If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   Apple vs Samsung juror: "It was quite clear that Samsung was simply in the business of making knockoffs." Haters: "It's still real to us, dammit"   (theverge.com) divider line 122
    More: Followup, Samsung, apples, jury, Samsung juror  
•       •       •

2039 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Aug 2012 at 3:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 11:48:05 AM  
They say "knockoffs" like it's a bad thing.
 
2012-08-26 12:30:37 PM  
You say "knockoffs" I say affordable.
 
2012-08-26 12:59:47 PM  
You say "knockoffs", I say competition. I can't wait for the Coke v Pepsi trial, or the Ford v GM.

There's patent infringement, and then there's "That kind of looks like ours, let's sue them".

/Own an original model Galaxy 10.1, can easily tell the difference between that and an iPad.
//Fark Apple and their business practices.
 
2012-08-26 01:16:55 PM  
I don't know how the Samsung lawyers let some troll who holds a patent on storing video files sit on that jury.
 
2012-08-26 01:17:09 PM  
Knockoffs are copies that typically employ trademark violations to sell a product. If Samsung were literally trying to sell iphones, you'd have a point.
 
2012-08-26 01:22:21 PM  
Did Apple hire a bunch of unemployed SCO lawyers?
 
2012-08-26 01:23:44 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: I don't know how the Samsung lawyers let some troll who holds a patent on storing video files sit on that jury.


imagine who/what they must have voided.
 
2012-08-26 01:25:08 PM  
how Apple can patent a 10" rectangle is beyond me.
 
2012-08-26 01:26:26 PM  

elvisaintdead: rumpelstiltskin: I don't know how the Samsung lawyers let some troll who holds a patent on storing video files sit on that jury.

imagine who/what they must have voided.


Hmmm. Bay Area? That's actually a kind of fun exercise.
 
2012-08-26 01:32:22 PM  

Hobodeluxe: how Apple can patent a 10" rectangle is beyond me.


You give me Apple's war chest to hire lawyers and "educate" jury members and I can bring you back Prometheus' patent on "Fire and all applications thereof."
 
2012-08-26 01:37:09 PM  

Hobodeluxe: how Apple can patent a 10" rectangle is beyond me.


Apple's next target:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-26 01:47:50 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Hobodeluxe: how Apple can patent a 10" rectangle is beyond me.

Apple's next target:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x306]


Too fat.
 
2012-08-26 01:56:10 PM  
Im curious as to how this will affect future samsung product lines.
 
2012-08-26 01:57:21 PM  

RedPhoenix122: You say "knockoffs", I say competition. I can't wait for the Coke v Pepsi trial, or the Ford v GM.

There's patent infringement, and then there's "That kind of looks like ours, let's sue them".

/Own an original model Galaxy 10.1, can easily tell the difference between that and an iPad.
//Fark Apple and their business practices.


Here's the thing: Coke and Pepsi are in radically different design packaging. They even taste different. Windows/Apple lawsuit was lost because Not only did Apply not originate the idea o interface, but there was a big enough visual difference and interaction that no one could possible mistake it for the other product.

The Samsung product and the Apple product looked very much alike. The interface far too similar.

But I am a big fan of competition. So I'm not too thrilled with the current ruling.
 
2012-08-26 02:23:19 PM  
People in this thread be mad. Real mad.
 
2012-08-26 02:28:01 PM  
Apple finally succeeded in patenting "look and feel."

Looks like innovation just ended at One Infinite Loop Drive
 
2012-08-26 02:39:09 PM  
So Samsung will be changing the shape of their phones to an octagon.
 
2012-08-26 02:41:03 PM  
Sammy did make serious changes with the SIII line, and I looked and didn't see them in the infringing devices. Did I miss that?
 
2012-08-26 03:09:09 PM  
According to Venture BeattLink

With his background in mechanical engineering, Ilagan said he spoke up about technical issues during deliberations. Jury foreman Velvin Hogan also held patents himself and directed the jury through his experience with the patent process, Ilagan said.

So with all of my trial knowledge coming from movies, this conflicts with what I have been taught, which is that jurors can only discuss what the courtroom testimony and evidence is, and aren't supposed to do research, or use their own specialized knowledge.

Is that right?
What can jurors actually "bring into" the deliberations?

Also, wow, I'd love to see the voir dire that allowed Hogan in.
 
2012-08-26 03:09:24 PM  
Good luck with your parallelogram phones with jagged edges.

-Apple
 
2012-08-26 03:09:31 PM  

Generation_D: Apple finally succeeded in patenting "look and feel."

Looks like innovation just ended at One Infinite Loop Drive


That, too, was my first inclination to believe, but Samsung emails basically showed Samsung to be copying everything as much as possible into their own phone.

When you overtly talk about copying from others, you basically are talking about copying from others, NOT innovation.
 
2012-08-26 03:29:12 PM  
Also they said they skipped discussing prior art. And somehow they decided on 700 questions in 22 hours. At least this makes the appeals process for Samsung easier.
 
2012-08-26 03:36:20 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Also they said they skipped discussing prior art. And somehow they decided on 700 questions in 22 hours. At least this makes the appeals process for Samsung easier.


They seriously admitted that? Wow. They pretty much ignored the most important aspect of the entire farking trial.
 
2012-08-26 03:38:54 PM  
A jury of my peers? This is exactly why I'd never opt for a jury trial. Because apparently, my "peers" are freaking morons.
 
2012-08-26 03:40:52 PM  
Shouldn't the headline have been "Samsung vs Apple juror"?

/butthurt
 
2012-08-26 03:45:44 PM  

OgreMagi: They seriously admitted that? Wow.


In the WSJ article the foreman says they were getting bogged down because of it when discussing the first patent, so they skipped it. Now they may have gone back to it, however admitting that you basically just wanted to zip through the entire thing, not something you want to do.
 
2012-08-26 03:47:12 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: They say "knockoffs" like it's a bad thing.


so all non-levi blue jeans are knockoffs right?
what about flat screen TVs? hard drives?
is the argument that you can have only one manufacture of certain things??

What about all of those cars which are clearly knock-offs??
LOL
 
2012-08-26 03:47:53 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: The Samsung product and the Apple product looked very much alike. The interface far too similar.


Too bad that, despite what certain people will tell you, Samsung had phones with that same basic design before the iPhone was released. They just leave those phones out of their infographics.
 
2012-08-26 03:48:14 PM  
As usual, fark has zero concept of intellectual property. Than again, what do you expect from a bunch of IP pirating nerds?
 
2012-08-26 03:48:28 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: A jury of my peers? This is exactly why I'd never opt for a jury trial. Because apparently, my "peers" are freaking morons.


except the law says nothing about jury of your peers

6th amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"
 
2012-08-26 03:48:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Also they said they skipped discussing prior art. And somehow they decided on 700 questions in 22 hours. At least this makes the appeals process for Samsung easier.


Yup. While people view this as devastating for Samsung the fact remains this was always going to be decided in the appeals process by people other than jurors.
 
2012-08-26 03:50:29 PM  

justtray: As usual, fark has zero concept of intellectual property. T


Some of us understand quite well. And aware of prior art for much of what was at issue.

SharkTrager: Yup. While people view this as devastating for Samsung the fact remains this was always going to be decided in the appeals process by people other than jurors.


Yep.
 
2012-08-26 03:52:44 PM  

namatad: Marcus Aurelius: They say "knockoffs" like it's a bad thing.

so all non-levi blue jeans are knockoffs right?
what about flat screen TVs? hard drives?
is the argument that you can have only one manufacture of certain things??

What about all of those cars which are clearly knock-offs??
LOL


Did Levi patent blue jeans? Did Sony patent flat screens? How long did those patents last if so?

I am 100% sure there are very simple answers to your mass stupidity
 
2012-08-26 03:52:53 PM  

justtray: As usual, fark has zero concept of intellectual property. Than again, what do you expect from a bunch of IP pirating nerds?


but the question gets stranger when you get into IP and look and feel.
Who invented the first clam-shell laptop? They would own the look and feel of the clam-shell laptop and ALL other manufacturers have built knock-offs. Right?

/shudder - the worst thing that we can do to stifle competition and growth is to go too far in protecting look and feel.
/we really have not rethought, revisited, figured out how to deal with patents in the electronic age and this crap will continue until ... well the sun goes out if the lawyers have their way.
 
2012-08-26 03:55:59 PM  

namatad: Pokey.Clyde: A jury of my peers? This is exactly why I'd never opt for a jury trial. Because apparently, my "peers" are freaking morons.

except the law says nothing about jury of your peers

6th amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"


Interesting.

Jury of Peers

People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Finally, the 7th Amendment requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars.

Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing - in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."

Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, else the jury system would be unworkable.
Thanks to James Bishop for the idea and to Clive Wilson for ideas for further explanation.


It's Sunday, lay off with the enlightenment please!
 
2012-08-26 03:59:13 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Here's the thing: Coke and Pepsi are in radically different design packaging. They even taste different.


Put a Coke and a Pepsi in the hands of a person who has never seen either one, much less consumed one, and I will bet you that the person says that they are "very similar," and if you took them away that individual would have a hard time distinguishing one from the other.
 
2012-08-26 04:00:40 PM  
Given that the judge prevented Samsung from being able to present most of their evidence, what did you expect was going to happen?
 
2012-08-26 04:01:58 PM  

justtray: Did Levi patent blue jeans? Did Sony patent flat screens? How long did those patents last if so?


Paul Allen patented a lot of things.
 
2012-08-26 04:01:59 PM  

justtray: namatad: Marcus Aurelius: They say "knockoffs" like it's a bad thing.

so all non-levi blue jeans are knockoffs right?
what about flat screen TVs? hard drives?
is the argument that you can have only one manufacture of certain things??

What about all of those cars which are clearly knock-offs??
LOL

Did Levi patent blue jeans? Did Sony patent flat screens? How long did those patents last if so?

I am 100% sure there are very simple answers to your mass stupidity


yes
It was a meta-question. Given that companies now mindlessly patent everything, what happens when the next big thing comes along. The question about how much look and feel can be patented for how long is critical for growth. Too much or too little is a bad thing.

I can remember when the US had manufacturing jobs and the first Japanese knock-offs started appearing. That competition spurred the longest economic growth in history. The race to build the next, new, better, bigger, whatever.
But without knock-offs, where does the pressure ever come on a company like Apple to push out the next version?

With knock-offs and competition in the smart phone market would anyone be using Android? maybe not.
Would anyone be using an iPhone 4 (let alone an iPhone 5)?

How much did android and samsung benefit Apple, buy forcing Apple to develop faster, newer, sooner, more features, etc?? How many features did Apple add to their next-gen, because competition had added that feature already?
 
2012-08-26 04:02:35 PM  

RoyBatty: It's Sunday, lay off with the enlightenment please!


sorry. only been up for 60 mins and havent had nearly enough caff
:-)
 
2012-08-26 04:02:57 PM  

Nefarious: So Samsung will be changing the shape of their phones to an octagon.


i.zdnet.com 

Have you not heard of pyramid power?
 
2012-08-26 04:04:54 PM  
Samsung's gonna have a field day with this.

/is there any way we can fix the current patent syatem, or are we gonna have to blow it up and start over?
 
2012-08-26 04:05:30 PM  

namatad: RoyBatty: It's Sunday, lay off with the enlightenment please!

sorry. only been up for 60 mins and havent had nearly enough caff
:-)


Seriously, this is why I like FARK over every other similar website to date.

Also why I weigh 400 pounds and smell like cheetos.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:14 PM  

puffy999: Darth_Lukecash: Here's the thing: Coke and Pepsi are in radically different design packaging. They even taste different.

Put a Coke and a Pepsi in the hands of a person who has never seen either one, much less consumed one, and I will bet you that the person says that they are "very similar," and if you took them away that individual would have a hard time distinguishing one from the other.


Actually, Coke and Pepsi taste very very different.

CSB time:

One evening, some friends and I got bored and decided to have some fun. We bought Doctor Pepper, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Coke and their store brand knock offs, went home and we each did a taste test with all the sodas at once. Now, there was only four of us (me, my two friends, and the sister to one friend), but all of us were able to tell which was coke and pepsi, and we were also all able to tell which was name brand and which was store brand.
 
2012-08-26 04:08:37 PM  

puffy999: Darth_Lukecash: Here's the thing: Coke and Pepsi are in radically different design packaging. They even taste different.

Put a Coke and a Pepsi in the hands of a person who has never seen either one, much less consumed one, and I will bet you that the person says that they are "very similar," and if you took them away that individual would have a hard time distinguishing one from the other.


The trade dress is still very different between Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi uses a blue Colorado scheme and the bottles are more straight, while Coke uses a red color and a bottle with more of an hourglass shape. If Pepsi started selling their product with red and white labels, and made their bottles closer to the shape of Coke bottles there would be a legal firestorm that would make the Apple and Samsung trial pale in comparison.
 
2012-08-26 04:09:00 PM  
What does Apple have against the Samsung Juror?
 
2012-08-26 04:12:24 PM  

RedPhoenix122: You say "knockoffs", I say competition. I can't wait for the Coke v Pepsi trial, or the Ford v GM.

There's patent infringement, and then there's "That kind of looks like ours, let's sue them".

/Own an original model Galaxy 10.1, can easily tell the difference between that and an iPad.
//Fark Apple and their business practices.


They actually ruled that the Galaxy Tabs were not infringing devices, so Samsung was in the clear with those.
 
2012-08-26 04:12:25 PM  
A patent is a property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor "to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States" for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

So ummmm - what exactly did Apple invent and disclose?

The Pinch-To-Zoom thing is the only one I actually 'know of'. And it's been done long before Apple did it; both as a concept and implemented by other mutli-touch devices. No they weren't as popular as the iWhatever - but they existed. Given that, I don't see how this is an invention. It's a specific implementation of an idea. It's a software implementation. So, unless I (as a US Citizen) can publicly access the source code Apple has written for it - how can anyone claim that Apple has disclosed it?
 
2012-08-26 04:12:30 PM  

RedPhoenix122: You say "knockoffs", I say competition. I can't wait for the Coke v Pepsi trial, or the Ford v GM.

There's patent infringement, and then there's "That kind of looks like ours, let's sue them".

/Own an original model Galaxy 10.1, can easily tell the difference between that and an iPad.
//Fark Apple and their business practices.


Yes, my galaxy player has rounded corners, and the similarity ends there.

/IMO Apple has a long history of designing products using existing tech and they siccing lawyers on anyone else using existing tech as if it had never been used before Apple used it.. They are no better than the worst of their competitors, they set the standard.
 
2012-08-26 04:12:53 PM  

Great Janitor: Actually, Coke and Pepsi taste very very different.


I'm thinking along the lines of a person who has never consumed a beverage whose base ingredients are high fructose corn syrup and carbonated water. Oddly enough, if you've never had a sweetener, much less one that's as overpowering as HFCS, you may be overwhelmed by these ingredients than to notice the not-so-subtle differences in the products. Just like, if you've never held a bottle in your hand, you may be less likely to focus on intrinsic differences in each bottle and instead focus on what's common between them (especially if you're in an environment that has largely hand-made wares, where some degree of variability may be expected in all goods).

Yes, that's how little faith I have in the average electronics consumer in the United States. Most of them spent their lives with "television" being the most technologically-advanced part of their home, but now the world is vastly different, and too many people who spent their lives drinking the electronic equivalent to cow's blood are now provided access to every drink imaginable.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report