Comments on: In the Case of Apple Vs. Samsung, Samsung Found “Guilty” (Updating)

By: Justice

Justice — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:19:00 +0000

Apple is a morally bankrupt company. They make a living stealing other people’s work and then claiming it as their own and suing for patent rights. How can the patent office allow a patent that is so broad and vague and strikes me and “obvious to the trade.” Internationally, Apple has been getting kicked in the ass because they were trying to do the same thing that flies just fine here. Several independent developers have been muscled out by Apple and whenever Apple sees a dev idea that they like, it suddenly “disappears” and then an Apple version is released for its worshipping customers. No one, and I mean NO ONE buys a Samsung thinking they were buying an Apple. Samsung has been a staple in the electronics field for a long time and Apple has always been a thorn in it. Apple has had to make so many sacrifices because what they offer is not as appealing to customers as they would like to think and the Apple business model just sucks. Look at the stocks! Even though this will be a major hit to Samsung, their stock is still stable at twice Apple’s. Apple is falling at a pretty good rate and this is just another one of their legal lash-outs to recover their lost profits. It has nothing to do with Samsung actually infringing on anything. I don’t care who you are, you can’t patent a front-facing touchscreen. Even the guy who invented it did not patent it! Apple’s attempts at these ridiculous patents are comical, and while I think it is acceptable for them to patent a full device design (which, interestingly enough, Samsung did NOT infringe on – and even funnier, Apple’s devices don’t look like it either!), it is not acceptable for them to patent a vague (or even precise) partial design of a smartphone that would essentially give them a monopoly in the trade. Apple just needs to stop crying that people like other electronic devices as well and just be an honest corporation. I am not saying all others are angels, but Samsung is a victim here, and it is sad that many cannot see that. Apple should have to give the $1B back plus “damages” – what does that word even mean here? In the future, all of the markets that Apple is trying to weasel its way into, it better not make its devices look, function, feel, smell, sound, interact, or any of the stuff that Apple sues other people for. Apple should also not be able to sue if its own devices don’t resemble the patents that they are suing in regard to. And if anyone who works for any of the related departments of theft at Apple reads this, you suck!

By: Jon Gee

Jon Gee — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:55:00 +0000

In related news, Apple filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Proctor & Gamble because Ivory soap is the same color and shape as the iPhone.

By: frankandsimple

frankandsimple — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:25:00 +0000

I have no clue whether you are being sarcastic or serious.. I presume English is not your native tongue. Anyway.. Samsung was given more than ample opportunity to LEGALLY use the patents that it infringed on, by none other than apple. it is not as if this was a sneak attack on Samsung.
Samsung willfully violated them even after given an opportunity and a warning by google

By: Robert Jakiel

Robert Jakiel — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:02:00 +0000

This won’t stand at all. By the time the appeals are over and the patents invalidated by the USPTO Apple will have little to nothing left. Not to mention that once Google’s patent for the notification bar is granted I would truly hope El Goog shoves it down Apple’s throat.

By: michael o'brien

michael o'brien — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:10:00 +0000

The thing that I find funny. Juror of peers. I bet maybe 1 person on the jury actually even knew what a patent is. I believe that items like this need to be taken and ruled by the judge, or an outside agency that actually realizes what patents are. Swipe is different that moving a puzzle piece to unlock…swipe is different than a scroll wheel.

By: feztheforeigner

feztheforeigner — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 06:09:00 +0000

Two reasons:

1) Google filed for the pull down notification in 2007 and is still waiting for its approval (pretty sad patent system right?)

2) Apple knows that Google has a reputation of being the ‘nice guy’ and wouldn’t want to lose that. Google just doesn’t sue people.

By: Jared Kotoff

Jared Kotoff — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:48:00 +0000

I think thats only for criminal cases. Idk i was on a jury and it had to be unanimous for a criminal case.

By: Tyler Chappell

Tyler Chappell — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:43:00 +0000

There is such an incredibly large amount of copycat iProducts out there, and Apple is fully aware of it. But guess what, even though those devices are far more similar, Apple doesn’t care about them because almost nobody buys them and so they are not a threat. Apple is just greedy and has always been that way since their existence. But when it comes down to it, their products are always behind upon release and really its just inferior, less intuitive technology that appeals to less intelligent people that care more about their image and buying iDevices as a fashion statement or status symbol to feed their feeble minded egos because they are too ignorant to see for themselves which technology is superior.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:56:00 +0000

I guess Apple is hoping that people have forgotten about the Palm Pilot from the late 1990′s and early 2000′s. The Palm my sister still has on her desk is battery operated, white in color, has rounded corners, and colorful icons on the screen and a “dock” of icons on the bottom. You can zoom in and out, scroll longer messages and sites, and even add applications. Hmmm looks like Apple copied the Palm Pilot and just added their usual “coat of paint” on it and had the mainstream media call it “innovative”. Whats that you say, Apple just took the look of the Palm Pilot and improved upon on, adding a phone and a better interface….wait isn’t that what Samsung just did?

The real pioneers of this technology are IBM, Microsoft, HP, and Motorola….those are the ones who should be holding ALL of Apple’s patents as Apple has NEVER made anything new, only stole it from others and slapped a bitten logo on it.

By: Kierra

Kierra — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:55:00 +0000

Lol I remember a time when ppl on this very site steered clear of Samsumg because of obvious copying from the iPhone.Since Samsung is the new android darling I guess we’ve forgotten.
It’s obvious that Samsung was biting apple in the beginning moreso than the other OEM.
C’mon ! Look at some Samsung galaxy chargers…
This decision doesn’t damn competition in my eyes.
Hell even GOOGLE warned Samsung that their products were dangerously similar to Apple.
Yes Google.

By: Crazy ettiquette

Crazy ettiquette — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:22:00 +0000

So If I make a pair of basketball shorts that look like nike shorts but put my logo on them, Can nike sue me because they are a pair of shorts?

By: michael arazan

michael arazan — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 08:02:00 +0000

An IQ of 75 or lower usually has mental retardation or a mental disability from a birth defect. The average person has the IQ of 100 and people with an IQ of like 160 , I think, or higher are genius. It is based on a chart that shows the median for our society. I had to take two days of testing for my IQ test.

By: michael arazan

michael arazan — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:44:00 +0000

What’s odd is in writings, If I paraphrased someone else’s words it is not plagiarize but if I copied it almost word for word it is. Is that what samsung did? I haven’t read about all the evidence yet. Because I’m sure they couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to do so. I mean these companies pay millions in lawyers and patent reseach, and I’d think someone would have advised them against a full on copy, even the exec’s wouldn’t be stupid enough to do so.

By: michael arazan

michael arazan — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:40:00 +0000

Even if they did request a change of venue, doesn’t mean they would be granted one. But it would be an excuse of many i’m sure for when this judgement is appealed.

By: Jeff Tycz

Jeff Tycz — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 06:13:00 +0000

This trial was about the trade dress of the iphone and if samsung diluted it. Any other allegations to other manufacturers from apple would happen anyway regardless of the outcome of this trial