Samsung did not copy Apple

Rate this Entry
Name:  Samsung did not copy apple.png
Views: 250
Size:  33.0 KB
After Apple has lost it's appeal against the UK High Court of Justice's ruling it is now being forced to make a public apoloty. The court ruled that Samsung's tablet design do not infringe on the iPad.

I absolutely love the punishment Apple is getting. They have to post notices on it's website, and in newspapers, explaining why it's sorry. Oh, and the best part? They have to do it with a font size no smaller then 14pt

The court had previously ruled against Apple's complaints. Judge Colin Birss explained that Samsung's tables "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design... They are not as cool." As a result, Biriss judged that consumers were unlikely to confuse the two tablets, meaning that Samsung's product didn't infringe on Apple's registered design.

And so, the mud fight continues.

I for one am all pro Samsung on this one. All because of what Steve Jobs has said about stealing other people's ideas.
We have always been shameless about stealing good ideas.
The only reason Apple is where they are today, is because they stole other people's ideas.

And that's ok if you ask me. But they really shouldn't be going around suing everybody just because their products are similar.


  1. demman8's Avatar
    I don't know why they can't just have one major court ruling...
  2. InsaneJ's Avatar
    The US court ruling is a farce.

    The jury decided they didn't need to follow the judge's instructions. They decided so quickly that they couldn't possibly have reviewed the most complex tech-related case in history. And they made a ton of mistakes.

    Too bad you stopped paying attention, because this one is actually becoming really interesting. Take a look at this breakdown:

    Here's a couple of things why you, as an American especially, should be interested.
    Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple....

    The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.

    "It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "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 the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, 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, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

    "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...

    "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."
    Then, like the article sais, it gets worse.

    "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

    Hogan said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days -- much faster than legal experts had predicted -- because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apple's patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said.
    The jury instructions were clear: damages were not meant as punishment.

    The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
    Again, the jury simply ignored their instructions and just did whatever they wanted to. And so the judge had to rule in Apple's favor.

    This case clearly shows what's wrong with the American justice system: a group of people who know nothing about law, get to decide what's what according to law. Those people are never impartial, are easily swayed by emotion, and are usually not the most intelligent people which is what you'd have to be in order to actually understand the complexities of law.

    Instead they are just people with an opinion. They are no more qualified to rule in a complex case like this then you or I. Yet they get to decide Samsung has to pay an insane amount of money.

    If this ruling doesn't get overturned, we are all royally screwed. Because Apple isn't going to stop at just Samsung. Steve Jobs went a little nuts as he got older. He was willing to spend all of Apple's $40 billion capital on destroying Google. Just because he thought that Android was pretty much Grand Theft iPhone...

    He's clearly nuts. Apple completely stole the the grapic user interface from Xerox. He has right to be talking about other's taking his company's idea, period.

    But at Apple, only one opinion mattered: Steve's. Now that he's gone we can only hope Tim Cook turns that around. But I'm not getting my hopes up, it's very difficult to change a company's culture.

    @ demman
    If the ruling is done in the US, be glad we don't all get one ruling