11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 11. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Sep 1, 2012, 14:07 |
eRe4s3r |
|
|
| It will be revamped when nations start ignoring patents outright, and I think China is on a good way there.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Sep 1, 2012, 11:48 |
TurdFergasun |
|
|
Dr. D. Schreber wrote on Sep 1, 2012, 01:46:
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
Because one of the infractions the jury found in their 22 hours of deliberation was this? Yep, curved top and bottom (therefore not a rectangle,) full QWERTY keyboard, twice the thickness of an iPhone, SAMSUNG written in giant letters on the front, that totally looks like an iPhone. It's so obvious!
But being serious, Samsung isn't really any better in this nonsense, nor is Google. The entire thing is one massive fight for leverage on licensing fees. The verdict on this case was so batshit insane that it's entirely possible it's just going to be thrown out and gone through allll over again. Seriously, one of the reasons the jury blazed through it so fast was that they skipped the question of prior art. "It was bogging us down!" Basically the entire point of the case, and they just ignored it because it was taking longer. Not even getting into how the damages they awarded are by their own admission not following the guidelines given to them for how damages in a patent infringement case are supposed to work, or the jury foreman having a blatant conflict of interest holding his own (blatantly bullshit) patent...
Either way, if this verdict holds or if the case is tried again, there's no way this is going to see any resolution for years. It's just going to be appealed, and appealed, and appealed, and appealed... this entire thing is just one giant demonstration of how broken the patent system is.
there's alot of money to be made in having cases like this dragged into infinity, i have to wonder where the motivation will be for a system like this to ever be revamped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Sep 1, 2012, 02:37 |
Dades |
|
|
necrosis wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:04:
I guess justice is blind, and so are you.
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
I really have no idea how someone can drop a bomb like that without anything to back it up. Have you seen how vague Apples design patents are? Do you have any idea what is going on here? Sony had working prototype smartphones that look remarkably like an iPhone, I guess they have a valid suit too if they happened to patent "telephonic device in rectangular shape". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Sep 1, 2012, 01:46 |
Dr. D. Schreber |
|
|
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
Because one of the infractions the jury found in their 22 hours of deliberation was this? Yep, curved top and bottom (therefore not a rectangle,) full QWERTY keyboard, twice the thickness of an iPhone, SAMSUNG written in giant letters on the front, that totally looks like an iPhone. It's so obvious!
But being serious, Samsung isn't really any better in this nonsense, nor is Google. The entire thing is one massive fight for leverage on licensing fees. The verdict on this case was so batshit insane that it's entirely possible it's just going to be thrown out and gone through allll over again. Seriously, one of the reasons the jury blazed through it so fast was that they skipped the question of prior art. "It was bogging us down!" Basically the entire point of the case, and they just ignored it because it was taking longer. Not even getting into how the damages they awarded are by their own admission not following the guidelines given to them for how damages in a patent infringement case are supposed to work, or the jury foreman having a blatant conflict of interest holding his own (blatantly bullshit) patent...
Either way, if this verdict holds or if the case is tried again, there's no way this is going to see any resolution for years. It's just going to be appealed, and appealed, and appealed, and appealed... this entire thing is just one giant demonstration of how broken the patent system is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
(170 Hit Combo) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 23:47 |
Prez |
|
|
Sepharo wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:35:
necrosis wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:04:
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
Because there wasn't anything to copy? They made a smart phone with a full screen that had icons on it. Apple didn't invent that.
Exactly. It's funny and sad at the same time that when you get away from the hopelessly broken US legal system and its laughably ridiculous copyright laws logic starts to prevail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 22:57 |
Cutter |
|
|
necrosis wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:04:
Cutter wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 20:37:
Love the comments after this article with people reamin Apple, US patent law, and how the fix was in for Apple on their US win. Not only do I hope Samsung crushes them on appel but that the judge in that case should come under criminal investigation or at least a formal judicial review.
I guess justice is blind, and so are you.
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
Better to keep your mouth shut and suspected the fool than open it and remove all doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 22:37 |
jimnms |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 22:21 |
cappy |
|
|
Sepharo wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:35:
necrosis wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:04:
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
Because there wasn't anything to copy? They made a smart phone with a full screen that had icons on it. Apple didn't invent that.
But they apparently "invented" rectangles with rounded corners.
I heard they're going after sandwich-bread makers next, because a lot of that has rounded corners as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 21:35 |
Sepharo |
|
|
necrosis wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 21:04:
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone.
Because there wasn't anything to copy? They made a smart phone with a full screen that had icons on it. Apple didn't invent that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [I'm not trolling I'm just] tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. -TrollinThundr |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 21:04 |
necrosis |
|
|
Cutter wrote on Aug 31, 2012, 20:37:
Love the comments after this article with people reamin Apple, US patent law, and how the fix was in for Apple on their US win. Not only do I hope Samsung crushes them on appel but that the judge in that case should come under criminal investigation or at least a formal judicial review.
I guess justice is blind, and so are you.
I really have no idea how anyone can say Samsung did not copy the iPhone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Evening Legal Briefs |
Aug 31, 2012, 20:37 |
Cutter |
|
|
Love the comments after this article with people reamin Apple, US patent law, and how the fix was in for Apple on their US win. Not only do I hope Samsung crushes them on appel but that the judge in that case should come under criminal investigation or at least a formal judicial review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton |
|
|
|
|
| |
11 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
