With the jury seated, opening statements due today in Apple v. Samsung 2
posted by Alan F. / Apr 01, 2014, 12:06 PM
The current jury, while not tech savvy, has at least one Samsung attorney worried that "Samsung is starting out a little behind." The jury pool did not seem too familiar with Samsung devices, most admitting to owning a number of Apple products.
Opening statements will start today and when both sides are done, Apple will call marketing chief Phil Schiller to the stand. Apple is seeking $40 from Samsung for each phone or tablet sold that infringes on an Apple patent. Overall, Apple is seeking $2 billion. This time around, the trial will feature recent devices including the Samsung Galaxy S III. Most experts believe that this could lead to a larger jury award than the $1.05 billion that Apple won after the first trial. That was later reduced to $929.8 million following a ruling by Judge Lucy Koh and a retrial. For its part, Samsung is seeking $7 million after filing cross-claims against Apple.
Some of the patents that will be at play in the new trial include the '604 universal search patent, also known as the Siri patent, and the infamous slide-to-unlock patent.
source: SanJoseMercuryNews via GigaOM
Posts: 1034; Member since: Mar 30, 2012
I love how this case is starting out on April fools day, seems appropriate
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 12:16 PM 3
I love PA users take this court hearing to the most serious levels lol. Two corporations fighting over silly things for billions and billions of dollars. LOOOOOOL your voices and opinions mean nothing unless you're in those seats. Don't pop a vein.
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 12:21 PM 3
Lol tell me about it. But whatever lol. It makes the people (who go haywire and comment with serious thought out google-researched answers) feel good about themselves to a bunch of complete strangers on this site, egotistically boosted by green thumbs and related fanboys. xD xD xD
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:22 PM 0
Posts: 3269; Member since: Nov 15, 2013
we all know result will be in apple's favour... what plumber, school teacher, police officer etc has to do with such a technical case? seems like court is insane. ... how they all will understand the technicalities of a technology? seem like donkeys are going to run in a horse race... Next time I will not wonder if I will hear any news that US has deployed taylors to do operations in hospital or chickens are been raised instead of cows to give milk
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 1:12 PM 3
Posts: 2334; Member since: Apr 30, 2013
That's not a good analogy at all. Because someone going into a political office affects the best interest of a republic in one way or another. So their vote on how they think they want their country ran, regardless of profession, counts. Now, a technological patent case is different. That's where experience and understanding of the prior history of a technological patent came from, and whether or not another patent in its current form is too vague to something preexisting, should be valid. This case, sadly will come down to who has the best and most convincing spin story, irrespective of the facts.
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:16 PM 2
Posts: 3722; Member since: Aug 16, 2011
And elections don't come down to who runs the best campaign with the best spin possible? In both cases the voters/jurors are heavily if not entirely reliant on evidence presented by each party. In the case of an election, the voter chooses, based on his interpretation of data, the candidate he thinks is best fit to run the country. In the juror's case, he chooses, based on his interpretation of the data, which party's case is better, i.e. which side fits what our nation's justice system would deem as correct. Both situations regard how well their country is run.
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:49 PM 1
Posts: 985; Member since: Jul 31, 2012
A jury makes a decision, they don't elect someone knowledgeable to make a decision. They should have all technical people on the jury if we want an intelligent conclusion. The reality is that any company hoping to sue for 25% of the valve of the device itself, over software features that are worth less than 1% of the device, is completely egregious. It's outrageous at any level. The fact that many of these patents even exist is testament to a broken system, and that they can sue for 100 times the valve is anticompetitive to say the least.
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:45 PM 2
i love how they said they look alot less tech oriented are you stupid a sec is on her or his phone all day for work as well same with plumbers a solar panel guy really all of them know what is going on in the tech world a cop and a school teacher wow samsung is efffffffffed cant wait till apples sues htc for the iphone 6 looking like the htc m8
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:26 PM 2
i love how they are suing over the universal search when web os had and made that first then apple came out with it later, that should be a frand patent just like samsungs 3g tech is a frand patent because all phones need it to compete
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:36 PM 0
The jury pool did not seem too familiar with Samsung devices, most admitting to owning a number of Apple products. NOT FAMILIAR WITH SAMSUNG DEVICES? REALLY? SAMSUNG DEVICES ARE WELL KNOWN AROUND THE GLOBE, SPECIALLY IN THE U.S. TV's, PHONES, REFRIGERATORS, MICROWAVES...oh boy..poor samsung. Although i hate samsung phones for being ugly, cheap, bad materials and long term and expensive propaganda, (except for the note 2 and 3), i feel towards samsung...bad samsung bad.... ps: Google phones lover
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 12:53 PM 0
Posts: 30836; Member since: Feb 05, 2011
The company with an "a" in its name should win.
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:10 PM 1
Posts: 2334; Member since: Apr 30, 2013
Why? What if your favorite "A" starts putting out lackluster products because they have no competition to keep them in check?
posted on Apr 01, 2014, 2:23 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):