Apple: iPhone was a revolution and Samsung copied it

“Apple kicked off its latest patent infringement case against Samsung on Tuesday, arguing that the iPhone was a revolutionary product and that by 2010, Samsung was in a crisis and resorted to copying the fast-selling rival,” Ina Fried reports for Re/code.

“‘The evidence in this case will be that Samsung copied the iPhone and it also took many other Apple inventions that had not yet appeared in Apple products,’ Apple attorney Harold McElhinny said during its opening arguments,” Fried reports. “Apple is seeking as much as $2 billion in damages, saying that various Samsung phones and tablets infringed on five of its patents.”

“A jury of four women and four men, chosen Monday, will decide the case. Ten jurors were initially picked; however, two jurors were excused earlier Tuesday — one who fell ill and another who said serving would pose a financial hardship,” Fried reports. “Prior juries, ruling on different patents and earlier Samsung products, awarded Apple roughly $1 billion in damages.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs declared ‘Holy War’ on Google over Android patent infringement – April 2, 2014
Apple v. Samsung jury is seated in California patent trial – April 1, 2014
What are the five iOS features Apple says Samsung (or Google) stole? – April 1, 2014
Apple again seeks decisive U.S. court ruling against convicted patent infringer Samsung – April 1, 2014
Florian Müller: When all is said and done, despite years of Apple litigation, Android will continue to be world’s most popular mobile platform – April 1, 2014
Apple v. Samsung II: Convicted patent infringer Samsung now claims all patents aren’t worth very much – March 31, 2014
Google is central to new Apple v. Samsung patent infringement lawsuit – March 31, 2014
Apple’s war on Samsung has Google in crossfire – March 31, 2014
Apple already has its first victory in new $2 billion Samsung patent infringement fight – March 31, 2014
Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial begins today (link to live blog) – March 31, 2014

17 Comments

  1. it’s simply not enough to exact financial damage from an infringer, there should be criminal charges. The CEO’s and board of directors of corporations found guilty of patent theft should be held accountable with jail time.

      1. If a company is convicted of patent infringement by a jury trial, then that company’s leadership (CEO & board) should be liable for arrest and incarceration. While it is diplomatically impractical to arrest those personnel who are in another country, it is certainly practical to have a standing warrant for their arrest anytime they are on American soil. Simply suing a corporation for damages is insufficient, those people who make decisions to steal others’ property must be held accountable by arrest and jail time.

        1. I do not agree. Not with the train wreck of a patent system we have going on in the USA where companies can patent trivial programming problems and then hold everyone else hostage and extract fees.

          1. okay..but jail time isn’t a “fee.” Theft, at any level, must be enforced as illegal by any civilization with the ensuing accountability of incarceration. It is my opinion that there is no difference in patent theft and sneaking into Bob Marley Ford in the middle of the night and taking a Mustang. If the corporate leadership of Samsung were convicted on a criminal, instead of financial basis, that would end their junkets to the Grand Canyon. Most importantly, it says if you want to sell to American markets, then you must respect American patent laws.

            1. No jail time is not a *fee* – it is worse.

              I don’t want to deal with a legal system where some patent troll can come out of nowhere, claim you are violating a ridiculous patent and then have the CEO and BOD of a company thrown in jail when they win in court.

              In Samsung’s case I agree they straight up planned and executed mass theft of IP but in a lot of cases you have companies being blind sided by patents on trivial things held by companies that only exist to leverage questionable patents.

            2. I doubt that any idea or invention you patented wouldn’t be considered trivial to you. As far as “patent trolls” are concerned, let those law firms and their clients who have been found guilty of practicing “legal” extortion, be held liable also with criminal charges. It is “settlements” outside the reach of trials-by-jury that is the whore of justice.

            3. If there is a patent that someone holds, regardless of who holds it, it should be licensed if they can come to agreeable terms. Just because it is inconvenient or costly, that doesn’t abrogate a company’s responsibility to try to attain a license or to design around that feature.

  2. Jesus, it’s 2014 and they’re still singing the same refrain from 2007.

    Sing a different tune already. It’s worn out and tiring. If Apple got some innovation going after the death of Steve Jobs, they wouldn’t be singing the same song over and over again.

    Learn some new lyrics next time. Yawn.

    1. Gosh! You may have a point. Perhaps Apple does need to speed up it’s innovating.
      Samsung May be running out of things to copy.
      This is what I find maddening.
      Apple obviously takes great pride in the products they create and aggressively attempt to defend them.
      Samsung has this bizarre attitude, even a sense of pride, of being able to blatantly steal other companies innovations and profit from them. Fines, warnings, lost court cases are but mere annoyances and minor dings to the overall profit picture.

    2. Wha…? That’s the point isn’t it ? Apple has no personal dislike for Samsung? they merely want their property returned, or, failing that, and at the very least to be reimbursed for its theft and use.

  3. Apple does not want to license out its innovations. And certainly not to thieves, infringers, or unsavory competitors like Samsung. Apple worked hard to develop its innovations for its own use. It is Apple’s right to license them out to others or not.

    The current case is troubling because the court has essentially forced Apple to “license” out innovations it does not wish to license out to Samsung. At least for the infringing period under review. Imagine your car is stolen, and the judge decides all you have to do is agree with the thief on a fair “rental fee” for the period. Seems terribly unfair to me.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.