yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] lostintelligence:
I'm bored at work and figured I'd throw in my $0.02, if for nothing less than to get my post count up:

Apple has always been heavily litigous. I've never had a real problem with that because more often than not they would lose. I'm referring to cases against anything with Apple in the name or a logo remotely resembling an Apple (the one that comes to mind is when they threatened to sue an Austrailian grocery store called Woolworth's that turned the "W" into an apple). As long as Apple would pay the court cost and any cost the Defendant incurred (lawyer costs, lost sales, etc.), I just saw it as Apple being annoying.

With this case, which will be appealed, it's different. Did Samsung copy Apple? Yeah, they did. Are they still doing it in ridiculous ways? Yeah, they are (Samsung store layout). So based on what was presented to the jury, were they guilty? Yes, they were. Did the jury perform their tasks as they were instructed? I have to assume so but I don't know. Was the jury "fanboy's" as so often stated in this thread? If so, then Samsung's lawyers did a piss poor job during selection and that falls on Samsung for hiring incompetent lawyers.

My personal opinion is that Apple successfully used patents that are overly broad to win their case. But they won.

I say this because I personally have never picked up an Apple competitor product and thought it was made by Apple. That is (in my opinion) the primary purpose to have patents. I personally see Android and Samsung doing the same thing Apple had done...taking a pre-existing product and making it better in their eyes. I also have never heard anybody with a competing product to Apple come up and say "Look at my new iDevice!". That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I've just never heard of it.

What does this mean for the industry? Nothing...yet. We don't know. We have analyst shoving their opinions down our throats with everything from "It's the end of the world" to "Innovation will truly start now". Again, we don't know. Yes, there will be design changes in products being released but that was already happening anyway.

But in the end...we consumers have more power than we give ourselves credit. If we don't like how a company operates, then don't use their service or products. If enough people agree, then those services and products will be forced to change the way they operate or die off.

Here's the kicker to that last statement, we consumers (westernized comsumers at least) don't want to give up the conviences they provide and want to just compain about it instead hoping that whining will make change. Yes, I myself am included in this statement.

EDIT/ADDED: My personal hope that comes out of this is that the device manufacturers will let Google handle the OS/software side and they just stick to the hardware. A longshot but my hope none the less.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonytownsend:
Read this article good article

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/08/2...g-case-shows-smartphone-as-lawsuit-magnet.xml

Sent from Vzw Galaxy SIII running CleanROM 2.0 w/CleanKERNEL
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] stephenj37826:
Well as far as store layout I guess Wal-Mart should sue target for there supercenters cvs vs Walgreens dollar general market vs new Wal-Mart clones soon to come. All technology gets passed around here and there. Look at ios 5 and it's pull down status bar hmmm. This is a waste of tax prayers dollars for letting our court system support these very broad patents.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] flashallthetime:
Everything we own, play with, live in , drive, fly in, slide on, listen too, is kanged. Evolution of technology, improvements happen by taking an idea or product and improve it, same with cell phones. My opinion is after all this s*it comes to a conclusion, apple will be a footnote on the pages if wikipedia, technology has no restraints otherwise we would all grunt and groan like cavemen, apple did not invent the touch screen, they took an existing idea and improved it and patent it.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] epagib:
1 billion is small potatoes to Samsung.

And Samsung wouldn't have to do much to their products to be OK.

What worries me is that this may give Apple ammo to go after other manufacturers. Would be interesting to see if they decide to sue Google
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonytownsend:
Then Google should flash enable everyone of it online services to burn apple.

Sent from Vzw Galaxy SIII running CleanROM 2.0 w/CleanKERNEL
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] ssgunner20:
Wait what exactly is happening?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
so thats roughly $100 per S3 sold witch was 10 million right? (yes i know S3 wasnt on the list)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] TheDiabolicaL1:
This is my hope as well. It would make sense for any company to shield itself from potential law suits.

Sent from my unlocked Galaxy S3! We win, Verizon!
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] psycopanther:
am i not correct that there was a document showing how samsung specifically designed the s3 similiar to the iphone? yet the s3 was not even on the list of phones in the outcome? or am i incorrect in this statement?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] danstar:
Bottom line here is that it should not have been allowed to get this far. This is prime example of the need of a complete overhaul of the patent process. In my opinion, not enough is being done before a patent is granted to ensure that the concept didn't already exist and is in use. What Apple and to be fair, a lot of other companies out there have done is taken previous art and found different ways to use it. The difference here is that Apple by hook or by crook, have gotten these patents granted and are now using them to be the big bad bully on the block and bloodying the nose of all the other kids on the playground. The statement that the American consumers are the ones who are going to be hurt by this are true. It is going to severely limit the choices people will have for smartphones. The choice is going to be this, if you want a good smartphone, well the iphone is going to be the only choice. If you want a smartphone, but don't want an iphone, you will have to settle for either a dumbed down phone, and basic phone, or no cell phone at all...just my opinion.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
I heard they actually designed it with lawyer over seeing it to make sure it didn't come under and BS from Apple. Why do you think TW is so different, that search was changed, there is no bounce back etc etc.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Handsome Rob:
You're pushing it now. Samsung deserved a smack, they are getting carried away.

