Seeking Alpha

Samsung (SSNLF.PK), unsurprisingly, plans to appeal its harsh legal loss to Apple (AAPL)....

Samsung (SSNLF.PK), unsurprisingly, plans to appeal its harsh legal loss to Apple (AAPL). Apple's response to the jury's verdict: "We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right." Samsung's response: "It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies." (more)
Comments (78)
  • jerrycalpha
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    I think the problem with Samsung is their insecurity with their own innovation. Instead they duplicated a lot of the look and feel of iStuff because they had no marketing clue what would work for sure. The bouncy end of list thing is so dorky and so many paradigms would have been as good or better, but no, they did it like Steve just to be safe. For that they need to be spanked.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3670) | Send Message
     
    That is typical for the asian market, everything is a knock off...look how Hyundai is a Honda knockoff, Samsung is just a Sony knockoff, ect. Nothing done in that region is original, look at China, they can't even make a stealth fighter that isn't a direct knockoff cheap imitation of the F-35. Except it just looks stealth, but really isn't. :)
    26 Aug 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    Nothing looks like a Hyundai Veloster. Nothing
    26 Aug 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • skibimamex
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    none of the software patents that the jury found Samsung violated willfully (actually it was Google that violated them) had anything to do with "rectangles with rounded corners". It's just too bad that Samsung's lawyer hung its case on a cute "sound bite" but the jurors were smart enough to know to see through it.

     

    All the other OEM's relying on Android have the same dilemma. The only solution is for Google to work around a solution (assuming that it doesnt violate some other Apple patent instead) or otherwise negotiate a license with Apple and Microsoft to allow the features that it wants to retain in Android.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (1462) | Send Message
     
    Then exactly what patents did they infringe on?

     

    Remember, in a highly technical matter, a judge could reverse some or all of what a lay jury found for.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • rubicon59
    , contributor
    Comments (1335) | Send Message
     
    >>The only solution is for Google to work around a solution...to license with Apple and Microsoft

     

    Unfortunately, there is another option for them, they are actively pursuing. Find at least on strong non-FRAND patent among the tens of thousands Moto owns and you got immunity. There is non-trivial probability of them succeeding with it, which will make Apple regret not counter-bidding for Moto.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • skibimamex
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    IncomeYield, "hope is not an investment thesis". Why don't you review the 12 patents in various jurisdictions that Android devices have been found to have violated Microsoft or Apple patents, .. and yes, all the cases in Germany, in particular, are adjudicated by highly specialized technical judges.

     

    See here for the list of Android violations found in various jurisdictions worldwide: http://bit.ly/OaZc4S
    24 Aug 2012, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1037) | Send Message
     
    The judge certainly is empowered to make findings of law that would reverse some or all of the verdict. However, it is highly unlikely that the judge will reverse the jury's verdict on the most-important claims in this case. Those claims required determinations of credibility and intent, issues that are wholly within the province of the jury. Unless there was a clear error in the jury instructions (which is highly unlikely in this meticulously presented case), the jury verdict will stand.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • scl1973
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
     
    To a very limited extent. As a matter of law, the Judge could reverse the jury but it is very, very rare. The upper Courts will also scold a Judge for overturning a jury especially as it pertains the evidentiary matters. So your comment that a judge can overturn is really what you would see on TV and gives false hope to AAPL shorts like yourself.
    24 Aug 2012, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • Theodor Trampe
    , contributor
    Comments (25) | Send Message
     
    Wow that's an impressive list of validated patents!

     

    Let's hope that all of these companies stop bickering and either work out reasonable licensing agreement or figure out a way to innovate and put out some fresh and creative products.
    24 Aug 2012, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • IncomeYield
    , contributor
    Comments (1462) | Send Message
     
    What? The comment had absolutely nothing to do with the share price or direction.

     

    Second, you never know. The judge COULD overturn the verdict, lower or even raise damages. Look at RIMM patent litigation alone over the last few years.
    25 Aug 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3670) | Send Message
     
    No one is talking about the implications this will have to boost Windows phone 8 to front and center.
    26 Aug 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • rubicon59
    , contributor
    Comments (1335) | Send Message
     
    Why doesn't Samsung ship the rectangles and rounded corners they shipped before iPhone?
    24 Aug 2012, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4458) | Send Message
     
    Exactly. If this really was about rectangles with rounded corners, why did Samsung take 126 slides and examine point by point how their products could be more like the iPhone?

