x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

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

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

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: 141; 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: 378; 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 (unregistered)

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: 268; 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: 14605; 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 (unregistered)

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: 6019; 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: 114; 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: 114; 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: 6019; 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: 6019; 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: 6019; 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: 14120; 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: 6019; 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.

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

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories