Jury deliberations underway in Apple v. Samsung trial
0. phoneArena 22 Aug 2012, 20:27 posted on
The 9 person jury in the Apple v. Samsung patent trial has sat through all of that testimony, including hours of listening to expert witnesses, and now they must sit in the jury room and see if they can reach a decision...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. theBankRobber (Posts: 642; Member since: 22 Sep 2011)
If Samsung wins, this will help slow down other Apple lawsuits. If Apple wins, this will increase lawsuits and use the same tactics against others. Its ether a huge gain or huge loss.
3. jael206 (Posts: 114; Member since: 18 Jul 2012)
if apple wins, google/moto will enter the patent lawsuit scene.. no gain for apple there
9. aikonix (Posts: 59; Member since: 08 Apr 2012)
google/moto is already filing regardless of apples win/loss....
28. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
yes, Apple must be punished for being against phones evolution and trying monopolize phone market with "rectangle" patents
Steve Jobs=drugs, lying, desire for power (FBI files=facts)
why any one could trust Apple???
4. parkwaydr (Posts: 572; Member since: 07 Sep 2011)
well hopefully the jury members have some common sense and see that galaxy sales have not hurt apple in any way shape or form.
6. Aeires (unregistered)
Hopefully the jury has common sense and knows you can't patent a rectangle and the color black.
10. frydaexiii (Posts: 1157; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
The thing is, it has hurt iPhone sales, but not because it's a copy, the Galaxy S3 is just simply better in every aspect except build material (Well, glass isn't exactly sturdy either, but like people say, at least it gives you a premium feel).
29. s.mrabet (Posts: 117; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)
A house built of glass gives a premium feel, but a phone made out of glass ( back & front) is just stupid!
32. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
i will never understand people that think glass and aluminum are "premium" materials. They are super cheap, super common, and in the case of glass, super fragile. A lack of understanding about the materials involved creates a misconception of premium.
If you want premium, go look at one of those awful Vertu phones. They are "premium" all over... and ugly as heck for it.
17. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Hopefully the Jury realizes that by the time the Galaxy S came out the iPhone had 4 models and was already the most well established smart phone on the market. That the people who purchased a Galaxy did so because they wanted it, not because they thought a product without the circular home button and with a big branded logo reading "SAMSUNG" was somehow an APPLE Product.
Also I hope they realize that Apple is comparing the first iPhone to the Galaxy S and claiming they lost money. It is silly because it assumes that everyone who purchased a Galaxy had the option to purchase an iPhone (iPhone was locked to AT&T in the US only). That these people who hang on every word from Steve Jobs somehow couldn't tell the latest version of the iPhone from the Galaxy S or the original. That the Galaxy S was stealing money from Apple based on the idea that it looked like the original iPhone (Which again... black and rectangle) and not the new iPhone. I am pretty sure by the time the Galaxy was released anyone who was going to buy the, by then, 3 year old model of the iPhone had done so.
Here are some interesting phone designs:
Both of the above are from 2004!
Is from 2006!
2006! Look a row of colorful icons in a 4x4 grid... opps!
The point of those pictures is to show that cell phone designers were working with a natural evolution of the cell phone when they began to design it, that you can't point to one product and claim "this was the start of it all" but you can look at how cell phones started to trade buttons on the phone for ones on screen and how the shape trended towards rectangular with a centered screen.
23. tedkord (Posts: 3939; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Exactly. I bought an Android, not because it was similar to an iPhone, but because it's the anti iPhone.
I don't want locked down. I don't want Steve Jobs deciding what I can or cannot do with the device I paid for. I don't want to be fed minor updates every 18 months, or to wait years to get the tech others have.
I'm not anti iPhone. I think it did bring the smartphone to the masses, brought it to the forefront of tech. I still think it's a great device, perfect for many. Lacking for others.
I am anti Apple, however. Simply because of these patent games they're playing. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Apple has seen all this happen before, with PC's. They know, from experience, that many OEMs working on a more open product will easily outpace them in innovation, and market share. They cannot keep up, no one could. They tried the same shenanigans back then to stifle innovation and litigate away competition, but back then we had saner ip laws, and you couldn't patent software, only copyright the code. And they were smacked down. And they're scared to death that history will repeat itself.
5. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
The only worry I have is over the danger of precedent. If Apple wins this it gives them free reign to really chomp down on the other manufacturers.
8. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yup. thats my big worry as well. precedent can be a very dangerous thing if its used wrong.
13. MartyK (Posts: 669; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
I don't thing Samsung is worry, they have so many grounds for appeal, this Judge was bias from jump street.
11. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
This is a huge case. Like others have said it will set the tone. Hopefully the jury makes the righ decision.
20. joey_sfb (Posts: 1975; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Welcome back! And your comment is neutral for once.
22. frydaexiii (Posts: 1157; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
Yeah, when he says "Hopefully the jury makes the righ decision", he probably means "Yup, Apple's totally gonna win."
14. jael206 (Posts: 114; Member since: 18 Jul 2012)
Everyone who is keeping an eye on this case should read this:
utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=F eed%3A+xda-developers%2FShsH+%28xda-developers%29&utm_content=Face Book
15. tedkord (Posts: 3939; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
What's going to hurt Apple here is the actual devices in the deliberation chamber. Jurors are going to pick up a Samsung device, unlock it and see the home screen, not the app drawer. Then, they're going to say, "This looks nothing like Apple's evidence pictures."
I've got a feeling justice is going to be served, and Apple are going to have a number of their specious patents invalidated. A jury full of people with common sense spells trouble for Apple.
25. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
You're nuts the original galaxy phone is a total iPhone clone
26. Sniggly (Posts: 6496; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
The original Galaxy S (international and T-Mobile/Verizon) variants were pretty iPhone esque.
The Epic 4G wasn't so much, and the Captivate was very different hardware wise.
The ONLY resemblance the Galaxy S series had after that was the middle home button on the international version.
And THEN, the ONLY major software "ripoff" one could claim the Galaxy S 3 has is S Voice, which has actually been shown to work as well as, if not better than, Siri itself.
27. tedkord (Posts: 3939; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
And the original iPhone was a total ripoff of the LG Prada. And the iPad is a rip off of the Fidler tablet.
And now Apple are in court arguing that the same differences in size and aspect ratio that they claim don't make the tab different from the iPad, make the iPad different from the Fidler tablet.
Maybe Samsung should take a page from Apple's book and bring in Photoshopped pictures of the Fidler tablet next to the iPad.
30. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Good one a feature phone with a crap interface that no one bought and some obscure tablet.
Why can't you admit Samsung copied Apple. It's pretty obvious.
31. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
because that "feature phone" and "obscure tablet" were both out before the iphone and had very similar features, which invalidates Apple's claims. Popularity is not a factor in a design dispute. Wake up.
35. Crossblade (Posts: 184; Member since: 21 Apr 2005)
How was the PRADA out before the iPhone? PRADA was announced a few days after the iPhone ...http://www.phonearena.com/news
33. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
taco is back. our week of peace is over. He's already resuming turbo "fact free" troll mode.
36. Savage (Posts: 431; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)
Yep. And he's banned again now. Not limited, totally banned.
16. exynos5 (Posts: 21; Member since: 17 Aug 2012)
I hope jury will decide on the grounds of...what is at stake?
18. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
You know, the funniest part of it all is that ALL MODERN CELL PHONE DESIGN has to thank Sony for its design. The device that inspired nearly all these devices general shape is the Sony Clie lineup of PDAs, especially the PEG-TH55 model.
19. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5289; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Complexity tends to go against the plaintiff. Juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant absent compelling evidence to convict. I have been forecasting a mixed result. After all is said and done, Apple is not going to get the big win it was looking for out of this case.
21. Jay_F (Posts: 236; Member since: 29 Nov 2011)
No matter who wins, the appeals will go on for ages. The only real winners here will be the lawyers' bank accounts.
34. duckymomo26 (Posts: 19; Member since: 01 Jun 2012)
If this battle ends bad. I'll just wait for Google to finish this once and for all