Samsung owes Apple a cool 1 billion



$1bn? Haha, it's going to be much more than that. There was wilful infringement, so expect for the fine to be at least $2bn. The jury only said that $1bn should be awarded, but it's up to the judge to come through with the actual amount.

Either fucking well, considering how Apple has moved in the aftermarket, I'm set to make a cool $100,000 in gains on Monday's open if not more.
 
mGrunin said:
$1bn? Haha, it's going to be much more than that. There was wilful infringement, so expect for the fine to be at least $2bn. The jury only said that $1bn should be awarded, but it's up to the judge to come through with the actual amount.

Either fucking well, considering how Apple has moved in the aftermarket, I'm set to make a cool $100,000 in gains on Monday's open if not more.
Click to expand...

Nice, I have been in since $90 and it's been a great ride. It's already up almost $12 in after hours. An injunction against the S III will be huge for them. Here's to stock blasting by $700 on Monday :drinkup:
 
I wish it hits $700, I would be sitting fat. I'm predicting a $680 open, $695 intraday high and $690 close. The hearing for the injunction will happen on September 20th.
 
I agree with Samsung. Most patents and copyrights are stupid and slow growth, innovation, and competition. You shouldn't be able to patent basic things like "bounce back", "pinch to zoom" and "contours on the back of the iPhone". It's like patenting the way a doorknob works.
 
r3p1v said:
I agree with Samsung. Most patents and copyrights are stupid and slow growth, innovation, and competition. You shouldn't be able to patent basic things like "bounce back", "pinch to zoom" and "contours on the back of the iPhone". It's like patenting the way a doorknob works.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about that. There are various ways that Samsung could have come up with a way to zoom in on something. The problem is that Apple came out with the most efficient way to do it and patented them. The way they simplified these features, it makes it seem as though there is no other way to program them without being as efficient.
 
Take a look at this:
samsung-iphone-1-640x407.png

samsung-iphone-3-640x405.png


It's so clear that they followed Apple's design, and went after the features as well. They had their phones, they had their features and patents as well but they realized that they were nowhere near as efficient as the iPhone's features and design.

Apple also held up it's patent in court for a rectangle with rounded corners. Samsung's lawyers brought this up as being ridiculous. Yea it might be, but you copied that exact design asap. You obviously saw the charm and aesthetics in it. There are probably many ways to great a phone with the same aesthetics but it actually requires having a good team; which is something Samsung doesn't have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: faceblogger
samsung-tablets-640x480.png

How about the iPad? It's simply ridiculous how badly Samsung wanted to look like Apple products that they deserve a lot of pain from this lawsuit. Their lawyers mentioned that by upholding all of these Apple patents it kill innovation. I see it completely the other way. How is copying the same features and design over to another device being innovative?

This win by Apple will bring fear into all phone companies to stray away from the Apple design/features and actually try to create an attractive phone that doesn't look like an iPhone from 5 feet away.
 
Who cares if they look similar? Maybe copying the UI almost exactly and the exact shape of certain things is taking it a little far. But all normal/standard lightbulbs are the same shape and size and you don't see those companies suing each other for billions.

Idk how to fix patents, but if I had to do it I would make them really hard to get and make them expire after a few years. And they should be for actual inventions and not retarded things like "pinch to zoom".
 
If I'm not mistaken, they do expire ~ 16 years.

Edit: Also OP, here is a quote from The Wallstreet Journal on the fine "Among other findings, the jury at the U.S. District Court found that many of the Apple patents were willfully infringed by Samsung. That means that Judge Lucy Koh now has the discretion to triple Apple's damages award."

Edit: Unlike Samsung, Nokia actually tried to change up how the smartphone should look like:

nokia-lumia-900.jpg
 
r3p1v said:
Who cares if they look similar? Maybe copying the UI almost exactly and the exact shape of certain things is taking it a little far. But all normal/standard lightbulbs are the same shape and size and you don't see those companies suing each other for billions.

Idk how to fix patents, but if I had to do it I would make them really hard to get and make them expire after a few years. And they should be for actual inventions and not retarded things like "pinch to zoom".
Click to expand...

patents are 20 years max, 14 years for design patents, and pharmaceuticals are pretty much the only patents that can be extended
 
r3p1v said:
I agree with Samsung. Most patents and copyrights are stupid and slow growth, innovation, and competition. You shouldn't be able to patent basic things like "bounce back", "pinch to zoom" and "contours on the back of the iPhone". It's like patenting the way a doorknob works.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure the doorknob was also patented in it's good times.

All the power to Apple. They risked throwing all those gesture features into production. If people liked them so much it became natural, then I think they deserve a couple of years to bank on it.
 
mGrunin said:
Either fucking well, considering how Apple has moved in the aftermarket, I'm set to make a cool $100,000 in gains on Monday's open if not more.
Click to expand...

so you're implying a 2 million dollar purchase or about 3k stocks you're trying to buy at 660...

at a 30 dollar increase that would net you your 100k. big bet... 2 million

i've been in on apple since around 220... but wouldn't be making a 2 million dollar bet for 100k
 
jsphfcll said:
so you're implying a 2 million dollar purchase or about 3k stocks you're trying to buy at 660...

at a 30 dollar increase that would net you your 100k. big bet... 2 million

i've been in on apple since around 220... but wouldn't be making a 2 million dollar bet for 100k
Click to expand...

He plays options, which obviously pay and lose on a much different scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back