     

    If it was just about rectangles with rounded corners, it seems it would have only taken one slide. Two if you're really dense. Four if you don't understand the definition of a rectangle and choose to examine each side individually. But 126?
    24 Aug 2012, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • FT1
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Good question. My family and I used to own these despicable rectangular boxes with rounded corners that Samsung used to make. Thank God for Steve and the Iphone.
    25 Aug 2012, 01:02 AM Reply Like
  • Hellz
    , contributor
    Comments (170) | Send Message
     
    They did
    25 Aug 2012, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • Stone Fox Capital
    , contributor
    Comments (5788) | Send Message
     
    Funny.... rectangles with rounder corners. Maybe they should've come up with a different plan if that was the only problem. An innovative company might've had a different idea.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • jerrycalpha
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Believe me, in a couple of years rounded rectangles will look as dumb as a '57 Chevy. Maybe then GM can sue them.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • BigJ1260
    , contributor
    Comments (200) | Send Message
     
    How will Google now be able to Screw Apple by offering a iPhone IOS copy OS (Android) for free ?? - now that they will have to either develop a new and original OS - or pay Apple royalties and license fees.

     

    Serves Eric Schmidt right for betraying Steve and Apple after being privileged to sit on their board
    24 Aug 2012, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3984) | Send Message
     
    It becomes an issue of the total cost of royalties.

     

    Android makers already pay MSFT royalties, if they also have to Apple royalties the question becomes whether the 'free OS' price is still worth it compared to another OS, or for that matter, a featurephone.

     

    In fact, this makes featurephones like Nokia's Asha line much more interesting if it should lead to royalties and increasing OS fees to OEM making Android products.

     

    Another thing that is interesting is that Android has expanded far beyond just smartphones, so I'd be curious as to what the impact of this verdict is on other products and prodcut types.

     

    Finally, one has to consider how this will alter Google's Chrome strategy, especially since Mozilla's browser based OS is becoming a reality, surely Chrome on phone device must appear?

     

    Lots of ways this can play out.

     

    Including having a total non-impact on Google/Android.
    25 Aug 2012, 07:55 AM Reply Like
  • Aloha96815
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Samsung needs to put in the work like Apple did. Apple, like Rome, was not built in one day. I love how Samsung attempt to trivialize infringement by using pervasive objects/descriptions like "rectangles and rounded corners." Well then, how come you did not just opt for triangles, Samsung? Oh, I know, it's much easier to steal someone else's "rectangles" because you can forgo the cost associated with innovative design and research and development.

     

    I'm actually okay with you using my "rectangles", Samsung. But one thing, you have to pay me.
    24 Aug 2012, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • emburns
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    Your comment is naive in the fact that it is nearly impossible to create a functional device without infringing on some aspect. I don't see how you can't believe patent law needs a major reform.
    24 Aug 2012, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • Aloha96815
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    I made no claims or suggestions that intellectual property law did not need reforming. My remark solely highlighted the use of language in trying to explain something that is far more complex and arguably esoteric. Clearly, if this trial was a matter of 'shapes' it would not require litigation in such duration. In the meantime, I still find Samsung's rebuttal simple, strategic, and convenient. In all, Samsung needs product differentiation.
    24 Aug 2012, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • LaVelaBoy
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    Who are YOU to say that it's impossible to infringe??? If you can't find a workaround, get a god darn license (like MS and NOK did)....don't freakin' steal someone else's technology and call it your own!
    24 Aug 2012, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4458) | Send Message
     
    emburns, you have a StockTalk post calling Apple's win a "loss for human decency". And you're calling others naive? You go on to say, "only the behemoths can afford to create now." Are you trying to paint Samsung v. Apple as some sort of David and Goliath story? This was not a couple South Koreans in a garage, this was a major multinational corporation. They could have chosen to do it differently or license what they could not re-invent. No harm to "human decency" in that.
    24 Aug 2012, 11:25 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3984) | Send Message
     
    " If you can't find a workaround, get a god darn license (like MS and NOK did)"

     

    You clearly have no idea how many patents those two entities control to make that comment.

     

    emburns is suggesting that new innovation is virtually impossible by new players in the space when the behemoths control the market, and it's a valid point.

     

    Just think 'standards-essential' for example.
    25 Aug 2012, 07:58 AM Reply Like
  • LaVelaBoy
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    WRONG! you sound like that guy Charles Holland Duell, who quit his job at the patent's office in 1899 and declared that "Everything that can be invented has been invented"! Gimme a break, dude!
    25 Aug 2012, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    With success comes envy, bitterness.....

     

    You see it everywhere, in actors, athletes, companies, etc.....

     

    Apple brings a lot of emotion, just like the equity bull market since 09...they missed one of the best opportunities to make a lot, lot of money.

     

    Emburns just missed the rally....
    25 Aug 2012, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Yokyok
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    BS patents for things Apple didn't actually invent. They should be thrown out.
    24 Aug 2012, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • edsonjh
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Just one question...is the value defined a precedent for future negotiations? Maybe that can translate in a licensing fee of the patents around $11/device (considering Apple was actually asking $2.7 billion at $30/device). That might not affect the high end segment (quite frankly $11 is a small cost in a $600 device), but can be quite harmful in the low end devices (that sells around $200) that Google is quite dominating. Some speculations over this:
    - Google will probably have to create a "light" free version of Android that doesn't infringe any Apple's patents and might pay a license fee for a complete version that sells in high end devices (such as "Galaxy S3")
    - The biggest winner of this outcome might not be Apple but instead Microsoft, that might see some OEMs migrating to Windows 8 and also can have Nokia in better conditions to fight for the low end segment but...
    - If Apple smartly further lower the price of its old phones it might have the best chance they have so far to grab a good piece of the Emerging Markets
    24 Aug 2012, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    I wonder how many shares of Apple the jury collectively holds...
    24 Aug 2012, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4458) | Send Message
     
    The selection questionnaire asked (among other things) if you held any stock in either company.

     

    One Google employee was allowed to remain in the jury pool after the judge was convinced he could remain impartial. Apple lawyers used one of their preemptory challenges to have him removed.

     

    I think you would find that no glaring conflicts of interest were contained in the final jury. Samsung had preemptory challenges too, after all. Any number of members may have held AAPL shares in a retirement fund without knowing it, but no member of the jury will be making any substantial profit on the basis of his/her decision.
    24 Aug 2012, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • The Ugly Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (896) | Send Message
     
    ...and it makes it "right" to steal? why didn't Sammy copy RIMM? or NOK? why does the Galaxy have to be like the iPhone?

     

    Would you like it if someone stole your the idea of your blog and said it wasn't really stolen because everyone knows their ABC's?

     

    Samsung KNEW what it was doing. To say otherwise is just plain derp tardish.
    25 Aug 2012, 05:38 AM Reply Like
  • GRIGIO
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    IN ALL LIKELYHOOD ZERO .... AND ZERO FOR SAMSUNG SHARES .... JURY SELECTION WOULD PROBABLY PREVENT IT
    25 Aug 2012, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    none. vior dire established that.
    25 Aug 2012, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Deja Vu
    , contributor
    Comments (1153) | Send Message
     
    Read the transcripts of the trial or look at the evidence exhibits or even more important learn about the rulings of the learned judge on various motions throughout the trial.

     

    Juries are swayed by emotion but usually get reversed on appeal which is what I believe will happen in this case, if nothing else, strictly based on procedural reasons arising from the way Judge Koh conducted the trial.

     

    I believe in the short term Judge Koh will increase the damages and probably grant a variety of injunctions against Samsung, but in the long run, Samsung will prevail. Also, I believe Apple has laid itself open to attack by trolls and Apple's own arguments will be thrown right back at Apple. A pyrrhic victory it will prove to be, even if it somehow is sustained on appeal.
    24 Aug 2012, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • LaVelaBoy
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    Judge Judy Koh is a very capable, experienced and highly educated judge. I would be VERY surprised if an appeals panel finds REVERSIBLE error. I'm an attorney, and I followed the trial closely. Furthermore, the appeals court can ONLY reverse on procedural error. All of the jury's fact finding MUST stay in tact and cannot be second-guessed by ANY court. Period!
    24 Aug 2012, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • Deja Vu
    , contributor
    Comments (1153) | Send Message
     
    Given that the next higher court reverses 50% of jury verdicts (see the front page of the WSJ today here http://on.wsj.com/NnmDvf

     

    "Samsung said if it failed to convince Judge Koh to overturn the verdict, it would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court that focuses on patents. The Federal Circuit reverses jury verdicts at about a 50% rate, according to Mr. Love, a fact which bodes well for Samsung."

     

    Where do you get the notion that jury verdicts are set in stone? True in this particular case the next higher court has shown sympathy for Apple, but to say that jury verdicts in IP cases are untouchable is stretching it. I would give better than 75% chance to Samsung of winning this in the end.
    25 Aug 2012, 08:13 AM Reply Like
  • LaVelaBoy
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    What's untouchable is the jury's "finding of fact".
    An appeals panel would have to find a procedural error.... for example if Judge Koh mistakenly excluded certain documents from evidence, which if seen by the jury, would have let them to a different finding of fact, that would constitute a reversible error. Keep in mind though that it must be a pretty serious error. Every trial has some errors....very few errors are reversible. Once ruled reversible, the case either remanded on some issues or retried in its entirety. JFYI.
    25 Aug 2012, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Deja Vu
    , contributor
    Comments (1153) | Send Message
     
    Hmm... given Koh's pro Apple rulings such as

     

    a) allowing Apple to stash its chief designer in Hawaii for the duration of the trial
    b) allowing Apple to "find" only 55 emails in the entire company dealing with either the iPhone or iPad
    c) allowing expert testimony without an explanation of how the experts reached the conclusion forcing Samsung to decide whether to cross Apple's own experts to even bring out their basic testimony before beginning to even cross them.
    d) suppressing Samsung's prior designs and many of Samsung's witnesses
    e) allowing only 25 hours of time to Samsung to present on 600 questions in the jury verdict form (about 2.5 minutes of court time per question the jury was asked to decide)
    f) forcing Samsung to grant discovery from the date of the alleged infringement while allowing Apple to only turn over documents after the FILING date (thus allowing Apple to fish further back in time)
    h) going to great lengths to suppress evidence from Samsung prior to the iPhone announcement

     

    I could go on and on and on...but Judge Koh basically acted the part of someone who, any reasonable observer would conclude, seemed to have some sort of revolving door arrangement with Apple.

     

    If I had bet, again, I would bet on Samsung.
    25 Aug 2012, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (975) | Send Message
     
    jury verdicts that are decided on credibility are not reversed. This verdict was almost entirely a credibility determination. There is a reason jury verdicts are given great weight on credibility issues. The jury sees the inflections and demeanor and yes credibility of the witnesses. The Appeals court only reads a cold transcript. So a juries findings on credibility are not overturned unless manifestly erroneous. Even if the court of appeals would have found otherwise, reasonable men can disagree and the jury verdict stands.
    25 Aug 2012, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1037) | Send Message
     
    Like scl1973, I am also an attorney, and although I never say never, the chance of reversal is miniscule. This was purely a jury case, and the jury spoke loudly and quickly.
    25 Aug 2012, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1037) | Send Message
     
    LaVelaBoy is correct. As a defense trial attorney, I regularly hear arguments of the sort raised by DejaVu. Those arguments lack merit and do not warrant a reversal of a jury verdict. Also, the judge in this case was a fine patent attorney, a fact that further militates against a reversal. Most patent cases are not tried before judges who were former patent attorneys, so it is atypical to try a case before someone with the background of Judge Koh. Unless there was a massive error nestled somewhere in the jury instructions, this verdict will stand.
    25 Aug 2012, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • Deja Vu
    , contributor
    Comments (1153) | Send Message
     
    Looks like the bulk of your profession at tech law website groklaw disagrees with you....

     

    http://bit.ly/Pk4M45
    25 Aug 2012, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4458) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, that site is a hoot. Get a load of the lawyers who are saying that to properly answer each question should have taken an hour per question. That's thinking in lawyer time, not earth time.

     

    Now let's take, for example, claim 50 of the 193 patent (double tap to zoom). Suppose the jury decides that the the "Galaxy S2 (AT&T)" violates the patent. So they move on to the "Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)". These learned men of letters are saying the yokels on the jury should spend an hour puzzling over that. Only a lawyer would think that made any sense. To an engineer, the only question you need to ask is, "Does the same feature we were just discussing on the "Galaxy S2 (AT&T)" exist on the "Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)"? It does? Okay. Next.

