One cannot argue that the jury was biased despite of the foreman not being an i-device fan. In the end Apple is an iconic American company and the jury felt compelled to defend it. This bias is especially visible in the following statement of the foreman: "My light bulb moment came that Wednesday night when I asked myself if I could defend it..." This happened BEFORE analyzing the evidence in the case. The jury started from the premise that Samsung infringed Apple IPs and went from here to justify this decision. I know this is expedient and probably perceived as "patriotic" but lacks in fairness.
Prior art is always a slippery slope in the IP legislation and Samsung made the mistake of relying too much on this argument in both circumstances: when they used such knowledge in their designs (despite of warnings) and when they used it their defense.
Unfortunately, without changing IP legislation, this verdict will only stifle innovation and competition making room for monopoly and more corporate bullying.
Side by side view of the two companies' app icons. Now tell me that two different graphic artists came up with these completely independently, without one being influenced by the other!
Now that I think about it, I'm glad the foreman is talking. All the more material for an appeal. The real problem is our patent system is broke. Fmotta (above) has some common sense ideas to rein in the abuses of our patent system.
"The verdict “was a message to the industry at large that if you are going to compete in this country there’s a set of rules, and if you decide to take a calculated risk and infringe you need to be willing to pay a price for it,” he said."
Wow...that line right there could be grounds for appeal. Geez oh Peet.
So if a US company copies Apple it is OK...but if a Korean company does it...it isn't? Even if that wasn't the intent of the statement...it certainly smacks of a bias towards the United States...which could be all that is needed to throw doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict. If you read that carefully...the jury was SENDING A MESSAGE? Was that their job?
McDonalds doesn't have a trademark on "french fries," they had an exclusive licensing deal with the London Organizing Comitte (LOCOG). Same with Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken--they were the only branded food and drink on sale.
Indeed Jeff Han is the father of multi-touch devices. He deserves the credit for most of the gestures we use today.
Ironically, he is the son of middle-class Korean immigrants... If he would have worked for Samsung at the time he invented his touch screen, I wonder how the smartphones and tablets would have evolved? And what Apple would have done?
The jury was incapable of "making the right decision". They didn't spend anywhere near enough time deliberating nor do I think they could have understood all the technical details required to render a just verdict. It was simply beyond their capacity to do so.
Let's just hand Apple a billion dollars and call it a day... C'mon.
I'm not saying that Samsung didn't infringe...I really don't know. I just don't think this jury could have made that determination (which also wasn't their fault - they were put in the position to make some decision). I just hope the appeals courts will treat this differently and spend the appropriate time convening and listening to REAL experts to make the final decision.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.