x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

How Samsung lost against Apple and why Apple may lose the appeal

0. phoneArena 27 Aug 2012, 16:29 posted on

We all know that Samsung is going to appeal the $1.05 billion loss it suffered to Apple last week, and if the company follows a few simple rules, the appeal should help a lot towards getting Samsung out of the hole it has dug for itself...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:37 63

1. msa1988 (Posts: 418; Member since: 30 Mar 2010)

Apple should, and deserves to lose this case. How can they say Samsung copied them? All the phones are similar. There are so many things (voice command, cameras, etc.) that phones had before the iPhone. So apple copied that? This whole case is ridiculous. There's no way you can state anyone coped off anyone. I open a restaurant down the street, and another one opens. It's a restaurant, so they copied me?! It doesn't work that way. It's called competition, Apple, get over it.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:48 16

3. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)

Samsung blatantly copied Apple. Any reasonable person can see that. That part is over with though. Now what Samsung has to do is get some of the ridiculous patents Apple has invalidated.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:29 23

17. structureman116 (Posts: 139; Member since: 14 Sep 2010)

The jury was clearly biased in Apples favor. One of the jurors came out and said already that it was all Apple from day 1,and it was just a matter of determining the damages. While Samsungs lawyers sucked an egg, had they been given opportunities to produce their prior art and call their design witnesses this case would have turned out completely different. And Samsung should not be held liable for copying when they CLEARLY have prior art that looks similar to an iphone!

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 23:03 6

96. a_tumiwa (Posts: 373; Member since: 16 Mar 2012)

Jay_F, i am sure you dont know what "copy" means

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 01:42 3

109. willard12 (Posts: 1678; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)

The Samsung F700. any reasonable person can see that...its on the photo right above.

posted on 09 Sep 2012, 01:57

171. Hemlocke (unregistered)

Even Android websites were debunking the "F700 conspiracy theory." You would have to be a blind moron to believe that a fat, resistive-screened, QWERTY slider dumbphone has ANYTHING to do with this case.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 01:59 5

114. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)

nicely brainwhashed

why don't you show comments like "Samsung blatantly copied" but you hid "Apple steals"??????

ever YOU are paid by Apple??

and apple ripped off several windows mobile phones before it. Apple doesnt innovate it steals. Only reaon they won the case is becasue its an American company vs a foreign company and from the sounds of it.. they basically ignored samsung during delirbartion and already had decided against them. This jury was full of biased people who really just wanted apple to win.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 03:21

129. danny_a2005 (Posts: 165; Member since: 06 Oct 2011)

cmon ive copied my homework since i was a kid... im in jailk? i dont think so.. and I bet all of you have copied in tests or whatever at least once so STFU and buy whatever you want... Apple i you want to earn customers, innovate

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 06:27 2

133. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

never copied a test that wasnt open book... or online only. :)

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 08:11 1

135. android8 (Posts: 23; Member since: 07 Aug 2012)

Apple just got the advantage of being at home country. The claim from Apple did not had any weight.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:57 3

8. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)

>How can they say Samsung copied them?

Samsung had a fair trial, not a perfect trial, and 9 jurors all arrived at the same conclusion -- not only did Samsung "steal" Apple's IP, Samsung did it "willingly and knowingly".

And by the way, your example is dumb -- a restauant idea or concept is not the same as patented IP. Patented IP is innovation and America wants people and companies to innovate, so America protects its IP.

Here's my recommendation, please don't argue like the Samsung lawyers that lost the trial -- you need better arguments or you need to "get over it" yourself.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:04 3

37. Hemlocke (unregistered)

The best part is? Samsung could get soaked for 2-3 times what the damages were. THAT would be hilarious.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 01:47 5

110. willard12 (Posts: 1678; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)

Did you just completely ingnored the F700 and this entire article on "prior art." We wouldn't want you to get bogged down on prior art....so keep calling it Apple's IP, though it arleady existed. Maybe you were a juror

"We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 10:31 2

142. Fallout09 (Posts: 421; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)

Ironicly Hogan has a patent for a DVR device that was granted 3 years after TIVO was released to the market. Meaning he didnt want to discuss "Prior Art" because prior art existed before his patent and could render his patent invalid.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 18:21 1

158. jroc74 (Posts: 6005; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

This case gets more n more interesting....even after its over with.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 06:07 3

132. SGSatlantis (Posts: 226; Member since: 20 Jul 2011)

Guys please have mercy on ardent1, I hate pressing "show" for every comment he makes:)

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:43 2

21. Hemlocke (unregistered)

The problem is that your narrative is flawed. iOS had voice control, multitouch, pinch-to-zoom, the first capacitive touchscreen smartphone OS...almost every modern smartphone, and every Android phone, derives itself from the iPhone. There are so few things Android had first, and none of them are major in light of the fact that Android is a 180 degree change of direction from the original intended product in the wake of the iPhone's introduction in 2007.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:53 14

23. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

His point was that smartphones around before the iPhone had these features. iPhone took from others as much as Samsung took from iPhone. Its called being competitive. Yes the original version of Android was more aimed towards Blackberry but then iPhone came out and Google saw that as the real competition and revised Android to compete against it. There is a fine line between copying and competing. Coke doesn't sue Pepsi just bacause they had a Vanilla variant first.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:04 1

38. quickweevil (Posts: 51; Member since: 21 Dec 2011)

You can't patent a flavor. That's a poor example.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:13 4

41. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

Its about as patentable then anything Apple is trying for.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:19

45. quickweevil (Posts: 51; Member since: 21 Dec 2011)

Wrong, because what Apple has patents for (prior art aside simply because I'm not sure what evidence is out there) are legally patentable. Smells and flavors cannot be patented...

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 12:07

145. -box- (Posts: 3991; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)

@quickweevil I dunno, you might be able to patent a flavor if it was new and unique and required a lot of crafting... or at least patent the process or the ratio of X ingredients to make said flavor. Doesn't seem much different than patenting new materials (i.e. Kevlar) in concept

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:59 6

32. jroc74 (Posts: 6005; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

First capacitive touch screen smart phone OS goes to what was on the LG Prada.

Voice control was out before iOS.

I will give Apple multi touch and pinch to zoom on phones....but thats about it as far as firsts.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:03 2

35. Hemlocke (unregistered)

Voice control may have been on Nokia, but not Android. Check your facts.

The first capacitive touchscreen smartphone was the Prada, but they were almost simultaneous debuts. You think Apple copied them in a couple of weeks? Where are LG's patents if they had development first?

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 19:17 2

69. jroc74 (Posts: 6005; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

Never said anybody copied anybody.

I just addressed what you thought were first for the iPhone and iOS.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 19:18 2

71. jroc74 (Posts: 6005; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

I never mentioned Android.

You basically said every modern smart phone is derived from the iPhone. Thats not entirely true.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 20:08 5

83. tedkord (Posts: 11662; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

The point is, as has clearly been shown, Apple copies just as much as anyone else. And worse, they then patent what they copied, and try to stop others from using it.

The more things change,v the more they stay the same. This is the same thing Apple pulled with the GUI. They stole it from Xerox, then tried to sue Microsoft for stealing it from them. Fortunately, we had saner patent laws back then, or for the next twenty years if you wanted a home computer other than an Apple product, you'd have had to stay in a command line DOS type environment.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 00:14 3

107. luxzy801 (Posts: 140; Member since: 16 Jun 2010)

LG could not patent capacitive screen technology, neither could Apple because it was patented back in 1976 by GE (i believe, I might have the year wrong). I also believe multi-touch was patented back in 2003 by NEC or 3COM. The only credit that I will give Apple is the pinch to zoom.
The iPhone was several months behind the Prada, the prada was already being sold when the iPhone was going through the FCC.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 12:01 3

144. MAS10X (Posts: 38; Member since: 26 Jul 2011)

and you think that the F700 copied the iPhone with just one month release difference??? Is that plausible in your logic?

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 18:26 1

159. jroc74 (Posts: 6005; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

E X A C T L Y!

BUT...Apple actually said this in the trail: It took Samsung 3 months to copy what we've been developing for 5 years.


In Apple eyes, and the fanboys....Samsung could have made the F700 in a month.

This case was a sham from the beginning, period.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 00:05 3

106. luxzy801 (Posts: 140; Member since: 16 Jun 2010)

Well said jroc74;
I was about to write the same thing but you beat me to it.
Great minds think alike

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 20:09

84. AppleIsGod (Posts: 55; Member since: 27 Aug 2012)

No Apple deserved to win and will win. Samsung did copy the ios os. Use the touchwiz UI and use ios, you will know immediately. Sansung is a copycat " monkey see, monkey do". Stock android is kinda different than ios but touchwiz resembles ios too much. They got into this patent war because of them own mess.

Apple will win and Apple is God.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 00:44 4

108. tedkord (Posts: 11662; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

Got around the ban, eh Taco?

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 18:28 1

160. jroc74 (Posts: 6005; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)

I thought a copy was a 100% duplicate...not some icons here n there, some features here n there.

When I make a copy on a copying machine...I get a 100% duplicate.

BTW....the OS and UI is more than a few icons and a couple of features.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:44 9

2. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

If the jury had decided on day one that Samsung was infringing on those patents as it seems to come out that they have... wouldn't that be more then enough reason to consider this jury to not be a reasonable jury? Is my logic wrong on this?

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:49 2

4. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)

Yes, because the article said day one of deliberations, not day one of the trial.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:55

6. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

Yeah... the way that the last sentence of the article is written can easily be interperated differently.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:28 7

16. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1130; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)

The jury seems to pretty much have their minds made up that Samsung copied Apple all along, and a foreman said that is why Samsung's arguments were over looked, and that is why they increased the penalty. This is blatantly wrong and unjust. They didn't take the time to sift through the patents or merits that the patents offered. That's another reason that the jury decision is tainted. It's obvious that the Galaxy S did copy apple based on the appearance. That's all that they should be paying for copy infringement, and snap back pinch to zoom!

The jury should have inspected every patent on the table when making such a huge award. Disregarding Samsung's arguments ,and failing to look at every patent on the table shows a prejudiced jury from the start....especially when the foreman, and other jurors say that is what happened. Now go read the documents before saying that this didn't happen.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:25

48. quickweevil (Posts: 51; Member since: 21 Dec 2011)

You're missing the point that it wasn't actually the jury's job to decide on the validity of the patents. They overlooked Samsung's arguments because Samsung KNOWINGLY broke the law to make their infringing devices therefore their arguments should be invalid.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 19:00 8

62. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

wrong. completely wrong.
Samsung's defense evidence was KEY to determining the entire case's validity.

If samsung proved prior art and tech existed before Apple's patents, then Apple's patents should not exist. Without those patents, Apple has no case against Samsung. Apple can not sue samsung for a patent it does not own. That was the whole point of samsung's defense.

What the jury did was say "screw it, we dont care, we want to punish samsung regardless of proof of validity"

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 16:58 17

9. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

Samsung bungled the case. But even bungling it, the jury shouldn't have passed on the prior art. According to that talkative juror, they just intentionally skipped looking at samsung's prior art during jury deliberations so they could "get it over with" and get on to "punishing samsung" which as he admitted, is what they wanted to do. You dont need a lawyer to watch a video and go "yea, that was pinch to zoom in 2003, no patent for apple should have been awarded".

The more these jurors talk, the less I think it was about samsung messing up the case and more about "you never had a shot in hell" with the jurors pre-deciding their opinions. If thats the case, than to my un-lawyered eyes, it looks like samsung's chances of getting an "unreasonable jury" toss out go up.. even if its just slightly.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:42 3

20. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1130; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)

I could not have said it better.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:51

22. Hemlocke (unregistered)

Deciding after evidence is presented and testimony is made is not "pre-deciding." "We knew the first day" is the first day of deliberations.

As for the "prior art" table, that thing had about as much to do with modern touchscreens as resistive screens do. Yes, they both utilize a screen, but only one utilizes internal mechanisms to create responses.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:54 1

24. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2703; Member since: 26 May 2011)

That's just flat out not true. The juror said that they looked at all of the prior art, determined that there was obviously a lot before Apple but still ruled that Samsung infringed. The "skipping" quote is widely misread, and was just meant to say that the jury didn't go through every device once they determined that the infringement had taken place.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:55 3

26. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

It still doesn't make sense to me that they can say... Ok there is infact prior art to show that this existed before Apple but we are going to find in favor of Apple anyway.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:57

30. Hemlocke (unregistered)

Just because a juror said they "skipped it," it does not mean that was the only time they visited it. If I ask you to tell me a story about 3 days, I'm not asking you to account for every second, just the highlights.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:02 1

34. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

I'm not talking about skipping it. I'm talking about flat out saying that there is prior art... but we are still going to find in favor for Apple on these patents that should be invalidated by prior art that we agree is there.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:05

39. Hemlocke (unregistered)

They didn't actually say there was prior art that invalidates the claims. The same result is not the same mechanism, and the mechanism is the heart of the multitouch patent.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 13:31 2

148. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

actually, they said that the forman, who had patent experience "explained" prior art to them. They looked at the first part for prior art, which i believe was the bounce back, and then they said they skipped the whole second part, which i believe was on pinch to zoom (or it was vice versa) because they couldnt figure it out and didnt want to be there longer than they needed to. they SKIPPED the part where they needed to DECIDE if the prior art was valid because they were confused.. or impatient.. or both.
Not for each and every phone.. if the patent itself was valid.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 19:55 3

78. MartyK (Posts: 816; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)

Remixfa, I agree with you 100%, but I will go one step further;

Since this person suppose to be a IP Judge with all this knowledge, when she Saw Samsung F700 and the Diamond touch (pinch to zoom) this so-call Judge of fairness should had toss that part of the case out base on prior art!

Prior Art-- includes things like any patents related to your invention, any published articles about your invention, and any public demonstrations.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:19 4

14. kabukijoe (Posts: 102; Member since: 06 Mar 2010)


posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:25

15. cncrim (Posts: 823; Member since: 15 Aug 2011)

I don't like the idea sell ban on any product, however I believe with all the evidence apple presenting in court very convinced. I say $1B is a small fine to pay for copy.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 19:09 2

67. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)

The amount of the fine is neither here nor there. The one-sidedness of the verdict that apple didn't get fined and didn't have any invalidation of its patents is a gross injustice

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:31 1

18. som (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)

Apple will continue their lawsuits to other phone makers on rectangle and rounded edge. What was crazy patent Apple owned. Now Samsung make rectangle and rounder edge like Galaxy S3.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 17:35 4

19. jimjam (Posts: 257; Member since: 28 Jun 2011)

I can prove the jury to be unreasonable. The samsung SII t-mobile is in the list of damages and yet apple don't even sell t-mobile phones. Unreasonable, stupid and idiotic. Even funnier is that the AT&T version is awarded less damages than the t-mobile one!

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:00 1

33. Hemlocke (unregistered)

Huh? Does it matter what carrier it is sold on if it infringes the patents? "Wait, you can't ban my knock-off Ferrari Enzo because Ferrari doesn't sell to the Pitcairn Islands, but my company, Merrari, does."

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:08 1

40. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

I think it certainly needs to be looked at when you are tlaking about awarding ddamages based on lost sales. Many people would not leave tmobile tog et an iPhone on another carrier simply because of monthly bill difference not because there is an iPhone like device on the carrier.

posted on 28 Aug 2012, 14:26 1

150. gwuhua1984 (Posts: 1237; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)

Infringe patents yes, but hurting sales, no, not from every carrier at least. iPhone isn't selling iPhone on T-Mobile to begin with, therefore they will have zero sales from T-Mobile. You can't claim lost sales from a source when you don't have any of your products being sold by them.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:15 4

43. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

its the same as the Vibrant which was one of the biggest "offenders". It is a Tmobile only variant. Of course, by apple's reasoning, everyone was fooled into buying the vibrant because they were too dumb to not know it was not an iphone. Yup, because everyone was going to immediately run to ATT to pay double the monthly bill just to have an iphone lol.

I own a vibrant, and I sold a ton of them. I can tell you that the #1 reason people bought the phone was the screen and its class leading horsepower.
Yea, it looked a little too much like the 3gs if you look at it face on in the app drawer (and at pretty much no other time.. it was thinner, taller, lighter, and android), but the thing came out when the i4 was the big hit, not the 3gs. So its not like they were trying to copy apple's new product anyways. They got dinged on that fair n square as well as with the bounce effect.. though the P2Z patent needs to be tossed. Considering the Vibrant was in no way a direct competitor to the iphone, the damages should be pretty minimal though. Also, impartial people need to look at samsung's 3G patents as Apple was found to be violating them in other samsung lawsuits in other countries.

posted on 27 Aug 2012, 18:14 3

42. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)

(1) Apple sued M$ way back in 90's for Trade Dress (or Look and Feel) when M$ introduced GUI to windows OS. Apple Lost and they lost the case right upto Supreme Court. Even then Apple had tried to license GUI for a price which M$ refused (just like Samsung did in present case)

Natural justice Prevailed.

(2) Apple sued Samsung and won 1 billiojn in damages as this time around case was against an "Outsider"

Jingoism prevalied over Natural Justice.

There are precendents to compare.... no need to base arguments based on sentiments :)

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories