Me: It seems obvious that the jury had already decidied who was at fault, and all that remained was figuring out damages. In my opinion Samsung has skated the closest to apple's patents. They never tried to deviate from the flat slab design. Motorola, HTC, and especially Google have made sure the physical body of their phones have certain curves, ramps, and thickness variations that made them unlike the totally symmetric iPhone. Also Samsung has hung on to the physical "Home" button that to this day no other Android phone has. On my Galaxy Note I actually find the physical button to be hugely annoying, every other interface gesture is touch, why do i have to press down on a button so often? Samsung was already a very compelling competitor to Apple without having to copy them so closely. I think this is a big wake up call to Asian companies who are a little more used to directly copying their competitors. And a big wake up call also to the US, who shouldn't get too complacent that the US somehow has a monopoly on innovation. Samsung has made big inroads in the US in TVs, phones, refrigerators (have you shopped for a fridge in the last few years? Samsung owns that market), washer/dryers...
"What has surprised you about the trial?
Roy Futterman: I am surprised that the attorneys and the judge have allowed the jury's job to be staggeringly complicated by providing them with an elaborate verdict form and remarkably long jury instructions. In our experience working on complex patent litigation, we always advise attorneys to do everything possible to clarify the complex legal and technological issues for the jurors as a means to a favorable verdict. A simpler case with a clear verdict form would be most favorable to Apple as the plaintiff charging infringement. A complicated verdict form may lead an overwhelmed jury to check a box that leads to an invalid patent."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment