Yes, it is all in strategy...there is an interesting view that Samsung should had been shut down years ago for illegal patent practices:
"According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors' patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it's caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle. "They never met a patent they didn't think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to," says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. "I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn't lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it." -- Vanity Fair:The Great Smartphone War."
Great thank you for enlightening us that intellectual property protection in India is at many times no better than in China and appears at the whim of the state. now I know not to outsource software development there or anything where IP protection is important.
>Haven't the jurors been using word processors for the past decades?
Even if any particular juror knows for a fact that this feature was invented by someone other than the parties to the lawsuit, they cannot find the patent invalid if evidence in that regard has not been presented in court during the trial. So when there is an 'oversight' of this sort, it is really the lawyers' fault. I thought the Samsung laywers did not bring convincing evidence in their own defense on this one and was therefore not surprised by the outcome.
One can argue similarly as you do about what Apple calls quick-links and wonder when Apple invented embedded links. Similarly on that one, Samsung did not present that angle in their defense and were not convincing.
I covered parts of the trial for EETimes and I can only say the attorneys' lack of understanding of the technology boggled the mind.
I'm too lazy to check out the other patents, but certainly Apple didn't invent autocorrection? I don't understand how these apparent oversights continue to be allowed in these Apple v Samsung lawsuits.
>> The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing one of its patents.
It is the same parity you see in the banking industry where European banks are hit more than U.S. banks on these penalties by U.S. regulators. What is $158k for Apple? I know the jurors knew Samsung is not American.
>> Apple infringed Samsung's '449 patent on presenting photos and videos.
That is very unfortunatel that Apple copies others and yet have the boldness to be making this noise. This has nothing to do with infringement. They want Samsung out so they can sell iPhone for $2,000 per unit
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.