×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Wants Another $707 Million From Samsung

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the as-do-we-all dept.

Patents 316

angry tapir writes "A California jury may have awarded Apple more than US$1 billion in damages in late August when it triumphed over Samsung in a hard-fought case over smartphone and tablet patents, but the iPhone maker is coming back for more: late last week it asked for additional damages of $707 million. The request includes an enhanced award of $535 million for willful violation of Apple's designs and patents, as well as about $172 million in supplemental damages based on the fact that the original damages were calculated on Samsung's sales through June 30."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

316 comments

Squeezed for cash? (5, Interesting)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434453)

I didn't think Apple was doing that badly that they have to litigate others for cash to stay relevant. Oh wait, maybe they are doing it to make the others strapped for cash! Or wait, maybe there isn't even a point in doing this. Maybe they should all hold hands and be happy instead. :3

Re:Squeezed for cash? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434513)

Just as religion was just about fleecing the masses while a few at the top remain stinking rich, I hope people will come to realise the same about capitalism.

Of course, it will take a while. Even as capitalism is a cage with 10 starving dogs and enough food for perhaps half, those who have taken the food will continue convincing the remainder that it is fair this way. They will talk about "inalienable property rights" as the woowoo priests of the past tried to theologise "divine right" and "God's will". And the harder religion fails, the more people will complain that there has not been enough religion.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434643)

Present something better that doesn't break down for a city-sized society, and/or breaks down less badly for a nation-size society, and we'll talk. Till then, I'll go with capitalism sans corporations.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (5, Interesting)

greentshirt (1308037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434657)

Very simple, actually. Capitalism with limits. You put a floating cap on profits, tied to measures such as the crime rate and the wealth gap; and put a cap on personal wealth. It doesn't have to be a low cap, say $20 million dollars. Or $50 million. Fuck, make it an even $100 million dollars and raise it every year with inflation. Then watch society transform.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434675)

Very simple, actually. Capitalism with limits. You put a floating cap on profits, tied to measures such as the crime rate and the wealth gap; and put a cap on personal wealth. It doesn't have to be a low cap, say $20 million dollars. Or $50 million. Fuck, make it an even $100 million dollars and raise it every year with inflation.

Then watch society transform.

Oh look, here we have the solution to all of the problems Mankind has had for thousands of years, neatly wrapped up in a few sentences. Utopia by next Friday then?
Fucking idiot.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (2, Interesting)

osmifra (2033466) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434793)

If mankind thought the same way you do we would still be banging rocks in each other's heads.

Although I don't agree with him he does have a point and is willing to discuss it, if you had an IQ bigger than 100 instead of shutting communication with irony and insult you would try to encourage it.

Close minded bafoon.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435009)

If mankind thought the same way you do we would still be banging rocks in each other's heads.

Ummm... That's what we're doing, isn't it ? Only our tools have become a little more advanced on the technical scale.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435043)

That's his point...

Re:Squeezed for cash? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434831)

A cap on wealth? All this will do is turn the creative into criminals and increase nepotism.. I've reached my cap where do I put the money now? Oh my maybe its time for my nephew to open up a 10 million dollar company! Do you see how this works? And if they clamp down on this? Then our best and brightest will all be in jail or wasting time finding further loopholes, sounds like a productive thing for society?

Don't propose unnecessarty laws and restrictions for which you do not understand the consequences.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434885)

You put a floating cap on profits, tied to measures such as the crime rate and the wealth gap; and put a cap on personal wealth.

No cap on profits, no cap on wealth. Just make sure that wealth doesn't carry over to the wealthys children and you will see a pretty interesting transform.
No-one really has a problem with people getting rich, the thing that works with neither capitalism nor communism is that people can be born rich. This is unfair regardless of system.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435007)

Why is it "unfair" to be born into wealth? Is it "fair" to be born into poverty? Ooops, sorry kid. your parents were rich, that means you have to be poor.