     

    What an embarrassing but entertaining display of arrogance in the Groklaw comments.
    26 Aug 2012, 03:09 AM Reply Like
  • Larry Hamilton
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Steve and Apple had a good day! Copying is cheating... lazy! if Samsung can't innovate, they should get out of the game. Also, any company that would challenge a customer (Apple) that represents 10% of total sales is nuts. Apple will move away fron using Samsung as a component supplier, which will cost Samsung big time.
    24 Aug 2012, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Steve is dead in case you didn't know and he no longer has any days.
    24 Aug 2012, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • Hellz
    , contributor
    Comments (170) | Send Message
     
    Innovation? Where do you think the actual hardware innovation comes from? You think Apple invented touchscreens?
    25 Aug 2012, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • Articuno
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    Hellz,
    No patent complaint was because a phone had "a touchscreen"....
    And no, Apple didn't invent touchscreens....however they did tons of innovation to go from the basic technologies to get to a working iPhone.....much of that work is exclusively Apple's, including how the interface would work, and the design of the phone, how the home screen works, etc. it took Apple engineers two years to complete the project.....they have a right to protect their work.....
    25 Aug 2012, 08:15 AM Reply Like
  • LaVelaBoy
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    This about so much more then touchscreens. Did you read the verdict????
    25 Aug 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • rubicon59
    , contributor
    Comments (1335) | Send Message
     
    To Samsung, I only have one word (well three)

     

    Ooppa Gangam style

     

    http://bit.ly/Pi0A54
    24 Aug 2012, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • Jlt01
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    The Apple haters are not going to like this. Time for the APPL shorts to come out fighting...come on lets hear it:
    25 Aug 2012, 02:35 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1128) | Send Message
     
    Time to remove our troops from SK.
    25 Aug 2012, 06:02 AM Reply Like
  • qiuhong
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Samsung still doesn't get it. There is nothing about monopoly, it's about their stealing. Other than being a theft, Samsung, the korean company really has nothing to show off as they don't have their own design and innovation.
    25 Aug 2012, 06:21 AM Reply Like
  • Snoopy1
    , contributor
    Comments (1105) | Send Message
     
    You are correct - the trial showed that Samsung deliberately analyzed the iPhone with the intention of stealing ideas.

     

    I think patent law has gone too far, but it's clear Samsung is still guilty to a large extent.

     

    If there was never an iPhone, Samsung likely would come up with a few similar features on their own, but their products directly benefited from stealing from AAPL.
    25 Aug 2012, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Likely Apple has analyzed every other phone in existence also so that is standard practice. Saying some of this stuff is innovation might be a stretch and Apple is not above buying, borrowing or stealing either. Their products are not cut from whole cloth.
    25 Aug 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • doctormoose
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Seems like the cliche "what a tangled web we [Samsung] weave when first we practice to deceive" would best describe the hole Samsung has dug for itself.
    25 Aug 2012, 06:28 AM Reply Like
  • $CLU
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    I think for the short term all this does is raise volatility in the mobile phone tech related companies.

     

    Looks for hedge funds and others to start rocking the stocks back and forth with questions of triple damages (+/- 3B Samsung) or appeals that totally reverse the Apple victory (+/- 1B Apple) only to reverse the analyst headline the next week. You're talking about a spread of 3 billion dollars at worst for either side. Mr. Market doesn't care if Apple doesn't have to pay 3B, if the appeals process reverses the ruling then the market will price in -3B lost to Apple because it was priced in last week! Absolutely Nuts!

     

    No... I only see higher volatility and opportunity for derivatives.
    Maybe wrong / Maybe right. I'll let volatility absorb the risk for the posting here.
    25 Aug 2012, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • Sebanightwish
    , contributor
    Comments (1013) | Send Message
     
    It was obvious that Apple would win the dispute. Steve Jobs was a genius too, I doubt, has tried to copy him something to Samsung
    25 Aug 2012, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    Samsung could literally cripple AAPL tomorrow and stop supplying the necessary components for the IPad HD and IPhone. I think at the end of the day, this lawsuit will amount to nothing.

