Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

I still don't understand how stopping Samsung from coping Apple is stifling innovation...

I think they made the right decision. Samsung clearly copied and infringed on Apple's patents, Apple told them to stop many times, offered to licence it to them but Samsung still refused to cooperate so Apple sued them. Serves them right.

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

What this jury verdict says is that Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property and that Samsung is guilty of lifting Apple's innovation despite the fact that Apple had offered Samsung several times to license their property.

I will also point out that Samsung is the worldwide leader in unit marketshare of smartphones.

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/27/apples-share-of-worldwide-smartphone-market-slides-as-samsung-continues-to-surge/

Samsung dominates the market by selling lots of devices that -- according to this jury -- are crammed full of Apple intellectual property. Apple has a long way to go to reach what would be a monopoly.

You should understand that the jury members are interpreting US patent law and aren't employees of Apple Inc. nor Samsung. As a matter of fact, any Apple or Samsung employees would have been weeded out during the jury selection process.

The jury is not telling anyone to stop innovating. They are telling Samsung to do their own innovation and not to steal stuff from Apple and saying it is theirs. Due to the lack of congressional foresight, current patent law has no actionable provision for "finders keepers, losers weepers" or "share your toys with the other kids in the sandbox."

Now, if you think the US patent system is broken, that's an entirely different (and arguably valid) discussion, however the jury is instructed to base their verdict on existing and active law.

These laws weren't written to favor one specific company (like Apple, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Wonderbra, whoever).

You have understood nothing about this entire legal action.

This well thought out explanation is going to frustrate critics who want to blame an ignorant jury for what happened.

Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.

Uh, the jury needs to consider all the evidence presented at trial. It's a little strange that you feel you can redefine the rules of evidence used at trial in an internet forum.

Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.:rolleyes:

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.

And they would definitely sue Pepsi if they copied.

----------

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

Samsung is the one that needs to learn to play well with others - this has been going on for years and years with them.

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

I guess people should just be allowed to rip you off, in order to out sell you and you not do anything about it.

Patents are put in place for a reason. If someone else want to use them then they must obtain the proper rights.

Foxy

Bratty little whinny kids in 3, 2, 1..

They are like the ones in school that can't copy the smart kid in class and get away with it. Bunch of punks supporting the belief that taking a free ride off of someone else's work is the way to go.

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.

That's only if Coca-Cola had a patent on lemon-lime soda. I don't think they do.

However... Apple has tons of patents and trade-dress examples.

Who knew you could patent all that stuff? Apple did... and now they are defending them.

You can't blame Apple for using the broken patent system...