The patents are certainly ridiculous but Samsung has to stop.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] flashallthetime:
Another pic:D

sent on my Evil Evo running the so called developers kern

el

---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 AM ----------

And another

sent on my Evil Evo running the so called developers kernel
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonytownsend:
Samsung will be fine they have tons of money they have a heavy industry division that built the world tallest building in dubai and are currently building several nuclear power plants I'm sure a lawsuit from apple over there phones isnt going to do a thing.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] SlimSnoopOS:
I have to agree. Samsung has been getting carried away lately as far as their products, pre-GSIII specifically. I don't know much if anything about our patent system but I feel they copied Apple to closely. The GSI, general icons, aspects of GSIII features including S-Voice, and their pop up stores are rather Apple like. Let's hope going forward they correct themselves.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Zalithian:
And Siri is powered by Nuance which they got licensing from, but also includes an agreement which prevents Nuance from admitting it.

Apple wouldn't want anyone to think they simply bought the main technology that makes Siri actually somewhat useful. They are innovators after all, who INVENT ALL THEIR STUFF. This is part of Apple's sham where they make you think they are the innovative ones, when actually they aren't. They simply copy another idea without a patent (or in this case pay for it) and act as if they created it.

This isn't to say they don't make good stuff (their stuff is at least decent quality) but man, they sure have a lot of people fooled.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Pete7ate:
You've got to admit that a lot of recent Samsung phones really looked like iPhones... without the typical iPhone button they would look identical.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Already happened.

http://mashable.com/2012/06/07/apple-samsung-galaxy-siii/

And of course they DID block the Gnex- it was actually taken down from Google's site and you couldn't buy one for about two weeks. That was Apple's doing. Same Judge. Talk about a predetermined verdict this time around.

The big question is, is there a popular model Android phone Apple HASN'T tried to ban?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] grin0048:
In this scenario you imagine millions of Apple users buying new hardware as opposed to finding a different free service to use?

This is cutting off your nose to spite someone else's face :eek:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] cgulliver:
The real problem is the licensing fees they Apple will try to enforce against the pattens. That's a % cut of every device sold... not just Samsung but "any".
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Handsome Rob:
Right, apple copies too. Nobody disputes that. Like other posters have said, everybody kangs.

But things like product packaging (identical), AC adapter (nearly identical), retail store (identical), older phone form factor (altogether too close, I bought the SGSi because it was all my carrier had, but hated the iPhone form factor and touchwiz layout).

Don't get me wrong, I despise Apple's business practices and haven't bought a product new since iPod touch 1. When friends ask about simplicity I usually say HTC Sense. But Samsung has gone beyond kanging, and as a user I don't want to see Android punished for their business practices. I wish Google would look at it the same way.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] stephenj37826:
I agree Samsung did copy some things but there needs to be reform to how something is patented. Phones had rows of icons at the bottom before the iPhone. Just like the "data tapping" one if I'm not mistaken you could do that in windows mobile ;)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonytownsend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here's a video of Steve Jobs saying great artist steal lol hypocrite

Sent from Vzw Galaxy SIII running CleanROM 2.0 w/CleanKERNEL
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] MrJobs:
Look, I'm enjoying my GS3 as well but you have to be completely oblivious to reality to say that Samsung didn't copy the iPhone. They have internal emails discussing how to copy the iPhone,if that wasn't the smoking gun I don't know what is. To be honest with all of the evidence against them I was shocked that their lawyers didn't tell them to settle at all costs.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] preusstang:
I sincerely hope Anonymous steps in now. Take down iTunes. That would be epic. Honestly, I'd like to see some stuxnet style sh*t tear Apple apart from the inside. Some stock exchange virus like in Dark Knight Rises that will empty their coffers but then (unlike the movie) distribute those beans amongst the ppl they've been harvesting and raping since their existence.

Apple is a discrace to computer science. They work against the core principles of the field and only want to enslave their users and kill innovation. How anyone who claims affiliation to computer science can look past apple's disgusting crimes - against software development, innovation, and humanity (foxconn) - and purchase and use their products, no matter how good they look and/or work, makes me absolutely sick.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] MrJobs:
So if Apple is so evil what does it make Samsung? Apple spent 5 years designing the iPhone,which changed the phone industry forever, while Samsung took 3 months to copy their design. If anything this verdict encourages innovation instead of copy and pasting someone's ideas and then hiding behind the "it's obvious" defense. And please don't tell me that it's impossible to design a phone that doesn't look and operate like an iPhone just look at Windows Phone 7/8.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tu3218:
5 years? For which iphone?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] MrJobs:
The first one, duh. You know the one that redefined the modern smartphone?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tu3218:
You're wrong there. Motorola ROKR E1 sound familiar? Released by Apple an Motorola in 2005, first phone to run itunes. A year later it was discontinued because jobs felt it didn't allow them to express there own styling in a device. So no, they did not spend 5 years(beginning 2002). designing the iPhone
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] SlimSnoopOS:
I'm certain that Apple includes the time that Motorola phone also took to develop. Initial conception could have started in 2002. I feel that this statement should have read "four years" not five but I'm obviously not on Apple's legal team. Regardless, when comparing various products from Samsung with Apple copying is evident.

Thank you for that thorough response. I, like everyone else, want to see these types of lawsuits ended asap. Serious question for anyone: Do you all think Apple will go after other OEM's? If so, why? Just software patents or more so hardware like with Samsung? I'm struggling to think of hardware similarities with other OEM's as easily as Samsung's past design demonstrated.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
RokR was Motorola's design, with Apple's iTunes semi-branding. Design wise, there is absolutely nothing coming from Apple. All Moto.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] chamberc:
Lol I was using Windows CE/mobile phones 5 years before the iCrash that had more functionality.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tu3218:
That was my point, apple wasn't drawing up the iPhone until after that most likely. I mean I could be wrong but why else would they have attempted with another company first an realized it wasn't going to work. Then a year later they announce the iPhone.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Mayze23:
What makes this any different than Pepsi tastes a lot like coke, huggies looks a lot like pampers, how about the countless models of candy bar and flip phones that looked the same way before apple became so successful? Where was all the litigation then? Apple has so many people brainwashed that Samsung phones looked like their iphone so it's wrong.

They do look like the iphone... SO WHAT! All competing companies products look practically the same.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
S voice Is Apple like? Svoice is just Vlingo and is nothing like siri its more like ....Vlingo. lol. Vlingo was out long before siri so Apple must have copied them. Matter of fact google is suing them for Siri..I mean Motorola is

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 PM ----------

Only if your blind and drunk

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ----------

Well its shaped just like an iphone but Apple and MS have and agreement. Beside their phone has sold like 12 maybe less lol

---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

I think the point is that like all Apples products they didn't invent squat other than the look and then package it up all fancy like to make buyers think they are getting something special.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Handsome Rob:
If Pepsi came in a red can with a logo in caligraphy I'd be minded to agree with you.

*Edit* I don't think they all copy exact, but those such as the international I-9000, Galaxy Tab & access...it's kind of exact.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Samsung models Apple's sued to block:

The Captivate, Continuum, Vibrant, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Indulge, Mesmerize, Showcase, Fascinate, Nexus S, Gem, Transform, Intercept, Acclaim, Droid Charge, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Gravity, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy S II and Galaxy S III.

I'm sorry, but most of them don't look anything like the iPhone. It's pretty clear Apple is just trying to slow down its chief competition and abusing the patent and legal system to do so. Now, has Samsung made blatant mistakes that makes it easier for them? Absolutely. End of the day though, I see Apple and its patent/court abuse as doing the most harm to consumers.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Mayze23:
I've never seen an Apple logo on a Samsung phone. Last I checked a Pepsi can was the exact same shape as coke can. So your argument is the color? If Samsung released their phones in any color than black and white they didn't infringe?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Handsome Rob:
Okay mate, whatever. If you don't think this is copying:

Then you should be selling rose colored glasses on ebay because you'd be a cajillionaire.

I'll say it again, the patents and lawsuit is ridiculous. As ridiculous as Samsung's obvious copying. The South Korean courts had the best idea punishing both of them.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------

Surprised this hasn't been posted, jury answered questions at a rate of 1.8 minutes per question...? Can you say mistrial?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
Jury in Apple v. Samsung Goofed

Read this, and be encouraged. This might not even have to get to an appeal for the verdict to be tossed out.

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

Rob beat me to it. I was surprised that hadn't been posted yet too.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] matt_1224:
If google/motorola wins their suit against apple, apple will tank completely
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Handsome Rob:
Wow.....
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] zaptoons:
Now explain how the 23 other Samsung models Apple's sued to block are copying.

Personally, I don't think the actual Galaxy Tab itself looks anything like the iPad, other than they are both logically tablet-shaped. They look exactly as similar as say, Samsung's computer monitors and packaging look like LGs, look like NEC's look like anyone else's. They look exactly as similar as Sony's DVD players look like Panasonic's. They look about the same as a Pioneer stereo looks like JVC's. They look about as similar as a Kenworth washer and dryer set looks like Whirlpool's. I could go on and on across a range of endless consumer products.

The box is just stupid- what, so you're going to package a rectangular item in a round box? Maybe they should put it in a plastic bag? Does Nike sue Rebok because their products come in similar boxes?

The cable and connectors look the most ripoff- but then the cables and connectors that came with my Canon camera look pretty much like my Nikon's as well. In fact, the cameras look pretty damned similar.

Before Apple's antics, no one really seemed to care all that much about this bunk to be constantly in court suing over it.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
They happened to be infringing several different software patents, and some of them completely blatantly infringing trade dress. I suggest carefully reading Verge's coverage where you should be able to be more objective.

The newer devices like SGS3 seem to differentiate themselves from the pack, but at this point Samsung has been piggybacking enough to have room to go wild on their designs and be more unique. They already destroyed Android competition that actually have been trying to be as unique as possible all these years. Samsung has been simply ripping everything that had Apple tag.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
Coke missed the boat they should have patented the rounds can design. Now doesn't that said ridiculous? If this shape patent bs is allowed to stand we are all going to lose as every company will start doing it and that is bad for the consumer period.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
Not really. Rectangle is not the ONLY solution out there. You can make a beautiful phone without stealing, just look at Lumia design. I have a problem with Samsung since they blatantly took all the cues from Apple down to the T.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
You're missing the point. A rectangle is a rectangle. It's a basic, geometric shape. Just like Samsung argued, form follows function. There isn't a consumer branch in existence that doesn't look and see what's selling, and then adapt their product to that. Apple is still shipping record amounts of phones, and is the most profitable company in the world. To argue that this has hurt them in any way outside of the normal evolution of competition is ludicrous. The design patents they were granted are a complete abuse of the patent system, and I blame the USPTO more than I blame Apple for all of this nonsense. When this case reaches the Supreme Court, and many lawyers think that it will, I hope the Supreme Court strikes at the heart of software/cosmetic patents.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
I'm pretty sure Apple isn't hurting for money and that's most definitely not why they've sued Samsung. It's the simple principle of protecting their design on the very hardware AND software level. This had to stop. If Apple never sued Samsung, or lost the trial, the flood gates would open for everyone to copy and steal everything about anything, chinese handbag style! It would've been an open season for everyone and we would ultimately lose. This at least protected the innovation and hopefully motivated the companies to do so.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
What innovation is being protected? One finger scrolling? The icon wiggling? Pinch to zoom? Magnifying a small section of text with the tap of a finger? A rectangular shape to a phone? Rounded edges to icons? Samsung displayed prior art for every single ridiculous cosmetic feature Apple was (I believe) mistakenly granted a patent for. The USPTO has granted patents that have later been struck down. Just the act of getting a patent granted does not mean it was properly granted.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] milan03:
May I suggest actually reading through all the patents infringements? Your arguments are pretty similar to the ones Samsung lawyers had, very granular, that didn't work for them all that well did it?

The user experience the original iPhone brought to consumer market (later followed up with 3G, etc), is something the world hasn't seen up to that point, it was unmatched. Now pinch-to-zoom, and bounce back, double tap to zoom might sound normal to you, but that wasn't as normal gesture prior to iPhone. Multitouch gestures didn't exist on a consumer touch screen devices. Think about that one.

The point is Apple owns those patents, Samsung wasn't interested in licensing them, and just straight up copied them and made billions on them. Apple has all the rights to protect their intellectual rights. Otherwise, it would've been chaos.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] theahlenius:
/sigh

Samsung failed to convince a jury. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the jury made the right call. It might be what matters in how the case is ruled for the moment, but this jury's verdict could be thrown out as soon as next week for all of the questions that have arose in the past two days. Is your entire opinion on this case in realtime, unquestioned agreement with whatever the current ruling is? Or do you have an opinion here that you would stick with regardless of what a judge or jury decides?

The point goes further back than Apple owning patents. Myself and many others question the validity of those patents. Popularizing something is not the same as INVENTING something. Sooner or later, technologies become so common and dependent on each other, that a company shouldn't be able to strong arm other companies based on inconsistencies and misinterpretations of patent law.