     

    http://bloom.bg/OBK40R

     

    Apple may want to diversify its sources for the displays because of the lawsuits with Samsung, said Kang Yoon Hum, a Seoul-based analyst at NH Investment & Securities Co.

     

    “Since the relationship between Apple and Samsung isn’t great these days, Apple would want to get shipments elsewhere as well,” Kang said by phone.
    25 Aug 2012, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • HZLIU
    , contributor
    Comments (212) | Send Message
     
    The most important battle between Apple and Samsung is in China and Euro.
    25 Aug 2012, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Tech Buff
    , contributor
    Comments (101) | Send Message
     
    Samsung's response is crazy.

     

    It's almost like they're trying to rationalize an illegal infringement by saying its ok... because they are "improving" the product haha!
    25 Aug 2012, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    Actually, taken on its own, Samsung's statement represents some valid points regarding shortcomings in patent standards and law. However, anyone who has looked at Samsung's UI can attest to the observation that it is a ripoff of Apple's UI.
    25 Aug 2012, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • moneyTalksBSWalks
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Good victory by Apple. I am no legal expert but presume that reversal by the next court in the food chain is possible either for procedural or factual reasons or both. The 180 degree nature of this decision as compared to the UK one is interesting.
    25 Aug 2012, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Atkins
    , contributor
    Comments (1037) | Send Message
     
    Having law degrees from both the US and UK, I can vouch for the fact that the standards applied under US and UK law are not identical, and the judicial systems are quite different.
    25 Aug 2012, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • dnpvd51
    , contributor
    Comments (1915) | Send Message
     
    Can someone please give me one example where Samsung violated a patent other than the rounded rectangles.
    25 Aug 2012, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • The Ugly Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (896) | Send Message
     
    @dnpvd51...
    ....ummmm......that must be a trick question right?
    25 Aug 2012, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    Maybe the dog bark ringtone?
    25 Aug 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (4458) | Send Message
     
    dnpvd51, you can read the verdict and all about the trial at any number of tech sites, such as All Things D. The verdict will explain to you exactly which products were found to violate which patents and which were not found to violate any. It goes way beyond rounded rectangles, and it is a product by product issue.
    25 Aug 2012, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • GARY4301
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Right on for AAPL!!! APPLE DID THE WORK! Samsung did not!
    25 Aug 2012, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • bocajoe
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Sure beats loosing!
    25 Aug 2012, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • nelsongp
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    to jerry calphla,
    Anyone who disparages the 57 Chevy style has no taste and probably no forsight.
    25 Aug 2012, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • alphabulmastif
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Patent law exists to promote innovation. Apple will continue to innovate. Samsung 'played it safe' and produced dysfunctional copycat crap. Their only way out of this hole is to innovate. This time the law ruled in society's favor.
    25 Aug 2012, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3984) | Send Message
     
    This space reserved for comment in 2014.
    25 Aug 2012, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • $CLU
    , contributor
    Comments (207) | Send Message
     
    Want to see something interesting?
    25% of the IPhone parts come from Samsung.
    http://bit.ly/Oe69Sy

     

    No doubt Samsung lawyers are examining the supply contracts with
    "extra detail" as you read this.

     

    Implied volatility is going absorb this risk up like a sponge.
    Trade smart people!
    25 Aug 2012, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • JohnDoe1
    , contributor
    Comments (287) | Send Message
     
    Shamsung are thieves. They deserve to get a whupping for stealing Apple's hard work and innovations.

     

    Google do as well.
    26 Aug 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • bailinnumberguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1090) | Send Message
     
    A patent on the shape of a device? I have a lot of Apple stock, but isn't that a bit absurd?
    26 Aug 2012, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • edsonjh
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    It's not logical that the US Court decision would be based solely on patriotism as the biggest party affected is Google and not Samsung.
    I think the outcome was very good, providing some punishment but not large enough to create large costs on the patents that would help Apple to create a monopoly.
    I think the Apple's patents on interface innovations might seem trivial nowadays, but they added valuable functionality, just compare to how the interaction was with Palm devices. One of the main success factor of the early iPod devices was the scrolling wheel so Apple knows the value of a good interface and it's reasonably defensive on any copycat.
    26 Aug 2012, 05:49 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|