In order to be "unfair," in this case, someone must be deprived. Why should they (the deprived) be enriched at the expense of another? Why is that "fair"? Or is it just because some people are jealous and want things that don't belong to them, tacking on an arbitrary meaningless notion of "fairness."

Seriously, grandiose ideologies carry a baggage of "fairness" that never quite measures to anything in reality.

Fucking communists, holding back those with drive and ambition so that the fat and lazy can slither on.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435087)

Of course it isn't fair to be born into poverty. Nobody was saying that a kid whose parents were born rich should be condemned to poverty.

In order to be "unfair," in this case, someone must be deprived. Why should they (the deprived) be enriched at the expense of another? Why is that "fair"?

What in the hell are you talking about? You can't seriously be incapable of understanding why it isn't fair that Suzy was born into a billionaire family and Jimmy into a poverty stricken family?

Fucking communists, holding back those with drive and ambition so that the fat and lazy can slither on.

We were talking about people born into wealth. These people do not require drive and ambition because they were born into wealth. Whether they have drive or ambition is irrelevant to the question of whether they will be wealthy. It's a very very very clear counterexample to the idea that they got there through drive and ambition.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434635)

This is what happens when you give into a terrorist's demands. You get more demands, closely followed by more terrorists. Blame it on the patent system all you want, it existed for a long time without companies behaving like Apple.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (2, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434825)

Bull. Infringement actions like this are typical there is nothing unusual here at all legally. Global scale and high degree of usage by consumers makes the numbers large. But really the only thing unusual about these particular infringement actions is you care about the products being disputed and are following the case.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434647)

If not by law, I think they have an obligation to their shareholders to defend their copyrights and trademarks.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (0, Flamebait)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434679)

I didn't think Apple was doing that badly that they have to litigate others for cash to stay relevant. Oh wait, maybe they are doing it to make the others strapped for cash! Or wait, maybe there isn't even a point in doing this. Maybe they should all hold hands and be happy instead. :3

Of course Apple doesn't _need_ that money. The money is a welcome side effect. What Apple wants is to stop Samsung from making phones that copy iPhone features by making it expensive for them. And there isn't only this patent case, there have been reports quite recently that Apple has moved some major orders for memory and for displays from Samsung to other manufacturers, which will also cost them money.

And the plan seems to be working. At least if you look at Samsung's Galaxy adverts that seem to become more and more desperate. I wonder what happens at Samsung internally. If I was the guy at Samsung responsible for producing and selling components to the whole world, I'd want to punch the guy responsible for selling smartphones right in the face.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (4, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434809)

Samsung in 2011 did $42b in sales and $4.7b in profits. They aren't going to be strapped for cash. On the other hand an award that large would destroy the profitability of their Android strategy. It would turn infringement from a money maker to a money loser.

Re:Squeezed for cash? (3, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434935)

Posting as myself since AC would be lame and I can stand for it:

So the brand of the tards can single handely destroy the worlds biggest mobile maker by ridicilous patent claims?

Awesome.

As if there wasn't reason enough to think bad about the people buying Apple products. Or the actual Apple products. Or Apple.

In all honesty though I assume they could raise their prices to afford paying for this or proper licenses, eventually losing part of their position on the market but if that's how it should be then fine. Maybe they had gained too much of the market by not paying for the "technologies" they used. I don't even know what patents and methods they have broken/used unlicensed.

For all I care we could drop patents completely. If that lead to no will to develop future technology in some field then I guess you'd just have to do it collectively and for the benefit of everyone through universities, research funds/prizes/taxes/...

Hard to like Apple any longer (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434463)

Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434491)

I'm amazed people EVER liked Apple. The company have died in the late 90s. It's too bad Steve Jobs didn't pass away earlier.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (3, Funny)

scottgfx (68236) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434617)

It's too bad Steve Jobs didn't pass away earlier.

You must be on the Samsung board of directors.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434687)

It's too bad Steve Jobs didn't pass away earlier.

