Q. In the recent one billion dollar case. I have searched but I can't find what were the exact designs and patents?
A. SAN JOSE, Calif. â After a year of scorched-earth litigation, a jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary iPhone and iPad.
The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion in the latest skirmish of a global legal battle between the two tech giants. An appeal is expected.
Apple Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April 2011 and engaged legions of the country's highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2.5 billion from its top smartphone competitor. Samsung Electronics Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million.
The verdict, however, belonged exclusively to Apple, as the jury rejected all Samsung's claims against Apple. Jurors also decided against some of Apple's claims involving the two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the full $2.5 billion Apple demanded.
However, the jury found that several Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.
Apple lawyer plans to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages to $3 billion. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues along with Samsung's demand she overturn the jury's verdict in several weeks.
The outcome of the case is likely to have ripple effects in the smartphone market. After seeing Samsung's legal defeat, other device makers relying on Android may become more reluctant to use the software and risk getting dragged into court.
"Some of these device makers might end up saying, `We love Android, but we really don't want to fight with Apple anymore," said Christopher Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an investment bank specializing in intellectual property.
ISI Group analyst also viewed the verdict as a blow to Android, as much as Samsung.
During closing arguments at the trial, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed Samsung was having a "crisis of design" after the 2007 launch of the iPhone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device.
Samsung's lawyers countered that it was legally giving consumers what they want: smartphones with big screens. They said Samsung didn't violate any of Apple's patents and further alleged innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies.
Samsung, headquartered in Seoul, responded to the verdict, saying in a statement it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."
"Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices," Samsung said.
The jurors' determination that Samsung took Apple's ideas probably matters more to the companies than the damages figures, Marlett said.
"I don't know if $1 billion is hugely significant to Apple or Samsung," Marlett said. "But there is a social cost here. As a company, you don't want to be known as someone who steals from someone else. I am sure Samsung wants to be known as an innovator, especially since a lot of Asian companies have become known for copying the designs of innovators."
Samsung has emerged as one of Apple's biggest rivals and has overtaken as the leading smartphone maker. Samsung's Galaxy line of phones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. has given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers.
Google entered the smartphone market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip off of the iPhone's innovations.
After shoving Schmidt off Apple's board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to "thermonuclear war" to destroy Android and its allies.
If Android lose any ground in the mobile computing market, that would hurt Google, too. That's because Google relies on Android to drive mobile traffic to its search engine and services to sell more advertising.
The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion in the latest skirmish of a global legal battle between the two tech giants. An appeal is expected.
Apple Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April 2011 and engaged legions of the country's highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2.5 billion from its top smartphone competitor. Samsung Electronics Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million.
The verdict, however, belonged exclusively to Apple, as the jury rejected all Samsung's claims against Apple. Jurors also decided against some of Apple's claims involving the two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the full $2.5 billion Apple demanded.
However, the jury found that several Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.
Apple lawyer plans to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages to $3 billion. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues along with Samsung's demand she overturn the jury's verdict in several weeks.
The outcome of the case is likely to have ripple effects in the smartphone market. After seeing Samsung's legal defeat, other device makers relying on Android may become more reluctant to use the software and risk getting dragged into court.
"Some of these device makers might end up saying, `We love Android, but we really don't want to fight with Apple anymore," said Christopher Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an investment bank specializing in intellectual property.
ISI Group analyst also viewed the verdict as a blow to Android, as much as Samsung.
During closing arguments at the trial, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed Samsung was having a "crisis of design" after the 2007 launch of the iPhone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device.
Samsung's lawyers countered that it was legally giving consumers what they want: smartphones with big screens. They said Samsung didn't violate any of Apple's patents and further alleged innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies.
Samsung, headquartered in Seoul, responded to the verdict, saying in a statement it was "unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners."
"Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices," Samsung said.
The jurors' determination that Samsung took Apple's ideas probably matters more to the companies than the damages figures, Marlett said.
"I don't know if $1 billion is hugely significant to Apple or Samsung," Marlett said. "But there is a social cost here. As a company, you don't want to be known as someone who steals from someone else. I am sure Samsung wants to be known as an innovator, especially since a lot of Asian companies have become known for copying the designs of innovators."
Samsung has emerged as one of Apple's biggest rivals and has overtaken as the leading smartphone maker. Samsung's Galaxy line of phones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. has given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers.
Google entered the smartphone market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip off of the iPhone's innovations.
After shoving Schmidt off Apple's board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to "thermonuclear war" to destroy Android and its allies.
If Android lose any ground in the mobile computing market, that would hurt Google, too. That's because Google relies on Android to drive mobile traffic to its search engine and services to sell more advertising.
Does the Motorola Xoom have Adobe and internet on the go?
Q. I know there was a beta for it but idk if there is still a beta or if it already has it. Also do you know if it has 3g (internet on the go),.. i already know its 4g upgradable.
A. All the common Adobe web helpers are available for Android 3.x tablets. As for "internet on the go", yes you can get a version of the Zoom that has 3G built in. I'd visit a bricks and mortar outlet to have a play with the various tablets, the Xoom is nice but there are even nicer tablets!
Still be able to read after rooting nook?
Q. I was considering rooting a nook color to an android tablet and I was wondering if you could still read your nookbooks? Could you get the nook app?
A. The Nook Color is by far the best choice for a tablet, especially in terms of cost. Once you root the Nook you can do everything you'd want on it, like Pinch to Zoom, watch Youtube videos, use Facebook, check your Email, even play Angry Birds. You can unlock the Android Market to download whatever app you want. Best of all, you can get an SD card that does this all for you check it out here at: http://www.unlockedereaders.com/info/
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment