Entering the World of Smartphones

  Quote

Tally of Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA) and Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringement on Apple patent claims:

• '381 "rubber-banding" patent: Yes for all devices.
  
• '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept and Replenish smartphones.
  
• '163 "tap-to-zoom" patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&T, i9100, S II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Replenish.
  No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.
  
• D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  No for Ace.
  Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
  
• D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, and Vibrant.
  No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.
  
• D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  Yes for STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  
• D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices
  

 

Prior Knowledge findings:

 

Apple proved through evidence that Samsung "took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087, D’305, and/or D’889 Patents."

 

• D'677 patent: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  
• D'087 patent: Yes for S 4G, Vibrant. No for Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, S2 Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  
• D'305: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Showcase, Gem, Indugle, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  
• '889 patent: No for both Galaxy Tab models.
  Willful infringement findings:
   
  
• '381 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
  
• '915 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
  
• '163 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
  
• D'087 patent: No for SEC, SEA and STA
  
• D'889 patent: No for SEC, SEA and STA
  Patent Invalidation
   
  Samsung was unable to prove any of Apple's patents were invalid, including the '893 trade dress, while Apple was able to prove only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable.
   
  Dilution of trademark:
   
  Regarding registered iPhone trade dress:
  

• SEC: Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant.
  No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, S2 i9100, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  
• STA: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  

 

Regarding unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress.

 

• SEC: Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  
• STA: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  

 

Damages

 

The jury found Samsung responsible for $1,049,343,540. Split per phone:

 

• Prevail: Over $57 million.
  
• Infuse 4G: $44,792,974
  
• Mesmerize: $53,123,612
  
• Replenish: $3,350,256
  
• Transform: $954,060
  

 

Tally of Apple infringement of Samsung patents:

 

• '516 UMTS patent: No
  
• '460 patent: No
  
• '893 patent: No
  
• '711 patent: No
  
• '460 patent: No
  

 

Antitrust

 

Apple did not prove that Samsung breached obligations with UMTS wireless communications standard nor could the company offer sufficient evidence that the Galaxy maker violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the industry with its technology.

 

and who is one of Apple's biggest LCD suppliers? corporations make no sense.

Then they just invested $4 billion in a factory to make iPhone and iPad chips?

http://m.techcrunch.com/2012/08/22/samsung-invests-4b-in-austin-to-produce-iphone-and-ipad-chips/

You could call it "Corporate Pragmatism". Whenever there's a positive business case to support your worst enemy, you support your worst enemy.

For me one of the best reasons for going iPhone if you're a music maker is this:

[youtubeHD]Stcf_8H_qVM[/youtubeHD]

(posting from an iPhone)

  On 8/25/2012 at 11:23 AM, eugene said:

motherfuckers.

There will be appeals - and a (strong?) chance that this jury's verdicts will not stand.

http://www.groklaw.n...012082510525390

by the way: if anyone has a free day and several cups of coffee, go through groklaw for some amazing coverage of the case.

How the fuck do they find this phone infringing

dunno, but this is a bit blatant though:

The very first one (top left) yes I can see the claim being valid - until you put the phones side-by-side. As for the rest? Not a chance - they're all very different looking, especially in person.

Really? You can't tell the difference? (not you goDel, I mean the blithering idiots who decided the S2 was too similar)

the S3 fortunately was not found to infringe - lol

And from 2007 the LG Prada phone, while not stylistically all that similar, some fo the functions are very similar:

http://macdailynews....r_similarities/

The first comment from there is fucking hilarious in retrospect.

  Quote

Hmm…I have to imagine it’s going to be tough for LG to win this one, simply because the entire industry is probably going to move to handsets that look more or less like this–an iPod sized brick with a touchscreen. From that perspective, they’re all going to look more or less the same.

I'm a long-time Apple fan (not fan boi), but this lawsuit is bullshit.

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

- Steve Jobs, 1996

"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion [£25bn] in the bank, to right this wrong."

- Steve Jobs, 2011

I think the case is not about showing the differences, but about showing the similarities.

Sure there are some differences, but the similarities are obvious as well. Note the time of the clock icon of the Iphone and the galaxy. Or the green icon in the lower left corner

Clock is on the top, green button is where your thumb can easily access it. That's functionality, and I really don't think it justifies a lawsuit. That's just me though.

It's functionality that they're both green with a white diagonal telephone horn? The time on the clock-icons almost matches as well. Look, I agree this lawsuit is a bit ridiculous, but some of the similarities are a bit obvious. I mean, do these Samsungs look like their older brothers before the iPhone, or do they just look like the iPhone. If they had genes, these phones are basterd sons of mother samsung after being sexed by apple.

  On 8/25/2012 at 7:47 PM, chenGOD said:

The very first one (top left) yes I can see the claim being valid - until you put the phones side-by-side. As for the rest? Not a chance - they're all very different looking, especially in person.

 

Really? You can't tell the difference? (not you goDel, I mean the blithering idiots who decided the S2 was too similar)

 

the S3 fortunately was not found to infringe - lol

one geometric shape tooo far on the s2 compared to the s3... on the front panel anyways. the s3 has longer curves also.

Yeah, I agree there are similarities. It's comparable to OS manufacturers attempting to sue each other for calling locations in a hard drive "files" or "folders" and using an icon to describe them. I don't know if that happened, but it probably did. I think it's ridiculous, immoral, an abuse of patents, and stops developers from being able to build on good ideas over time.

Anyway, I just don't like these sorts of lawsuits. I'm not here to argue about whether it legally should be OK to sue other people for stealing the idea of a green box or a clock (which is a particularly ridiculous claim, if they made it); just wanted to voice my opinion that Apple are acting like real dickbags.

See: those Steve Jobs quotes I posted. That is such a seriously selfish twist of mindset that I can not endorse his company's behavior.

Also, regarding your analogy (@goDel): While people may not like them, bastard children aren't illegal. If phones had genes, I'm sure Apple would patent them in the style of Craig Venter. And for that, I think they're cunts.

They are acting like dickbags. But seeing their history, I'm not surprised. The Apple - Windows thing is still fresh on their minds, I guess.

And yes, Apple bought the GUI from Xerox.

  On 8/25/2012 at 8:38 PM, luke viia said:

Also, regarding your analogy (@goDel): While people may not like them, bastard children aren't illegal. If phones had genes, I'm sure Apple would patent them in the style of Craig Venter. And for that, I think they're cunts.

The child might not be illegal, but the sexual act might have been. One of the two was an unwilling partner. Following the analogy, daddy Apple has been raped by mother Samsung. As mentioned, Apple buys parts from Samsung. As far as I can tell, Samsung hasn't bought anything from Apple.

  On 8/25/2012 at 8:09 PM, goDel said:

I think the case is not about showing the differences, but about showing the similarities.

 

Sure there are some differences, but the similarities are obvious as well. Note the time of the clock icon of the Iphone and the galaxy. Or the green icon in the lower left corner

look and feel is not patentable - see Apple vs Windows.

Also note that Apple has not paid a red cent in FRAND licensing patents to Samsung (who own some very important patents when it comes to actual cell phone technology, not BS design patents).

Look at it this way - can you easily distinguish one flat screen tv from another?

  On 8/25/2012 at 8:40 PM, goDel said:

And yes, Apple bought the GUI from Xerox.

Are you sure they bought it? I've never heard that. I just went to check the wiki about the case where Apple sued Microsoft for using a GUI:

  Quote

Apple had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.

 

Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.

 

Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed, for a variety of legal reasons^[4].

In short: they are dickbags. I like Gates' quote on the whole thing:

"No, Steve, I think its more like we both have a rich neighbor named Xerox, and you broke in to steal the TV set, and you found out I'd been there first, and you said. 'Hey that's no fair! I wanted to steal the TV set!'" - Bill Gates' response after Steve Jobs accused Microsoft of borrowing the GUI (Graphical User Interface) from Apple for Windows 1.0*

Also, your definition of 'bastard' is a little more restricted than mine, lol. To me that word just means that the parents weren't married... rape isn't really implied. If it's implied in your analogy, then "mother" Apple has been raping the hell out of her competitors for decades. Anyway...

About the deal between Apple and Xerox:

  Quote

Xerox Received Financial Compensation from Apple

The compensation for the Xerox PARC technology sharing deal with Apple was in form of $1 million dollars pre-IPO Apple stock / investment (if Apple does well, Xerox will benefit from Apple’s success).

The PARC demo took place in 1979. Xerox received its compensation in exchange for showing some prototypes that Xerox didn’t know what to do with.

“November: Steve Jobs and software engineer Bill Atkinson visit the Xerox PARC lab in Palo Alto, California. More Apple employees will visit a month later.” [2]

“Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share.” [3]

http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/

Apple raping Xerox? They'd been sitting on their GUI for years. It was about time someone did something.

Interesting article; reading. Like I said, I don't know much about this history. Over-the-top copyright and patent lawsuits irritate me no matter who is demanding cash, so I hope you don't think I'm just slamming Apple here. *reads*

Ok, so Apple was given the rights (not copyrights, from what I understand*) to use Xerox technology in exchange for pre-IPO stocks. Then Apple licensed many parts of its GUI to Microsoft to be used in Windows 1.0, which didn't do too well. Microsoft came out with Windows 2.0, and it included things like the Trash Can Icon, and Overlapping Windows. Apple sued Microsoft for this. Microsoft won the case and Apple's appeal.

They didn't steal the Xerox technology, it was gifted to them. They are still dickbags. I have learned something today.

* - which is why Xerox tried to sue Apple later, but failed because they didn't file a copyright infringement case, but instead tried to sue on an 'unfair competition' case.

I'm considering a new android... Narrower it down to the S3, OneX, and Nexus.

Think I'll wait though, as there is apparently a OneX+ in the works, as well as a new Nexus "Superior". No rush, as my iPhone 3GS is still functional.

Anyone know how the nexus build quality is? I don't really like the Samsung build, it feels so cheap. I know Samsung makes the nexus, which makes me nervous about it, though I haven't held one in person. The HTC are built really well, which is a big plus.

I do like the idea of a clean OS on the Nexus though. So many decisions!

I've got the S3 and by bloody God is it amazing! It's the first time ever since in the many mobile phones that I've bought over the years where I've not quickly thought that there a single element that I'm missing or could do with an improvement. For me the phone is perfection (and I don't use that term often)

(ps there's always a new improved android phone just around the corner - if you wait for 'just that next one' then you'll end up never getting one !)