Apple v. Samsung foreman gets more things wrong; the more he talks, the worse it gets for the verdict

“This is in the believe it or not category, but the foreman in the Apple v Samsung trial is *still* talking about the verdict and why the jurors did what they did. And the more he talks, the worse it gets for that verdict,” Groklaw reports.

Gizmodo asked him to sit today for live questions. And believe it or not, he did it,” Groklaw reports. “And when asked if the jury was ever asking whether or not a patent should have issued, he claims that they never did because that wasn’t their role and the judge told them to assume the patents issued properly and not to second guess that determination.”

Groklaw reports, “That is so wrong it’s not even just wrong. The verdict form and the jury instructions specifically asked them to address that very question. The law is that the jurors are supposed to decide whether or not a patent is infringed, which *includes* whether or not the patent is valid, because if it is not valid, it can’t be infringed… One thing is for sure, this is going to be one fascinating appeal.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Regardless, the verdict is correct because Samsung was clearly copying Apple and trading on their work as Apple’s lawyers proved with a mountain of evidence.

As we wrote last month: Apple created the modern day smartphone and taught the world what an iPhone is. This was not trivial, nor was it free.

The reason there are copies – of anything – is to take for free (steal) that which was paid for by the original maker: The R&D, the salary and perks of the world’s preeminent industrial designer [and his team], the education of the public through TV spots and a very expensive network of retail outlets, the hundreds of millions in online, print, television, etc. marketing, everything that goes into a product.

This why a maker of knockoff handbags makes Coach knockoffs, to trade on Coach’s work in order to move their fake wares without investing in the design, marketing, etc. This is why a maker of auto knockoffs makes BMW knockoffs. This is why Samsung knocked off iPhone. Samsung stole Apple’s work and they traded on Apple’s considerable investment. This is why the jury found Samsung guilty.

There is no market for paintings of Campbell’s soup cans without Warhol.

Making knockoffs isn’t flattery, it’s theft. It’s also an expression of companies’ disdain and low opinion of their own customers.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: