The Verge, summarising the first US patent lawsuit between Apple and Samsung:
Apple was awarded just over $1 billion in damages, though that figure was later cut down to $939.8 million after the judge pointed out errors in the way the jury did its math. Those damages were retried, and came in lower than the original figure, though the entire amount has since been appealed, and Samsung hasn’t paid a penny. Alongside that, Apple and Samsung failed to win bans against one another’s products in the US, making the first trial seem like nothing more than a legal spectacle.
Or, just call it what it is: an abject failure on both company’s sides, and a huge waste of money that could have gone to product development, higher salaries, or even shareholder returns. Two gigantic and hugely profitable companies using despicable weaponry – and all, for, nothing.
But in the midst of all that was a very real threat: another lawsuit, one that targeted more successful devices from both companies, and used easy-to-understand patents covering basic software features. Apple filed it against Samsung in February 2012, targeting 17 devices. Samsung responded in kind, and this week the pair go head to head once again; the outcome could be very different. Here’s what to expect over the next weeks and months as these two titans clash again in California’s courts.
So, prepare for another week of lawyers laughing all the way to the bank, while two companies with more money than they know what to do with waste precious time of the US justice system that could be spent elsewhere, and better.
Let the cheering contest continue. Which faceless corporation that cares none about you do you root for?
While kids suffer hunger around the world.
Here they were, minding their own business when Apple decided to play bully. “If you can’t out-innovate, out-ligitate” plain and simple.
Also partly why I’ve cut back on purchases of Apple products over the last few years.
One can (and in my opinion) should make the counter argument which is that if you can’t out-innovate, copy. That’s what Samsung tried and will likely have to pay the piper for.
Innovation requires copying. Actually, a better word should be imitation. “Copy” is a charged word and implies an actual transfer and is conflated with imitation to make imitation sound unfair.
I think you mean iteration.
eventually someone will get it right.
Doing something similarly with the same result is not copying. Doing something the same way with the same result is what Samsung has been charged and found guilty of… and will likely be found guilty of again.
Neither. I like Apple’s products and especially their desktop OS, but I don’t like them as a company overall. I own a flagship Samsung phone and enjoy it, but I don’t like them as a company either. Let them duke it out; it’s not like Apple can take my Samsung phone away from me just by winning a lawsuit.
I wish they would just drop all the lawsuit silliness and get back to innovating.
US.
Hopefully, it causes the courts to realize that such patents are worthess, and should be invalidated.
“and all, for, nothing.”
This is where you completely miss the point.
The question is: what would have happened if Apple didn’t do anything against Samsung plagiarism with the original Galaxy S?
The main point for Apple was to send a very strong message to Samsung ant other manufacturers. And I think it worked quite well.
Edited 2014-04-01 09:51 UTC
What would happen? Is that a rethorical question?
I guess there would be more rounded corners and fewer rich lawyers in the world. That would be horrific!
Is that supposed to be a digg on Samsung or Apple?
Does it have to be either? If anything it’s mostly a digg on the patent system.
You need to consider Apple’s point-of-view here, the point being whether or not the trial did have a positive impact on Apple’s business.
The main point is not who’s right but where the trial will be held.
Apple plays “at home” and the “legal” decision will be highly influenced by that.
The only interesting point is Google as there will be another US company involved in this story
Edited 2014-04-01 17:15 UTC