You must be on the Samsung board of directors.

Both Apple and Samsung can choke on my cock, and so can you, Fanboy.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434817)

Wall Street games... Drive the Samsung stock down, and buy it up...

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (2)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435097)

Kinda cool if Apple did that:

"See, there's no profit to be made in the Android field and you can't do it without using our patents."

Stock down, Apple purchases.

"See, we're number one in Android. Take that Nokia! Bye everyone else."

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434543)

Yup, I share your sentiment. Apple is increasingly becoming a downright scary company, Perhaps *all* their staff should watch those "think different" ads again. The company seems to be almost aiming for a Big Brother badge these days.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435083)

This recent behavior by Apple is no different than they've always acted. They've always been scary, they just haven't had the resources to be particularly dangerous until recently.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434621)

It was already hard but now, i agree, it's impossible. It's going to be a cold day in hell the day i'll buy a Apple product and i'm only sure of one thing: my next phone it's going to be a Samsung. On the other hand the majority of people does not give a crap and *actually* believe Samsung stole...well, something.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434715)

If you don't want to buy from Apple that's perfectly understandable. But Samsung is a dishonorable company. Buying a product from them out of some sort of moral stand is misguided.

And if you think all corporations are bad, then choose whatever device fits your needs and don't make it out to be "doing the right thing."

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434861)

Parent AC here.
Fair point, but discussing morals in a corporations debate in misguided in itself. It's a matter of principle (Samsung, as far as i know, does not try to block other manufacturers sales, at least not to the extent Apple does) and yes, their product (the S Series) has all i need/want. If i wanted to make a moral stand i wouldn't buy neither Samsung or Apple. Or pretty much *a phone* since all of them are made in "not that far" slave conditions.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434677)

i used to tell the army of people who ask nerds for advice on purchases to just buy apple because then i wouldnt have to rid them of spyware later. now that apple has taken the douche crown from microsoft, and microsoft has taken the oblivious crown from Sun, and oracle pulled an HP/Compaq/DEC on Sun, and ubuntu started bundling adware, and redhat is no longer relevant... and i intentionally have to break english grammatical protocol to emphasize each element in this never ending list in an annoying attempt to illuminate the lunacy....

now i tell people to buy an offbrand machine and install freebsd. im hoping theyll think im crazy and take their windows machines to geeksquad instead.

i never liked apple much, but they did loosely base their product on unix-like technology with a slick gui, so although ive never baught an apple product i did recommend them to others. no more. you just lost a couple hundred customers. self pwnage FTL.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434705)

Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

Right, because 2 million iPhone 5 pre orders in 24 hours is *clearly* an indication of declining fame.

I got news for you, the general public A) isn't aware of this litigation B) doesn't give a shit.

I'm not going to debate the right or wrong merits of the litigation itself, but if you think this lawsuit has hurt Apple in the court of public opinion, you're not capable of looking at the issue objectively.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434767)

Right, because 2 million iPhone 5 pre orders in 24 hours is *clearly* an indication of declining fame.

Given 1.3 million Android registrations per day, Apple aren't even holding parity on launch events.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (3, Informative)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434875)

Right, because 2 million iPhone 5 pre orders in 24 hours is *clearly* an indication of declining fame.

Given 1.3 million Android registrations per day, Apple aren't even holding parity on launch events.

Ok, let's do some simple logic - #1 - That includes tablets #2 - That includes all Android suppliers, not just one manufacturer. If Samsung sells a brand new Android phone, HTC doesn't see a cent of that money. Apple gets a cut of *every* new iPhone sold. So not only do the Android manufacturers have to compete with Apple, they have to compete with each other... just like Apple. #3 - While people may be buying Android devices, the usage numbers show iOS well in the lead. To me, that says people are buying the product, and then electing not to use it. Which tells me that it's not a very good product. #4 - Google says 430 Million Android devices worldwide, at 1.3 million activations per day. The Samsung/Apple lawsuit revealed Apple's sales figures. 250 million iPhone sales worldwide (pre iPhone 5). 46.5 million iPod touch units (hey, if you get to total up all Android units, we get to total up all iOS units). 84 million iPads, which by my math puts Apple at about 380 million units world wide, So Apple has shipped 50 million less of their platform, stacked against, what, at least 10 other companies who develop on the same paltform. And at a much higher profit margin. I strongly suspect that if you could get the individual players to reveal their actual sales figures, that not a single one of them could individually beat Apple in sales. You have to aggregate all of Apple's competitors against them to get a figure that's appreciable. But yeah, I guess you're right, Apple is doing *horrible* in sales.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (4, Insightful)

Drakonblayde (871676) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434771)

Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

Right, because a stock price that's still over $700/share and 2 million pre orders for the iPhone 5 in 24 hours is clearly an indication of declining fame. Most people don't know about or care about this litigation. They just know Apple makes stuff they like. I don't like alot of the things Apple does as a company, but I like the products they make. I don't like the products that their competitors make, they don't fulfill my needs. So what am I going to do, refuse to buy Apple out of some sense of moral outrage? Sorry, not going to make myself less productive as a show of support for some other big mega-corp? Samsung is not some innocent bystander getting picked on by the big kid on the block. There's sin enough to go around for *all* players invovled in the smartphone market, so the moral reprehension is pretty much a wash for me. So in the end it boils down to who has the product I prefer to use. Those are the people who get my money.

I *DON'T buy Apple products (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434829)

"So what am I going to do, refuse to buy Apple out of some sense of moral outrage?"

Well I do NOT buy Apple products over this, and sure most people don't know what Apple is up to here, but that's OK, because I'm going to tell them. That is what stories like this do, they make people aware.

Over time people WILL be aware of what Apple is up to, just as Microsoft can't sell jack shit in any market they don't have a lock on, so Apple is in that position in future.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435021)

Sorry to all the Apple fanboys out there, but it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple. Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

Right, because a stock price that's still over $700/share and 2 million pre orders for the iPhone 5 in 24 hours is clearly an indication of declining fame.

So you think mere sales figures are a good measure of fame? Sorry, wrong measure -- unless you also believe that Apple was a shitty, fameless company in the 80s and 90s and Microsoft the creme de la creme of software makers during that period...

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434969)

Seems that Apple's fame is slowly declining...

You say that in the week that Apple's share price tops USD700, making it not only the most valuable publicly-traded company in the world but worth comfortably more than number two and three combined?

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435051)

share price != fame
sales != fame

Apple used to be quite famous for innovations, not for anti-competitive lawsuits.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435001)

...it becomes increasingly hard to feel any sympathies for Apple...

Sympathies? For what? They just want the Samsung stock to drop enough for them(Apple and/or 'friends') to buy. Should make a tidy sum when the dust clears.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435023)

Sympathy? for Apple? Why? Ever?

Why the love/hate for a non-corporeal entity. Apple Computer is a company, like any other, and the investors demand a return. Anyone who has sympathies for any company is a fool that needs their head examined.

Re:Hard to like Apple any longer (4, Interesting)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435069)

The thing is that Apple could get scrutinized like the United Shoe Machinery Company was during the 20th Century. (For those who don't know, United Shoe was sued by the US government starting in the 1940's for abusing patent rights on shoe making machines to eliminate competitors. This litigation eventually wiped out the company.)

I'm not sure if Apple wants to be in that position, given their enormous clout in the touchscreen computing device market with the iPhone and iPad.

bad looser (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434467)

If a company has to make profit by law-suits there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

Re:bad looser (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434533)

They're not doing it to make money, they're doing it protect their desi...I mean, their right to claim a lack of notable features as something they've invented.

If I claimed a blank book as my design I'd get shafted hard right away, but Apple gets away with it because people are jizzing their pants and forking over cash for the same concept used on hardware.

