Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the Henry-VI,-Part-2,-Act-IV,-Scene-2 dept.

The Apple v. Samsung saga continues:

The Apple v. Samsung lawsuit is getting a big "reset," thanks to last year's Supreme Court ruling on design patents. The long-running litigation rollercoaster has included so many turns it's hard to keep track. The case was filed in 2011 and went to a 2012 jury trial, which resulted in a blockbuster verdict of more than $1 billion. Post-trial damage motions whittled that down, and then there was a 2013 damages re-trial in front of a separate jury. An appeals court kicked out trademark-related damages altogether.

Meanwhile, a whole separate case moved forward in which Apple sued over a new generation of Samsung products. That lawsuit went to a jury trial in 2014 and resulted in a $120 million verdict, far less than the $2 billion Apple was seeking. That verdict was thrown out on appeal, then reinstated on a subsequent appeal. So that one appears to stand.

But back to that first case. After a lot of back and forth, Samsung agreed to make a payment of $548 million, but the Korean giant didn't give up its right to appeal. In a landmark case over design patents, the US Supreme Court said that the damages had been done all wrong—but the justices gave little guidance as to how they should be done. The high court threw out $399 million of the damages Apple had won.

New trial order (PDF).

Also at CNET.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:51PM (2 children)

    by arslan (3462) on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:51PM (#588015)

    Slide To Unlock is pretty much the only functional answer to the actual problem.

    Umm not true. You can tap and hold to unlock. You can have physical button to unlock, much like the physical buttons on the side for the volume, power, camera, etc. You can have a combination of all those.

    My old Sony Ericsson dumb phone used to unlock by pressing and holding on of the buttons. Don't see why we can't do that with the physical buttons on the side of the touch screen.

    I've had my phone unlock in my pocket with swipe especially when I'm sweating a lot and the touch screen is facing my thigh. Slide to unlock isn't necessary the only or best way - is the only way if your reality warping turtleneck wearing boss with fiery eyes insist its the only way.

    That said, I agree with your point that a patent shouldn't be granted for silly stuff like this.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:58PM (#588041)

    ... especially when I'm sweating a lot and the touch screen is facing my thigh...

    Go on...

            —Harvey W.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday October 27 2017, @01:47PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 27 2017, @01:47PM (#588218) Journal

    Let's talk about the combination of buttons as a way to unlock. Now there are two ways. What happens when a third company wants to make a smartphone? A problem with the touch and hold approach is that it is more likely to be triggered in your pocket or purse. The Slide To Unlock is pretty obvious as I stated it. It's an obvious answer to the constraints of the problem.

    Slide To Unlock is like having a steering wheel in an automobile. I'm sure every car maker could invent some other bizarre way to steer the vehicle. But the steering wheel is a pretty basic functional design. So is Slide To Unlock.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.