Really I haven't heard of such a deal. Considering Apple's power right now, they can just revoke such a thing. Tim Cook is starting to get megalomania.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just when you though Apple Vs. Samsung was over.
- Thread starter DanteMann
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really I haven't heard of such a deal. Considering Apple's power right now, they can just revoke such a thing. Tim Cook is starting to get megalomania.
I could be wrong about the cross-licensing deal. Regardless, Microsoft still has to have violated something for Apple to sue.
EDIT: This is what I was thinking of
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article...licensed-patents-agreed-clone-products-143983
You don't understand that this trial has done nothing but lost Samsung $1B and let Apple gain it. Samsung phones will continue to be sold and they will continue to be just as popular as before.
If that trial was the Thermonuclear war to get rid of all Android based devices, I'm disappointed. It basically did nothing and they achieved nothing with their EU based lawsuits where Android based phones are really popular.
Tell me, what can Apple exactly do now they're in the driver's seat? Sue another manufacturer and have exactly the same outcome? And if the flawed patent system Apple is abusing gets rectified? Will Apple still be in the driver's seat then? And God forbid if Google actually enter this game. With their patents from Motorola Mobility, maybe they can get a billion off Apple for all the difference it will make.
This Thermonuclear war is being fought with water pistols and isn't going to get anywhere anytime soon.
Finish ? The licensing deal is old. It was recently pointed to by certain media sites, bringing back attention to it.
Just so you know, being "competent" is not what a jury is asked for. They are asked to find in all fairness and good faith and the only requirement is for them to be law-abiding citizens.
In case some of you missed the point, consider that similar jurors are asked to decide life and death in criminal cases.
In case some of you missed the point, consider that similar jurors are asked to decide life and death in criminal cases.
Actually they are asked to follow instructions, which according to the foreman were unneeded and left unread.
I think you are kidding yourself over this.
In order to set aside the verdict, Judge Koh (or an Appeals Court) would have to conclude that no "reasonable" Jury would have reached the verdict that they did. The fact that this particular Jury concluded its deliberations in three days isn't evidence that they were "unreasonable." And, in fact, the few comments made by Jury members to the press indicate they considered quite carefully various aspects of the case.
I think its highly likely that Judge Koh may change the amount of damages Samsung is ordered to pay. But it is very, very unlikely indeed that Samsung's arguments about excluded evidence, discovery, etc. are going to pursuade either the trial Judge or the Appeals Court to throw out this verdict.
Courts have their own motivations. The court has dedicated months of time and effort to this case. They aren't going to toss all that away just to satisfy the deluded fantasies of the Samsung apologists who haunt various backwaters of the internet commentariat.
What I think is much more likely is that this is going to greatly increase Samsung's willingness to agree to a settlement on terms acceptable to Apple. Samsung believed (in error, apparently) that they had at least a 50% chance of prevailing at Trial. They now know that they have a less than 20% chance of succeeding at Appeal. I predict that they will agree to drop their Appeals; pay Apple a reduced damage award; and agree to cross-license their Standard-Essential wireless patents in exchange for a license to some (but by no means all) of the infringed Apple patents.
It happened in SCO v. Novell, much to the satisfaction of SCO "apologists" (who are you calling Samsung apologists here ?). The ninth and tenth circuit courts that take on appeals don't care about the lower courts "months of effort" if a matter of law was overlooked.
Missing evidence can change the outcome of the verdict and while an appeal surely won't lead to a mistrial judgement, there might be a few points sent back to the lower court for retrial like what happened in SCO v. Novell.