I know that a patent-less future might not be the BEST solution, but it sure as hell is better than this.

Re:bad looser (-1, Offtopic)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434799)

"If a company has to make profit by law-suits there is something fundamentally wrong with it."

This should not have been modded insightful; it should be modded offtopic.

Re:bad looser (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434863)

Not really, no.

Re:bad looser (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434971)

Prove to me that Apple makes their profit by filing lawsuits. Since you cannot, it has nothing to do with the subject, ergo it is offtopic.

Re:bad looser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435039)

It was you who slipped in an extra word 'their'. Replace it with 'more' and read the sentence again.

Also, you reasoning, demanding 'prove' and assuming lack of it to void a statement, is flawed. Very flawed. The subject is actually on-topic: Apple cares more for extra cash than for a healthy market or good relationship with other manufacturors.

Maybe Apple has a place on their lawyer team for an advisor like you.

Re:bad looser (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435089)

"It was you who slipped in an extra word 'their'. Replace it with 'more' and read the sentence again."

Or you could just keep up, and realize that I wasn't the one who initially said their rather than more, and that you just made my point for me. The OP is the one who claimed that Apple makes a profit through lawsuits, rather than saying that they make a greater profit through lawsuits.

Re:bad looser (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434951)

Why? What Apple are doing here is driving their share price *up* and Samsung's *down*. It's thinking in the short term: someone somewhere is going to do a run on Apple stock very soon and make a killing, then buy Samsung stock as it floors with half the money. If/when Samsung recover, short that stock and retire obscenely rich either way... only difference between whether Samsung recovers or not is how many lobster testicles you get in your morning mojito.

This is bigger than Apple Vs. Samsung and patent whores. This is an entity or entities manipulating the market with outside influences (in this case, with huge and vexatious litigation) in order to make as much money as possible for the least effort on their own part. It's like sealing two catholic priests in a room and throwing in a small boy, watching them fight to the death then pitting the winner against Michael Jackson. Maximum entertainment for minimum effort.

Try to keep up ... (5, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435035)

Bullshit. I am not saying that the Patent dispute is valid. What I am saying is that Apple makes hardware and software and sells it. It is not correct to say that defending their patents is how they make their money. What you are thinking of is a patent troll. You cannot expect any company to ignore patent violations, and you cannot fault any company for refusing to ignore them. Unless that company is a patent troll, any claim that they make their money through patent lawsuits is ridiculous. Apple makes their money by designing and selling computer systems.

Apple (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434485)

are thieving vermin and deserve nothing but contempt from the courts and the public alike. Not one single device they produce is original or innovative in style, form or function, neither was using a fanboi to get a court verdict in their favour (Microsoft surely have a patent on that).

I am but a small cog (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434497)

But hope that my action of replacing my broken 2007 MacBook Pro (yes, the Nvidia chip and out of warranty) with a PC will help send a message to Apple.

No more Apple devices in my home.

Re:I am but a small cog (4, Interesting)

JackAxe (689361) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434695)

I'm in a similar boat. I've been buying Macintoshes since the nineties and working on them professionally longer, but when it comes time to upgrade to a new portable workstation, I'm moving to something like HP's beasts.

Since my current MacBook Pro 17" is still very capable, I'm cross-grading all of my pro-applications to Windows that don't have a multiplatform license and plan to be in Bootcamp fulltime before end of the year. This is easy for me, since I used PCs first back in the eighties and never abandoned them, even when I moved on to Macs fulltime -- I still build PCs for gaming and 3D work.

Another area I'm dropping, which is a bit harder to chew on, is IOS development. I'm not going to bother renewing with Apple come next March; but having said that, I deal mostly with enterprise and I noticed a trend towards Android tablets now, so this makes it easier.

This new Apple isn't a company I respect and care to support. It's going to be a bit tougher to get the wife off her Mac, but eventually it will happen.

It does (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434849)

While an individual doesn't send a large message, every little bit helps and just because each individual message isn't large doesn't mean that a flood of them will be small.

It also helps in that Apple is in a positive feedback loop of their stuff being popular because it is popular. Well, the less people who are seen with Apple products, the more it works to break that feedback loop.

I certainly encourage anyone who is angered at Apple's business practices to find other devices. The good news is that it is perfectly doable. There's nothing Apple has I'm aware of that you can't find a workable alternative to.

Now if you like the stuff Apple makes the best and don't care about their actions, fair enough, but "I can't find anything else," isn't a valid point. Android or Windows Mobile phones work real well, tons of companies will supply you with a computer at any price and quality point you wish and so on.

So the parent has the right of it: If you are mad at Apple, don't buy their stuff. Better still, send them a polite e-mail, letting them know. Even better still, let others know why and encourage them to do the same (don't be pushy though).

New positions? (5, Funny)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434501)

They have to pay for the ex-Google Mappers somehow. It's either that or convince people to start renaming continents [tumblr.com].

Re:New positions? (1)

mathfeel (937008) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435093)

They have to pay for the ex-Google Mappers somehow. It's either that or convince people to start renaming continents [tumblr.com].

It seems someone at Apple is reading xkcd: http://what-if.xkcd.com/10/ [xkcd.com]
And all those distorted map image makes sense once you realized Apple is mapping our dreams, Inception style.

Well, who can claim them? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434503)

The mastermind is gone, so they need to start doing stuff like this frequently since there won't be any new innovation and goodwill that came naturally with Jobs.

The real news is Samsung's motion (5, Informative)

robbak (775424) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434539)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120922171505170 [groklaw.net]

The real news is Samsung's motion for JMOL or a new trial. This verdict is hopelessly inconsistent and compromised - the statements made by the jury foreman are hard to believe! - that there is no chance of it standing. If sane, Apple would admit that, argue that the verdict should be tossed in it's entirety, so the important points in Samsung's favor are lost as well, and keep it's powder dry for round 2. I'm not holding my breath for that, as they have shown a willingness to argue that the sky is green from day 1.

Re:The real news is Samsung's motion (2, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434903)

There is not going to be a new trial. I think Samsung was treated unfairly. On the other hand Samsung also engaged in serious misconduct during discovery.

There are lots of problems with this filing as well. For example Courts have repeatedly denied a monopoly in the copyright context over the GUI design concepts that Apple seeks to protect here. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. In Apple v. Microsoft the court never ruled that GUI design concepts weren't protected. The ruled the exact opposite that the expression of functional elements were protected. However, they found that Apple lacked standing not having been the originator of those ideas. Samsung's lawyers constantly intermix BS with truth and the problem is the court is seeing this as dishonest not good lawyering.

Re:The real news is Samsung's motion (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434977)

Samsung also engaged in serious misconduct during discovery.

Such as?

Apple may have a problem, Houston... (5, Informative)

Torinir (870836) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434541)

Apple might have a hard time asking for more money from that judgment when Samsung has valid claims which could lead to a retrial.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1990Samsung50and59motions.pdf [groklaw.net]

Of note: the table of references point to cases of jury misconduct, even though the arguments by Samsung were redacted. Bet on this judgment being tossed out fast.

Re:Apple may have a problem, Houston... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434739)

As the Groklaw article points out, obvious jury misconduct doesn't always lead to the verdict being tossed. It's all good stuff to have on record for the appeal, though.

Re:Apple may have a problem, Houston... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434995)

I don't think so.

1) Samsung engaged in misconduct during discovery.
2) Samsung was unable to provide a sound basis for the drastic shifts in their design approach after the iPhone was released
3) Some of the elements of copying, like icon styling are rather clear and none have been conceded to, which is likely what led the jury to draw the conclusion of intent. This happens all the time, X lies about his minor part in the crime so the jury decides to believe he's lying because he was a primary.

That being said I agree with Samsung the punishments effectively allowed Apple to misrepresent the evidence in their presentation. I'd like to see those things tossed.

Obligatory Ice-T (4, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434577)

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

The game being IP.

Hate the player (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434661)

They copy others, then pretend its their own work. The lie part of that comes from Apple. Sure USPTO should have caught out their lies and not issued a design patent for stuff like rounded corners, but that doesn't mean the original lie wasn't created by Apple.

Apple knew what it was doing when it copied Sony's rounded corners, it knew what it was doing when it copied the camera icon looking like a camera. It chose to file a fraudulent design patent. USPTO chose to rubber stamp stuff. USPTO are bad, but its Apple that's rotten at the core there.

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434663)

You are full of bullshit. Apple is abusing the system. I don't see Google suing over bing. I don't see Google trying to litigate competition out of the marketplace. And suing over gestures? And icons in a grid? And generally abusing software patents progressively making it impossible to write software without having to spend money on lawyers. The list goes on and on. So its notjust the game it the fucking player that is corrupt. Fuck apple. They won't see another recommendation from me until they stop this madness.

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434807)

And icons in a grid?

WHAT? No way. How about - Dungeon Master, 1987? That has Icons in a grid. A game of chess has bits you move about in a grid. I hope that patent wasn't given.

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434667)

Why shouldn't we hate the players? The players spend millions upon millions lobbying to change the rules of the game in their favor, often at the expensive of innovation.

I know it's fun to mindlessly spout clíchés, but they're not always true.

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434923)

The players are rats. Now go to the lab and run the tests to see how they react to certain stimuli. Then come back and tell me why I should hate the test subject when it responds exactly as expected.

A saying only used by asshole players (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434683)

That statement is only used by abusers of the system and their fanboys.

Don't hate the rapist, hate rape. Only a rapist would say that. The rest of the world hates both.

Re:A saying only used by asshole players (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434889)

No, what is being said is that the game rewards the rapist/abuser with fame, fortune, hookers, cocaine, and blackjack. Greed is good.. Nice guys finish last, and all that.. It actually applies here. What we see speaks for itself. Don't try to reverse all the evidence from Pavlov's experiments. If bad behavior is rewarded, you shouldn't expect much else. It's all pretty much automatic.

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434757)

Why should I hate the Internet Protocol?

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (3, Interesting)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434821)

""Don't hate the player, hate the game."

This has always been a stupid statement based on a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason not to hate both.

Disclaimer: I am posting from a Macbook; while I am not a fan of parts of the Apple company, their engineering is quite excellent.

I can very well hate the player (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434823)

Apple decided to go nuclear, and it is likely to backfire on them. While the patent system is broken for sure, most other large companies seemed to use stupid patents largely defensively. They'd patent everything under the sun so that if someone came after them, they could counter with thousands of patents and see what stuck. In terms of legit patents, they'd do cross licensing.

Not Apple, they've decided to go nuclear on other players. Sue them for stupid amounts of money, declare nobody can make anything that looks like an Apple product, and so on. They raised the stakes, and thus things are getting nasty.

So we sure can, and will, hate on Apple.

Re:Obligatory Ice-T (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434909)

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Without players, there wouldn't be the game.

Apple meet Sony (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434585)

I've had quite a few iPods over the years and was thinking about an iPad but now Apple have joined Sony on my 'never buying a damned thing from them ever again because they're evil' list.

Whats the point? (0)

miffo.swe (547642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434589)

The trial will be either tossed out or redone with judge less hostile to Samsung. And the jury foreman, that guy must be paid by Samsung because he has shot more holes in the jury decision than Samsungs lawyers could ever have done with a haubitzer.

It's what happens... (4, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434629)

What happened to the concept of a "jury of peers" as in English law (i.e. equals)? If corporations are people in the USA, then the jury in a trial between corporations over technical issues should consist of retired (as in no ax to grind) design engineers with experience of the patent, trademark and design system. This won't happen because they would rapidly expose the ignorance of the lawyers, simply by the questions they would ask. But it would eliminate an awful lot of bad decisions and legal costs.

Re:It's what happens... (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434975)

What happened to the concept of a "jury of peers" as in English law (i.e. equals)? If corporations are people in the USA, then the jury in a trial between corporations over technical issues should consist of retired (as in no ax to grind) design engineers with experience of the patent, trademark and design system. This won't happen because they would rapidly expose the ignorance of the lawyers, simply by the questions they would ask. But it would eliminate an awful lot of bad decisions and legal costs.

Yes but the foreman was such a person, and used his experience of the system to testify rather than to base the decision on the evidence.

I personally think that a small decision either way would have been regarded as just, but this decision made a bad joke of the US IP judicial system.

Re:It's what happens... (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435015)

Problem was he was the only one. If the jury were made of 12 knowledgeable people, one person would have a harder time hijacking the verdict (12 angry men notwithstanding).

Re:It's what happens... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435011)

I think it is a great idea to have technical trials before random experts. I agree with you.

But that's the way regulatory boards are setup. Far fewer court trials and more administrative trials would be a huge benefit. But that requires going back to "bigger government" since the burden on the administrators increases and the burden on the courts decreases.

Not so funny anymore (5, Insightful)

Damouze (766305) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434595)

How about the millions of damages for the idea of a tablet computer, posthumously, to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke?

Re:Not so funny anymore (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435019)

I would be concerned if Apple ever get the patent for a remote microwave communications relay in geostationary orbit. (Clarke, 1945 [archive.org])

The Clarke estate would have KITTENS.

good artikel (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434681)

I’ve been browsing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any

interesting article like yours. It's pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion,

if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet

will be a lot more useful than ever before.
http://www.insurancecheapinvestment.com/cell-phone-insurance/

I'm calling the "wanbulance"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434729)

Because if this is taken anywhere outside of Siliicon valley, Apple will cry and complain that it wasn't fair and that "they just don't know"

If I were a shareholder (4, Insightful)

darkat (697582) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434747)

If I were a shareholder I would be quite worried about the (cr)Apple strategy. IMHO this is a clear signal of lack of innovative ideas. Innovation cannot be a continuos flow and they are reaching their limits. I doubt that the iphone 5 will be a planetary success because of the lack of real innovation in it. It's a sad black thing with infamous rounded corners. It's not appealing neither aestethically nor tecnologically. The competitors do at least the same and also much better. They appear on the descending path.

Re:If I were a shareholder (-1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#41435045)

If you mean innovation in the normal sense and not the /. its only innovation if nothing like it was ever considered before.

a) An entirely new design for screen manufacture no one else (but the Apple rMBP) uses.
b) An entirely new CPU design (and yes this is the Intrinsity division of Apple).
c) An entirely new mapping subsystem
d) Passbook
e) Guided access
f) VIP mail
g) Do not disturb / call me later

etc... You may not like Apple but the claim they aren't innovative is nonsense.

Apple patented PANTS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41434837)

Then they noticed Samsung employees going to work - wearing PANTS!.

Swiss (4, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434911)

If they win maybe they can use the proceeds to pay the swiss railway. by the sounds of it apple believes in harsh penalty for wilful violation. Swiss Rail will be very happy to hear apple feels this way.

Easy business (1)

sturle (1165695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434925)

Must be easy to be a US company. Make a product. Doesn't matter if it sucks or not. If someone else make a better competing product with their own technology, sue their ass with bogus patents on rounded corners and whatnot, which are only possible in the US, and grab all the competitors profit in the entire world.

re-exam (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | about a year and a half ago | (#41434973)

Why doesn't samsung just have the USPTO do a re-exam of the patent, its cheap and would possibly invalidate the patent.

Damage inaccurately quoted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41435085)

The way I hear it, the amount claimed as damages has been rounded for some irrational reason. The real amount is $707,106,781.18.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...