towers, that was Apples' idea. The idea of using a numerical keypad to dial outgoing numbers, also Apples. The idea to have a camera attached to the device, another brilliant Apple innovation. Having a screen on the phone so you can see what you are doing, thanks for that as well Apple. A rechargeable battery, also Apple. A headphone plug, Apple again. Apple also invented the touchscreen. Would you believe it, gestures on the touchscreen itself are also patents? Rounded corners on a icon also patents. Apple is just the greatest..

Gotta love this comment.. got it from GSMArena..

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#682129 6-Sep-2012 08:58

The Jury Foreman speaks again and Uh Oh Groklaw Comments

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#682135 6-Sep-2012 09:22

kiwitrc: The Jury Foreman speaks again and Uh Oh Groklaw Comments

Lets just hope the judge sees more common sense than the jurors..

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682145 6-Sep-2012 09:34

I am sure the appeal will address some of these issues. I doubt that the injunctions will succeed, and why should they if the damages were half patent fee and half punitive. I beleive if Samsung paid the licence it would have been about $535 M. However, the case was to try the infringment, not try the patent system. The patents in question and the system existed prior to this case, others could have sought legal redress on the patent system or particular patents in the past. Taking that stance once they got bitten certainly dilutes those claims I feel.

If nothing else, this case will bring to light the need to patent and the need to pay licence fees. AND what should and should not be patented.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 833
Inactive user

#682153 6-Sep-2012 09:41

tdgeek: I am sure the appeal will address some of these issues. I doubt that the injunctions will succeed, and why should they if the damages were half patent fee and half punitive. I beleive if Samsung paid the licence it would have been about $535 M. However, the case was to try the infringment, not try the patent system. The patents in question and the system existed prior to this case, others could have sought legal redress on the patent system or particular patents in the past. Taking that stance once they got bitten certainly dilutes those claims I feel.

If nothing else, this case will bring to light the need to patent and the need to pay licence fees. AND what should and should not be patented.

Groklaw states " The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed."

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#682162 6-Sep-2012 09:55

If the jury is not allowed to consider whether a patent is invalid, why would samsung waste time on introducing prior art as evidence? And furthermore why would the judge allow such evidence to be entered if it is not allowed to be considered? (I know the judge threw out some prior art evidence for no apparent reason, but I was under the impression a lot of prior art was entered into evidence to show the patents were invalid)

And what do the injunctions have to do with the damages awarded? Last I heard they were asking for an injunction on the S3 which wasn't even part of the case IIRC.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#682167 6-Sep-2012 09:57

tdgeek: If nothing else, this case will bring to light the need to patent and the need to pay licence fees. AND what should and should not be patented.

...and, one would hope, that Jurors should not be setting the damages. As clearly if they fail. in even a minor way, in their interpretations of any aspect of the case they are basing their damages decisions on there own inabilities to understand the law (and perhaps the actual issues).

Having the Judge determine damages, based upon a jury verdict, would surely go some way to minimising the impact of poor jury decisions. The Judge must, by virtue of the legal system, accept the Juries ruling. But as a judge would have more knowledge of the legal system (ie: the semantic nature of the legal debate versus the emotions of a legal argument) surely they are better placed to determine
a) whether the issues were actually addressed correctly by the jury (evidence of clear understanding of the issues)
b) the damages are based and awarded on legal precedents and valid arguments/facts

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682168 6-Sep-2012 10:00

kiwitrc:
tdgeek: I am sure the appeal will address some of these issues. I doubt that the injunctions will succeed, and why should they if the damages were half patent fee and half punitive. I beleive if Samsung paid the licence it would have been about $535 M. However, the case was to try the infringment, not try the patent system. The patents in question and the system existed prior to this case, others could have sought legal redress on the patent system or particular patents in the past. Taking that stance once they got bitten certainly dilutes those claims I feel.

If nothing else, this case will bring to light the need to patent and the need to pay licence fees. AND what should and should not be patented.

Groklaw states " The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed."

If that is the law, or if it is Groklaws interpratation or wish

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#682170 6-Sep-2012 10:02

tdgeek:
kiwitrc:
tdgeek: I am sure the appeal will address some of these issues. I doubt that the injunctions will succeed, and why should they if the damages were half patent fee and half punitive. I beleive if Samsung paid the licence it would have been about $535 M. However, the case was to try the infringment, not try the patent system. The patents in question and the system existed prior to this case, others could have sought legal redress on the patent system or particular patents in the past. Taking that stance once they got bitten certainly dilutes those claims I feel.

If nothing else, this case will bring to light the need to patent and the need to pay licence fees. AND what should and should not be patented.

Groklaw states " The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can't be infringed."

If that is the law, or if it is Groklaws interpratation or wish

Its common sense as well

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#682174 6-Sep-2012 10:12

blair003: If the jury is not allowed to consider whether a patent is invalid, why would samsung waste time on introducing prior art as evidence? And furthermore why would the judge allow such evidence to be entered if it is not allowed to be considered? (I know the judge threw out some prior art evidence for no apparent reason, but I was under the impression a lot of prior art was entered into evidence to show the patents were invalid)

And what do the injunctions have to do with the damages awarded? Last I heard they were asking for an injunction on the S3 which wasn't even part of the case IIRC.

As in all cases they bring in as much evidence as possible. Some will be strong, sone will be weak.

I feel the injunctions are related. The damages were about 50% damages (unpaid licence fees) and about 50% punitive. Why injunct further sales of Samsuns devices as well. Thats two punshments. Unless Samsung stated that they wont pay licence fees, which I had not heard was the case.

Oxnsox I agree

To me, I agree that the jury issue is very valid, that needs to be assessed on appeal. I also feel that a key issue was intent. Samsung executives intended to copy, that is evidence. They asked their design team to design out these issues, the design team are in fact doing that over the last year, and Google told them not to copy. That I feel is the main issue. Of note is that Apple and Google are discussing matters, thats a good thing. They are both aggressive fighters in the marketplace, but are at least talking things. Samsung are the opposite, act now, fight later, that is what needs to change. Remember, this is not an Apple vs Android issue, Android and Apple have no patent issues, Android is clean. And why is there no LTE patent issue over the new iPad? Samsung said they will injunct the iPhone 5 if it has LTE, that doesnt really make sense to me if the ipad is left untouched.

sittingduckz

689 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 288

ID Verified

#682178 6-Sep-2012 10:17

Thankfully Apple didn't invent the wheel... or did they? It has rounded corners, it's mobile, it looks like the top view of an apple, you have to touch it to change it... we are all doomed :)

I'm not a complete idiot, I still have some parts missing.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#682181 6-Sep-2012 10:22

So you are saying that the jury wasn't allowed to consider prior art, but Samsung entered prior art into evidence and the judge allowed prior art to be entered into evidence because in all cases both parties bring as much evidence as possible, even evidence that is not allowed to be considered?

Seems legit.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21