“One of the things that marked the first Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial — and forced a partial retrial — was its complexity,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.
“The jury found for Apple and awarded it $1.05 billion in damages,” P.E.D. reports. “But because of errors the jury foreman made filling out the form, Samsung was able to force a retrial on a portion of the award, reducing its final bill to $930 million (currently under appeal).”
P.E.D. reports, “Apple has learned its lesson. This time it’s keeping things simple: Five patents. Ten products. And the attached one-page checklist [see full article] shown to the jury as part of Apple’s opening statement.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Florian Müller: Apple does not ‘own’ multitouch smartphones and tablets any more than Samsung ‘owns’ phablets – April 3, 2014
10 European judges found Apple had not invented slide-to-unlock (star patent at Samsung trial) – April 2, 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 jury is seated in California patent trial – April 1, 2014
Doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result, that’s the definition of insanity.
If only Cook & Co. weren’t wasting management time turning Apple into the world’s biggest patent troll, they might actually invent something innovative. Chances are though, it’ll be another barren year technology wise from the clueless Cook.
Posting the same crap over and over is also a definition of insanity.
Dear Troll Hunter….. Look in mirror!
Just saying. lol
Troll hunter? I get it! Good one, dude!
If you aren’t making money from your postings, you’re an idiot. if you are, you’re contemptible.
Will Apple fan here join me in discussing how these phones may look like iPhones, but tell anyone to make a touch screen device with apps, and what the heck does ANYONE think it will look like?
How much variance can one possibly have in this idea?
Oh I know, the apps have similar look and feel, same with the bezels, etc. But are these REALLY intellectual property? Really??
We buy shoes all the time, jeans, etc. that have the subtle look-and-feel of the main brands. Why aren’t these insidious and/or evil?
I dunno. Sometimes, I’m like WHO CARES about this intellectual property stuff. Sometimes, it makes me shake my head. Is this some kind of deep retaliation of Apple never looking the fool again [windows]