blakamin: a hell of a lot of those patents and trademarks could be tracec to "prior art"
"handheld device with rounded corners" any early htc device... apache, vogue...

keewee01:

blakamin: a hell of a lot of those patents and trademarks could be tracec to "prior art"
"handheld device with rounded corners" any early htc device... apache, vogue...

Absolutely agree!!

And most of the others are just logical for layout or use - just because Apple were the first to get the idiots at the US Patents Office to accept a patient for the layout on screen should they be rewarded for it, when in all likelihood 3 or 4 other companies were simultaneously working on the same thing???

And if the jury really did skip considering prior art then the entire trial is a farce.

nzgeek: I'm reading article over on Techdirt on the jury decision, and it sounds like the jury made some rather questionable mistakes.

Part of the jury instructions state that prior art needs to be considered when asking if Apple's patents are invalid. However, the jury decided to skip looking at prior art altogether, as they thought it was bogging them down and taking too much time. In other words, the jury were awarding on damages on patents that they may have found invalid, assuming they had done what they were supposed to do.

They were also instructed not to award damages for punitive measures, only to compensate for losses caused by infringement. Yet the foreman has specifically said that they wanted to make a statement, so went for high (but not unreasonably high) damages. This, again, goes directly against jury instructions.

In fact, the foreman has said that they did not bother with the instructions at all, and simply went ahead answering the questions. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that you're supposed do to what those instructions tell you...

On a side note, even if they are eventually found to be guilty, Samsung may come out ahead after this battle. There's anecdotal evidence coming in that people the case has been somewhat of a publicity win for Samsung, with Apple effectively saying that Samsung's products are comparable to theirs. Have a read of this account on G+ as an example.

spacedog:
Most of the techirt stuff is just a regurgitation of groklaw's posts which was sited earlier in this thread.  Everyone keeps pointing to that as if it comes from multiple legals sources/reports, but it's actually all the same article/source.  Not that it means that the opinion from Groklaw is wrong (it's fairly solid), it's just that there is a perception that there is wide dispute of the jury, and it is actually one source being repeated over and over again.

kiwitrc: Good article on patent trolls in the online Herald

StarBlazer:

kiwitrc: Good article on patent trolls in the online Herald

It is a good article - the only difference between this case and other patent cases is that he did not have the technology to actually put his idea into action.  He waited for technology to catch up with his idea and then licenced it.

A number of the patents in the Apple trial were from the late 90's and early 00's which were sat on until they had the technology to deliver and use the patent.

Perhaps there should be a time limit to turn the patent into something deliverable.

I can fully understand patents where a company spends years and millions of dollars on R&D but not from some fanciful idea.

A black face with silver border - come on, I had a table that looked like that in the 90's.

Prior art on most of the patents in my opinion.  Perhaps we should start a thread for each of the patents discussing whether such a thing existed before the Apple patent.

The Korean (?) court was probably more accurate in determining that they were as bad as each other.

The only winners again are the lawyers.

StarBlazer:

kiwitrc: Good article on patent trolls in the online Herald

It is a good article - the only difference between this case and other patent cases is that he did not have the technology to actually put his idea into action.  He waited for technology to catch up with his idea and then licenced it.

A number of the patents in the Apple trial were from the late 90's and early 00's which were sat on until they had the technology to deliver and use the patent.

Perhaps there should be a time limit to turn the patent into something deliverable.

I can fully understand patents where a company spends years and millions of dollars on R&D but not from some fanciful idea.

A black face with silver border - come on, I had a table that looked like that in the 90's.

Prior art on most of the patents in my opinion.  Perhaps we should start a thread for each of the patents discussing whether such a thing existed before the Apple patent.

The Korean (?) court was probably more accurate in determining that they were as bad as each other.

The only winners again are the lawyers.

sittingduckz: What I would love to see is Samsung dumping Apple as a customer just as they are gearing up for a new release, sure that would hurt Samsung (8% I hear), but just imagine what it would do to apple. They would be crippled for several months waiting for new chip & screen manufacturers to get up to speed.

Of course then Samsung would have to be as pathetic and small minded as Apple :)

Apple obviously aren't confident enough in the supposed superiority of there products

Just my opinion

ibuksh:

sittingduckz: What I would love to see is Samsung dumping Apple as a customer just as they are gearing up for a new release, sure that would hurt Samsung (8% I hear), but just imagine what it would do to apple. They would be crippled for several months waiting for new chip & screen manufacturers to get up to speed.

Of course then Samsung would have to be as pathetic and small minded as Apple :)

Apple obviously aren't confident enough in the supposed superiority of there products

Just my opinion

Well I am sure Apple has supply agreements all signed up with Samsung when if delayed they would receive so much compensation for the delay or something of that nature..