Samsung and Apple allowed to add products to lawsuit, such as the Apple iPhone 5 and the Samsung Galaxy S III
Apple iPhone 5 as an Apple device that infringed on one of Samsung's patents. In response, Apple added the Samsung GALAXY Note 10.1, the Samsung Galaxy S III and the Android 4.1 operating system to the Samsung GALAXY Nexus with its claim.
In making his ruling to allow Samsung to add the latest Apple iPhone model to the suit, Judge Grewal said Samsung acted with "reasonable diligence" in requesting that the court add the phone to its claim. Even though Apple did not oppose the addition of the Apple iPhone 5 to the case, Judge Grewal told Apple's lawyers to "think twice before opposing similar amendments reflecting other newly released products — e.g. the iPad 4 and iPad mini — that Samsung may propose in the near future."
1. MeoCao (unregistered)
I think SS should not agree to trial by jury this time, ordinary people in the jury will act on their prejudice and Apple is US company, SS is not
20. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Samsung wasn't well-served by their trial counsel in the lawsuit heard by judge Koh. They should have pursued a trial strategy based on invalidating Apple's patents. Google pursued an invalidity strategy in Oracle v. Google and cleaned Oracle's clock.
Where the company is based has very little impact on a jury in CA. San Jose has a very diverse jury pool. Texas or Arizona might be another matter, though.
24. -box- (Posts: 3984; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Or perhaps somewhere in the midwest. There's less a sense of "gotta have it" for phones, as they're not used as frequently in public as on the coasts, and there's less walking around (like NYC where you walk or taxi everywhere), so they'lre less of a status symbol and more of a tool. Granted there's still a strong sense of patriotism, but also of fair play and justice, and presenting facts that apple doesn't manufacture in the US (Samsung does) and apple has a third party make all of its products in China (though I think Foxconn is building a factory in Brazil) would resonate with the jury members and remove any "home field advantage".
In theory, anyway.
28. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3071; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
You've never been to the Midwest have you? I live here. While we may not have the population of the coasts, people are just as obsessed about mobile as anywhere else. Any store by the big 4 carriers is usually packed. I currently live in a town with a population of 1500, and the smartphone vs regular phones is around 50/50. I don't quite get the status symbol/tool comment. I am obsessed with mobile, because they are great tools. Currently I've got 3 smartphones, a tablet, & a couple laptops.
Sorry if I'm coming off as a d**k, but it bugs me when people say something about where I live that's untrue.
30. -box- (Posts: 3984; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Born and raised here, only have left for short vacations.
I think your own personal perception is clouding your judgement.
31. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I agree with Meo - the average American is clueless when it comes to tech.
2. Izzy_V (Posts: 216; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
Might as well have said "Samsung and apple allowed to add fuel to the fire". Samsung needs to win in order to make the tide turn in the consumers' favor. Losing will give apple another incentive to continue on its lawsuit rampage.
9. StringCheese01 (Posts: 64; Member since: 27 Jan 2012)
I agree. UGH this is sooo stupid! It's just stifling innovation, hasn't all this suing and fighting been enough?
3. lilg29 (Posts: 89; Member since: 14 Sep 2011)
Oh god... just let me get my gs3 before you do anything stupid against the tyrant.
4. Nickmfnjackson (Posts: 101; Member since: 21 Jan 2010)
Forgot the products. They should just have specially selected warriors and said warriors should battle in an arena to the death over patent licenses.
5. maryaaadil (Posts: 146; Member since: 07 Apr 2012)
It is US only where sammy have lost big one
Elsewhere SS have won...
6. tiara6918 (Posts: 1949; Member since: 26 Apr 2012)
Let's just hope for luck on samsung to win the case against apple otherwise big losses may happen to the company
19. hinz10 (Posts: 15; Member since: 12 Sep 2012)
In the US of A maybe, but in the rest of the real world it will never happen.
10. blackspot (Posts: 102; Member since: 14 Nov 2012)
Thumbs down to Patent Wars & thumbs up to Innovation Wars!
11. Kronic (banned) (Posts: 321; Member since: 11 Sep 2012)
Both sides should sign a licensing agreement to put an end to litigation in the tech industry.
17. someones4 (Posts: 622; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
No way. HTC did it because they are spineless. Samsung did nothing wrong and they have as much right as Apple to protect their intellectual properties.
26. Aeires (unregistered)
They tried to do that but couldn't agree on pricing terms.
14. phil2n (Posts: 487; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
here we go,
here we go,
here we go again!!!!!
15. blackspot (Posts: 102; Member since: 14 Nov 2012)
Lol! Yeah, this has been dragging on for some time now.
21. dan86 (Posts: 298; Member since: 17 Mar 2012)
Apple is just frustrated. Jellybean is ages ahead of iOS.
22. Aeires (unregistered)
If they have to reveal all the paperwork mentioned in the first trial, I'm willing to bet Apple will drop this lawsuit. Keeping their true profit information secret is worth more than $1 billion they won the first time. If you take into account Samsung will be allowed to use all their prior art, it's doubtful Apple will win, or if they do, they won't be getting as much this time at it. Keeping the public in the dark on how much they really overpay for iProducts is worth a lot more to their image and retaining loyal customers.
23. ronjr123 (Posts: 67; Member since: 16 Feb 2012)
Just hope SS doesn't use the same group of lawyers. If they do, hopefully they have learned their lesson. Jury foreman issues aside, I still think SS lost that last trial on their own.
One can only hope they would allow video cameras with live streaming! Of course Apple would never allow that.