Apple wins . . .

This doesn’t refute what I’ve stated, and actually, market share only tells part of the story, as Apple turns a larger profit for their segment of the market…more so than any other company. This also misses the fact that the Android proliferation, as listed in your link, includes every Android OEM…versus iOS, which is only Apple. So yes, Apple is doing fine, but of course they must protect their interests.

Within context, my idea states that minor features aren’t responsible for any real losses or gains of this type, anyway. There is a longer list of more critical market forces to consider, and I’d say more likely, Android has been able to gain a foothold and the lead in market share, largely due to entry-level devices which are cheaper, followed by heavy carrier influences (at least in the US), and what I’m sure are a number of other factors.

However, if you asked your average user what “local search” was or whether or not they’d purchase an Apple device vs a Samsung one, due to “uniformly rounded corners”, you’d likely be met with a confused look, as most consumers are oblivious. So no, Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. don’t bleed due to the sharing/“copying” of minor features like these in competing devices-- no more than an automotive company would lose a car sale, because two cars shared the same radio dial. The only reason such frivolous details are called into question, is for the specific intent of an eventual product ban. That’s where most people are taking issue.

This hurts the consumer, since we receive less features, less choices, and more expensive products. Meanwhile, Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. continue to turn in billions of profits, each year. I think the loser here is very clear.

Agreed.

I agree here, as well. And actually, I don’t fault Apple for legally doing what is within their power. I’ve actually sided with them on multiple issues regarding Samsung. However, I feel they can choose better battles, at times, as this sets a dangerous precedent.

They’ve already made that determination, and it was a 3.5 inch display. If/when that changes, we can’t really ignore the fact that it was due to market pressure, brought on by consumer reception to the wide range of competing devices with bigger displays. This will be similar to how they’ve continued to compete at the OS level, by introducing/improving on features from rivals. They’ll adapt in order to stay relevant, or fade…they really don’t have a choice, because they can’t sue their way to victory.

Well, Apple’s sales at their employee store are plummeting.

Haven’t seen anyone else’s response yet, as I want to give my opinion unspoiled. I’ve wanted to for a little while, but never saw a thread on the subject here.

I do think that Samsung did some wrong things, but I do agree that the curved corners and low amount of frame should not in any way be patentable. Allowing that bullshit is going to keep the blatantly anti-competitive patent war continuing–where every big company files for a bunch of small, useless patents to prevent other big companies for suing them for breaking their small but useless patents. Thus smaller upstart companies can’t break into the market, as the patents are for things essential to that marketing segment.

It’s bad enough that Apple can sue you for using their product in a way they don’t want (Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer), they don’t need to be able to patent rectangles, too.

True, but I think Samsung should and will appeal. And in any case, this decision is just one of a multitude of pending global litigation between the two. So Apple won in the US. What’s going to happen in Asia? And how will that switch things up? I’ll be interested to see how it resolves.

I don’t think it’s so straightforward as that.

Under the present system, smaller upstart companies can get in the game if they have something new to bring to the market, and it doesn’t have to be groundbreakingly new. Alternatively, even if they don’t have anything new to bring to the market, if they can do it cheaper/better than current players, then they can get in the game too via partnerships, free licenses etc. Or alternatively again, they can be in a geographic location not subject to the effect of the patents or design patents in question. There are many possibilities for innovation.

On the other hand, if you were to shift it too much back the other way, where only major breakthroughs in innovation were patentable, then you might face the situation where …

“So you want to manufacture a new type of mobile phone? Sorry, but Bell Labs still has the current monopoly on all mobile phone devices.”

That’s when consumers suffer.

Hogan keeps digging that hole

Groklaw - The Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on Misunderstanding Prior Art ~pj - Updated

Samsung has an incredibly strong case for an appeal. Samsung/Android users shouldn’t fret quite just yet, I dont think. And I say this as a pretty hardcore Apple user.

This whole case was an unmitigated mess, now infamously so.

More Hogan goodness:

Reviving this for the latest in The Adventures of Velvin Hogan, Jury Foreman.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

Samsung are alleging jury misconduct. During voir dire he was asked to disclose any lawsuits he’d ever been involved with. Hogan insists now that he was only asked about cases from the last ten years, but the court transcript shows it was an open ended question. He failed to disclose that he’d been sued by Seagate in 1993, and had declared bankruptcy over that case. Samsung is the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate.

Revenge is a dish best served cold?

oh this is rich

Birss also ruled in the original case that Apple must run “advertisements” in British newspapers and on its website stating that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s design patents and therefore did not break U.K. law.

The notice on Apple’s U.K. website must display the banner for six months in order to “correct the damaging impression” left by Apple following the legal wrangling.

Ok, I’m a little late to the party, but just noticed this jury foreman stuff.
What a fucking moron (regarding his “aha” moment about prior art). And this guy has a tech background?

I love that he showed the world in that interview that he doesn’t have even a basic grasp of the issue. He doesn’t even realize he doesn’t understand, bad combo.

US Patent Office has invalidated the “rubber-banding” patent and Samsung have filed a motion informing the court of that decision.

The USPTO determined that the claims in the patent are “obvious” and “anticipated” and do not represent a true invention that supersedes previous technologies. At this point their findings are non-final and could be overturned.

2nd Apple “patent” invalidated, this time the “pinch to zoom” feature:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/technology/patent-office-rejects-apple-patent-used-against-samsung.html?_r=0

Wow, it might restore my faith in the patent process - at least a little.

Reading this thread has me wondering: Did Apple sue Oppo Mobile too?

You can’t tell me that doesn’t look as much like an iPhone as the Samsung does. More so, in fact.

Updating this old thread on this 5 year old lawsuit:

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/308944-supreme-court-sides-with-samsung-in-patent-fight-with-apple

Man, they’re on fire!

In spite of Apple’s innovations, I can’t use my iPhone as an incendiary weapon.

If the root cause findings of the Galaxy Note 7 are correct, if Apple keeps going thinner at the expense of all else you might be able to use the iPhone 8 as an incendiary weapon.