In case people have missed it, this article at Groklaw indicates the jury were confused, misled, or downright careless with regards to prior art in their verdict. Hopefully grounds for appeal!

Hmmm... I wonder if Samsung is going to wait to appeal until the 16th to try to get in an the new patent trial rules and get the PTAB ruling rather than a jury ruling.

The thing that makes me mad is that the jurors effectively went "109 pages of instructions.... this is hard. Ooh, somebody offered us a way to short-circuit the process and avoid 90% of the thinking!". Based on the word of the jury foreman (who sounds like he may be a patent troll himself) they decided they didn't need to examine the prior art because none of it runs on Apple hardware. Excuse me? By that logic Apple's patents aren't prior art either because they don't run on Samsung's hardware. *facepalm*

[quote name='samoth' timestamp='1346165025' post='4974129']
Apple: Yeah you know, PowerPC is shit, we are now going Intel. There are some very cool Intel Macs, go buy them.
Me: What's the difference to a PC?
Apple: PC is shit, we are cool.

Indeed - the particularly funny thing is the way that Apple marketed Macs as "PCs" back in the PowerPC days (because they wanted to claim first 64-bit PC - apparently Macs are PCs, but all the earlier 64-bit personal computers weren't PCs...), but now it seems almost everyone has swallowed this recentism of Macs not being PCs, which is all part of Apple's marketing compaign since the switch to Intel, to retain some kind of distinction.

It's painful to hear the expression "Macs and PCs" - but then again, I now see "Ipods and mp3 players" and "Ipads and tablets"... still, I suppose we should be thankful the competition gets acknowledge at all. The other day I saw an advert saying "Works on computers, Ipads and mobile phones"...
[/quote]Apple does not just sell technology. They sell a culture that focuses on itself, the culture.

Now really, Microsoft, Google, and FOSS all have cultures as well, but in those cases, the culture focuses on technology. The Mac Cult focuses on itself. Users won't even care if the new Apple product is a let-down, they've got to have it. This is a distinction from the competition. Microsoft would sooner declare that their failures never ever happened. Google would chock it up to the OEM. (edit: FOSS would just release a patch. Not many outside the circle would care, but the chat and mailing lists would be on fire.) Apple would just keep selling products to people who want the gratification of having owned them. Even if they cost more, and even if they're outdated within weeks.

Samsung clearly wanted to imitate them, and Google seemed fine with it all these years until now. There was prior art in the area and mobile technology was and is growing, so it made a little sense for some things. Apple, in a horrible twist of irony when you think about it, is in the business of narcissism, and they're upset when it is perceived that someone else is imitating them.

Even if they cost more, ...

IMO this is precisely the primary factor that contributes to the apparent validity of their narcissism (eg it works, because it's expensive, which creates a false sense of exclusivity). The word ironic is very much relevant, however.

I initially decided not to bury my head in this, but since it's pretty much as screwed up as the OJ case (although in a very different way), I decided to invest some time and effort in this, most of which I now regret.

I've never had anything against Apple based on their products since I respect people's right to pay how ever the hell much they wish for any product, but Apple's strongly Big Brotheresque (once again, ironic, isn't it?) business ethics and attitude have truthfully never allowed me to think more of them than this:

http://cheezburger.com/6549760768

Good picture, how true.
I've tested several phones before buying the Xperia X10 Mini pro and honestly I didn't remark the flip back nor the rounded corners. Still need to check my phone for the back flip which seems Samsung only.
But hey I bought it because:
- I could have bought 10 Iphones for the price of my Xperia
- it's smaller and lighter
- has more features

So saying I would have bought instead is insane. I simply don't have the money for such, sorry. I would have sticked to my 10 years old Sony/Ericsson.
The whole indemnity is ridiculous to the max.

- I could have bought 10 Iphones for the price of my Xperia

wha?

oops of course the other way round: 10 Xperia for 1 Iphone.

[quote name='Heath' timestamp='1346387008' post='4975032']
Even if they cost more, ...

IMO this is precisely the primary factor that contributes to the apparent validity of their narcissism (eg it works, because it's expensive, which creates a false sense of exclusivity).[/quote]I agree. I also understand that given time and inflation, the price has actually gone down since the days of the Apple II and Mac. However, it is still more than the competition, and when you walk into a retail store today, you are presented with signage and marketing that needlessly distinguishes "iPods" from "MP3 Players", and "iPads" from "Tablets and e-Readers".

The word ironic is very much relevant, however.

I initially decided not to bury my head in this, but since it's pretty much as screwed up as the OJ case (although in a very different way), I decided to invest some time and effort in this, most of which I now regret.

I've never had anything against Apple based on their products since I respect people's right to pay how ever the hell much they wish for any product, but Apple's strongly Big Brotheresque (once again, ironic, isn't it?) business ethics and attitude have truthfully never allowed me to think more of them than this:

[Awesome Spaceballs Clip]
[/quote]

You can sum it up pretty easily. We make the mistake of holding creations of man on high, and arguing with each other over who or which is greater. It's not just Apple, it's everything. This is idolatry, and it's a lot like the "thermonuclear war" that Steve Jobs made an awesome reference to. Just like thermonuclear war, no one wins and the smartest move is not to play. Instead, see through each one for what it really is and move along.

Apple takes pages out of everyone's book (I see their signage and shelf space in retail stores and it reminds me a lot of Anheuser-Busch over in the beer section), and so does everyone else. Litigation over whose page is whose is meaningless and they all know it.

[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1346421136' post='4975141']
[quote name='Heath' timestamp='1346387008' post='4975032']
Even if they cost more, ...

IMO this is precisely the primary factor that contributes to the apparent validity of their narcissism (eg it works, because it's expensive, which creates a false sense of exclusivity).[/quote]I agree. I also understand that given time and inflation, the price has actually gone down since the days of the Apple II and Mac. However, it is still more than the competition, and when you walk into a retail store today, you are presented with signage and marketing that needlessly distinguishes "iPods" from "MP3 Players", and "iPads" from "Tablets and e-Readers".
[/quote]

Perfect example of the last bit would be that best buy has an e-reader section, an MP3 player section, a PC section, and a laptop section. There are no apple products in any of those sections; they have an apple section for those.