Liz Gannes on Theodore F. Schroeder’s “Pinterest-was-my-idea” lawsuit:
Plus, Schroeder said, Rendezvoo had a “pink and purple color scheme to attract female users,” and Pinterest is now well-known for its appeal to women.
Sounds like a great case.
Samsung’s internal memo to employees following the Apple lawsuit ruling.
1) Wow, what a weak opening. That’s a step away from admitting they didn’t think they’d win.
2) Don’t think Apple didn’t smell that blood in the water.
Marco Arment, reacting to Andy Ihnatko’s thoughts that the consumers lose as a result of Apple’s win over Samsung:
What’s really going to disrupt the iPhone is going to be something completely different, not something that tries so hard to clone the iPhone that it hits Apple’s patents.
Unoriginal manufacturers will need to pay for their unoriginality. The most reasonable course of action, therefore, is to truly innovate and design products that aren’t such close copies.
I fail to see how consumers lose.
I completely agree that what will end the iPhone’s run is something totally different, not a copycat. Maybe Apple will make that product, or maybe someone else will. This case does nothing to stop that. It simply stops people from copying the current iPhone.
What does worry me about this lawsuit is that it’s going to lead to many more. And it makes patents even more important, and as such, more valuable. That could end up hurting many companies, both large and small. And it could distract from innovation because everyone will be so preoccupied with filing patents, looking for ones that they might be infringing upon, or in court.
Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion in damages for violating Apple hardware and software patents, a California jury ruled on Friday.
The jury found that Samsung infringed upon Apple patents having to do with physical design and user interfaces, often willfully, and that several of the South Korean company’s products diluted Apple’s trade dress, especially as it related to various iPhone models.
More @ Gadget Lab.
$1,049,343,540, to be exact.
Google never uses their patents for offensive purposes. Except when they do.
This is the problem with these self-righteous stands. Time ends all promises, eventually. And the result is extreme hypocrisy even though you’re just doing what your rivals are doing.
Google is already trying to spin this as a defensive maneuver, but come on: it’s a new patent-infringement claim which Apple will have to defend against or risk an import ban of their devices.
Yours truly, predicting this six months ago:
They also may find themselves suing Apple over patents and demanding a royalty for each iPhone sold.
The problem Google is likely to face is that if they aren’t agressive with the patents in the way that Motorola has been, how can they possibly hope to license them in the way they say they will? Who would license something when they don’t have to? This is a slippery slope.
Bigger picture: after going on and on about the dubious patent tactics by rivals like Apple and Microsoft (and rightfully so in most cases), Google may find themselves in the same position thanks to this Motorola deal.
I mean, there’s no way Apple isn’t winning this case with this report officially in evidence, right? Right!?
The iPad that never was: kickstands, curves, and ‘highly confidential’ Apple prototypes revealed
We already got a look at some early iPhone designs inspired by Sony and the iPod, but court documents have revealed an assortment of different looks that were considered for Apple’s various iOS products — including several iPad designs featuring kickstands. Multiple versions of both the iPhone and the iPad are featured, and while we’ve seen some of these before — the iPad prototype with dual dock connectors was sold on eBay back in May — many of the designs are being revealed for the first time.
It’s sort of fascinating that Apple wants to win this lawsuit badly enough that they’re willing to put up with tons of their previously confidential designs and documents being put into the public domain. You’d think that alone might be worth some sort of quick settlement to them — and maybe that’s something Samsung was betting on as well.
Java creator James Gosling on Oracle v. Google:
Just because Sun didn’t have patent suits in our genetic code doesn’t mean we didn’t feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun.