[BREAKING] Apple V. Samsung Jury reaches verdict.

[Boz]

Best quote by Mark Cuban on twitter:

[nominak]

Best quote by Mark Cuban on twitter:

Mark Cuban is one to talk.. being on Dragons Den and all.

[xeleraph]

Too bad that's not true on Neowin and various other sites/forums. Thread comes up about Google's plan to sue Apple, and suddenly everyone's on their feet goin "DO IT, DO IT!!"

How quickly the worry over consumer choice and innovation fades. :laugh:

Countersuing a patent troll and forcing them to settle under reasonable terms - as opposed to $30-40 per device - has proven to be a very good way of protecting consumer choice and innovation. I don't see any hypocrisy here, sorry.

Look at the George Foreman grill, it's just a grill pointed downwards so the fat runs off, pretty obvious and basic but they have made billions of dollars from something like that and I believe it is patented or secured in some manner.

Fact is, Apple got there first and they spent many years and lots and lots of money to get there, Samsung could have been first but they were not.

The design of the George Foreman grill is the whole purpose of the grill. The design of the grill IS the grill, because it's what allows the grill to do what it does. What purpose does rounded corners serve for the iPhone?

I'm afraid you need to come up with a better analogy.

[Vice]

The design of the George Foreman grill is the whole purpose of the grill. The design of the grill IS the grill, because it's what allows the grill to do what it does. What purpose does rounded corners serve for the iPhone?

I'm afraid you need to come up with a better analogy.

Oh whatever, seriously. No talking to some of you on here, you're just too bitter that Samsung lost and Apple won.

It's just a normal grill at an angle. It's pretty bloody basic stuff. Just like slide to unlock or tap to zoom.

[xeleraph]

Oh whatever, seriously. No talking to some of you on here, you're just too bitter that Samsung lost and Apple won.

It's just a normal grill at an angle. It's pretty bloody basic stuff. Just like slide to unlock or tap to zoom.

So when you can't come back with a counter-argument, you fall back on calling me bitter? I think it's really obvious who's the bitter one here. The fact is that the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

[Vice]

So when you can't come back with a counter-argument, you fall back on calling me bitter? I think it's really obvious who's the bitter one here. The fact is that the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

Why would I be bitter? Apple won and I think they should have won. I think you need to find a better counter argument to my argument calling you bitter. Which you clearly are.

[xeleraph]

Why would I be bitter? Apple won and I think they should have won. I think you need to find a better counter argument to my argument calling you bitter. Which you clearly are.

I never claimed that you were bitter. Why rush to defend yourself? Maybe because deep down inside you know who actually is bitter?

Thanks for trying to cover up your complete lack of an argument with ad hominem attacks, by the way. Why do you need to be so desperate when Apple won the court case? To repeat the question: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

[Vice]

Thanks for trying to cover up your complete lack of an argument with desperate ad hominem attacks. To repeat the question: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone.

I like how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned slide to unlock and tap to zoom and keep going on about the rounded corners. I guess you're just a one legged horse.

Ignore more please.

I never claimed that you were bitter. Why rush to defend yourself? Maybe because deep down inside you know who actually is bitter?

Because you insinuated I was the bitter one and not you, and you just did it again. I have no reason to be bitter, I always believed Apple would win and they did. You are clearly very bitter about the result while I think the result is excellent.

[xeleraph]

I like how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned slide to unlock and tap to zoom and keep going on about the rounded corners. I guess you're just a one legged horse.

Ignore more please.

Because rounded corners is the issue here. But it looks like you're continuing with your complete lack of a valid argument. You're trying to pick a fight here by slinging insults like a badass-wannabe instead of answering the question. It's not working. The question is: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone. Why should rounded corners be patentable?

It's not really that difficult... is it?

Because you insinuated I was the bitter one and not you, and you just did it again. I have no reason to be bitter, I always believed Apple would win and they did. You are clearly very bitter about the result while I think the result is excellent.

Of course not. That's why you're desperately slinging ad hominem attacks instead of answering the question, amirite?

[Vice]

Because rounded corners is the issue here. But it looks like you're continuing with your complete lack of a valid argument. You're trying to pick a fight here by slinging insults like a badass-wannabe instead of answering the question. It's not working. The question is: the George Foremall grill's design is the purpose of the entire grill, making it a valid patent. Please explain to us what does rounded corners do for the iPhone. Why should rounded corners be patentable?

It's not really that difficult... is it?

First of all the rounded corners are one part of the phone. The rounded corners do not make the phone work they are insignificant parts of the phone. Similarly the angled grill of the George Forman grill does not make it a grill it still works as a grill without being tilted downwards for the fat to run off. They hold a patent for a tilt, a very basic design where by the back legs are higher than the front ones. The rounded corners on the phone are pretty insignificant too.

Grills are still sold, phones will still be sold. Just don't infringe on peoples patents that hold those design elements. A tilt on the grill obviously doesn't stop grill manufacturers from making grills and rounded edges on a phone won't stop Samsung selling phones. The fact is Apple had the patent and Samsung didn't and they should not have infringed it and I'd expect the company behind the George Forman grills to go after companies that sell tilted grills in the same way Apple has gone after Samsung.

Even if you don't agree with the patent you need to abide by it or tackle it in court before you start releasing devices utilizing it. Samsung did not do that and they were penalized for it as they should be.

This is just one of the many patents Samsung infringed upon like the tap to zoom functionality.

And I'm sorry for identifying your bitterness, I didn't realize it would make you so angry to be called out on it.

[xeleraph]

First of all the rounded corners are one part of the phone. The rounded corners do not make the phone work they are insignificant parts of the phone. Similarly the angled grill of the George Forman grill does not make it a grill it still works as a grill without being tilted downwards for the fat to run off. They hold a patent for a tilt, a very basic design where by the back legs are higher than the front ones. The rounded corners on the phone are pretty insignificant too.

That's precisely my question: the tilt allows the fat to run off. The tilt serves a purpose. As you have admitted yourself, rounded corners are insignificant. Why then do you think rounded corners are patentable?

Repeating my question back to me doesn't answer it, sorry.

[Vice]

That's precisely my question: the tilt allows the fat to run off. The tilt serves a purpose. As you have admitted yourself, rounded corners are insignificant. Why then do you think rounded corners are patentable?

Repeating my question back to me doesn't answer it, sorry.

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

[Growled Member]

I am a bit surprised that Apple won but I shouldn't be. Apple still has that major aura around them that never seems to fail them.

[Vice]

I am a bit surprised that Apple won but I shouldn't be. Apple still has that major aura around them that never seems to fail them.

Now reinforced with the soul of the late Steven Jobs. :rofl:

[xeleraph]

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

I'm taking it up with you because you're defending that rounded corners should be patentable. For something to be a feature, it needs to serve a purpose. Repeatedly insisting that rounded corners are a feature doesn't make it so. The tilt serves a purpose, therefore it's a feature, and if it's a feature it's probably patentable. What purpose does rounded corners serve? Apple is trying to patent a SHAPE here - a shape that serves no purpose to the function of the product. They might as well be trying to patent the color black, and frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if they already have.

[Vice]

I'm taking it up with you because you're defending that rounded corners should be patentable. For something to be a feature, it needs to serve a purpose. Repeatedly insisting that rounded corners are a feature doesn't make it so. The tilt serves a purpose, therefore it's a feature, and if it's a feature it's most likely patentable. What purpose does rounded corners serve?

Making it easier to hold in ones hand? Making it more visually pleasing. How about making it so it isn't sharp and doesn't stick you when you try and hold it?

Fact is they got the patent on it and no one contested it, just because we don't know definitively its usefulness doesn't mean it doesn't have one. And besides I'm pretty sure Apple took them to task over the rounded corners because Samsung copied the exact angle Apple had used which caused brand confusion when combined with all the other similarities of the device, basically Apple was saying Samsung had ripped off their design language to willfully deceive consumers in to believing they were purchasing an Apple device when in reality they were purchasing a Samsung one.

[xeleraph]

Making it easier to hold in ones hand?

And the evidence of that is?

Making it more visually pleasing.

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

How about making it so it isn't sharp and doesn't stick you when you try and hold it?

And the evidence of that is?

Fact is they got the patent on it and no one contested it, just because we don't know definitively its usefulness doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

If I can't find any money in my wallet, does it mean that there might be money there and we don't definitely know for sure? Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

And besides I'm pretty sure Apple took them to task over the rounded corners because Samsung copied the exact angle Apple had used which caused brand confusion when combined with all the other similarities of the device, basically Apple was saying Samsung had ripped off their design language to willfully deceive consumers in to believing they were purchasing an Apple device when in reality they were purchasing a Samsung one.

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

[Vice]

And the evidence of that is?

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

And the evidence of that is?

If I can't find any money in my wallet, does it mean that there might be money there and we don't definitely know for sure? Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

In your world if something has a pointed edge it can't stick you? Okay then. I think we are done here. :D

[Shane Nokes]

The tilt in the George Foreman is a unique feature their competitors don't have. Apples rounded corners were a unique feature their competitors didn't have. I really don't see a difference here. If Samsung believed Apples patent with regards to the rounded corners were invalid they should have contested that in a separate court case way before Apple brought a suit against them. They could have used prior art to invalidate that patent, they didn't do that.

Take it up with Samsung buddy.

Sorry, I had a smartphone that was rectangular with rounded corners...BEFORE the iPhone came out.

Oh, and they tried to user prior art...but the judge dismissed that claim. Were you even following the trial?

[xeleraph]

In your world if something has a pointed edge it can't stick you? Okay then. I think we are done here. :D

Really? First ad hominem attacks, now blatant cop-outs trying to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument? You're half-right on your last sentence, at least - you're done here.

[Vice]

Sorry, I had a smartphone that was rectangular with rounded corners...BEFORE the iPhone came out.

I never said Apple invented it, I said no one contested it like they should have done. The fact is, Apple held the patent and so Samsung should have fought to invalidate that patent long before this case even began. Samsung can blame their legal council for not doing that.

If I had a patent on rounded corners I'd be suing people too. Apple should never have got that patent, but they did, and now Samsung is in fault of it because they were too incompetent.

I too had handheld touch screen devices with rounded corners before the iPhone and iPad showed up.

Really? First ad hominem attacks, now blatant cop-outs trying to disguise the fact that you don't have an argument? You're half-right on your last sentence, at least - you're done here.

According to you I need evidence that things without rounded corners can stick you. I think you need to do some homework on that one yourself as you looked pretty silly saying that.

[Matthew_Thepc]

sorry, not trying to take sides here, but I've just gotta ask, what?

And the evidence of that is?

that people generally like holding round objects than pointy ones?

I don't believe "visually pleasing" is a patentable feature.

very true :D

And the evidence of that is?

the evidence is that when a corner is sharp and pointy instead of round and smooth, it sticks out more, since our hands feel better when we put them on smooth surfaces instead of pointy ones that poke us ?

Fact is when you can't find any feature that rounded corners serve... there probably isn't one to begin with.

Except that he just gave you two features and you somehow dismissed them asking for "evidence" ?

hold a phone with rounded sides &/or corners, and then hold a rectangular phone with pointy sides/corners. Which one do you like better? Which one feels better in your hand?

It's already been shown in court that next to no one bought Samsung phones because they thought it was an iPhone. You'll need to come up with better arguments than claims which have already been debunked by the evidence.

agreed - I honestly don't think there was any kind of major deliberate patent stealing going on here - but IMO your arguments against his evidence (and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that he has any evidence at all) just don't work.

[xeleraph]

the evidence is that when a corner is sharp and pointy instead of round and smooth, it sticks out more, since our hands feel better when we put them on smooth surfaces instead of pointy ones that poke us ?

My hands feel better when holding my sharp-edged Lumia and Xperia phone than they do when holding my iPhone. The former two phones' sharp edges don't poke me at all. Does this count as evidence invalidating the poking claim? If not, then you might begin to understand why the evidence in favor doesn't count as evidence either.

Except when he just gave you two features and you somehow dismissed them asking for "evidence" ?

agreed - I honestly don't think there was any kind of major deliberate patent stealing going on here - but IMO your arguments against his evidence (and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that he has any evidence at all) just don't work.

Because it doesn't naturally follow that a phone with rounded corners is easier to hold. That's why you need evidence. I can also say that phones with rounded corners are more difficult to hold and declare it as unassailable fact without evidence, too, but I'm not going to because such a line of argument is nonsensical. IMO, you don't understand how logic works.

[Shane Nokes]

I never said Apple invented it, I said no one contested it like they should have done. The fact is, Apple held the patent and so Samsung should have fought to invalidate that patent long before this case even began. Samsung can blame their legal council for not doing that.

If I had a patent on rounded corners I'd be suing people too. Apple should never have got that patent, but they did, and now Samsung is in fault of it because they were too incompetent.

I too had handheld touch screen devices with rounded corners before the iPhone and iPad showed up.

Indeed. I edited my post (while you were likely typing this one) to state the Samsung HAS brought up the prior art argument using multiple examples, and were denied.

[xeleraph]

According to you I need evidence that things without rounded corners can stick you. I think you need to do some homework on that one yourself as you looked pretty silly saying that.

You ARE aware that "can stick you" isn't the same as "WILL stick you"... right?

Maybe it's just me, but it's really ironic when someone like that tells me I looked pretty silly. Sigh. Not to mention that you're defeating your own claim. If it's impossible to make non-rounded cases without sticking into users, then there's all the more reason that rounded corners shouldn't be patentable, or at least licensed under FRAND terms.

I'm looking silly. Ooohkay. :rolleyes: