apple

[maxfaraday]

Now that Apple has exclusive rights for rounded rectangles, everyone else will be forced to make phones and tablets like this

Not evereyone, this guy has exclusive rights on rounded triangles.

[john9blue]

i have almost no faith in humanity.

that being said, i have enough faith in humanity to believe that people won't be dumb enough to let apple have a monopoly on ANYTHING for very long. the computer-savviness of consumers will continue to grow and they'll eventually realize how full of shit apple is.

Since when do people matter in a world dominated by large corporations?

people are the lifeblood of corporations

[Army of GOD]

i have almost no faith in humanity.

that being said, i have enough faith in humanity to believe that people won't be dumb enough to let apple have a monopoly on ANYTHING for very long. the computer-savviness of consumers will continue to grow and they'll eventually realize how full of shit apple is.

Since when do people matter in a world dominated by large corporations?

people are the lifeblood of corporations

Well, not the Umbrella corporation.

[natty dread]

Now that Apple has exclusive rights for rounded rectangles, everyone else will be forced to make phones and tablets like this

Not evereyone, this guy has exclusive rights on rounded triangles.

Anyone wanna borrow me 50 000 €? I want to apply for a patent on rounded rhombuses

[Army of GOD]

rounded dodecahedrons

[natty dread]

rounded dodecahedrons

tridecahedrons > dodecahedrons

[maxfaraday]

rounded dodecahedrons

tridecahedrons > dodecahedrons

rounded hypercubes.

[natty dread]

rounded dodecahedrons

tridecahedrons > dodecahedrons

rounded hypercubes.

sharpened hyperbolic planes

[AndyDufresne]

Sharp hypodermic pains. Wait, what are we talking about?


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120828085512779


But, I hear you say, that's anticompetive behavior. Isn't that patent misuse? Misuse of the courts? I think it is. But I'm not a lawyer. And antitrust law is complicated, and thanks to folks who think business should be unregulated, it's a little bit toothless at the moment.

Question - Where does the author get the idea that antitrust law is toothless?

"But I'm not a laywer (nor am I an economist, etc., nor am I knowledgeable about much of the literature on antitrust law); however, [insert baseless assertion here]."

The anti-market bias runs deep.

I just don't get it. Here is this author lambasting a government-provided system of patents, and then blames free market advocates for alleged unregulation which has somehow led to "toothless" antitrust law. It drives me crazy.

The cause of favorable antitrust law which prohibits freer competition is due to the powers of the government which is run by self-interested bureaucrats and politicians, who receive political contributions and all kinds of favors from the anti-competitive businesses. It's a self-serving system.

But no! It couldn't be that! The government would be perfect with "toothful" antitrust law! Competition would rein free if only the government was given a greater scope of authority!

[BigBallinStalin]

@Natty. I think we're gonna have a good time with this, and I think we can both learn from each other, but in order for me to explain my stance, I really need you to clarify some definitions and answer several questions. If we can eat these start-up costs, then we stand to mutually benefit from this exchange of ideas.

Question - Where does the author get the idea that antitrust law is toothless?

Allow me to answer that. Of course I can't speak for the author, but I can speak for myself, I think. I hope...

Antitrust law is toothless because many corporations (Micro$oft, mapple among others) are engaging in clearly anti-competitive business practices that harm consumers, and they are largely getting away with it. In order to a free market economy to be able to function in a way which is beneficial to the people, instead of only benefiting a select few corporations, there needs to be safeguards that prevent these corporations from artificially eliminating competition by unfair methods.

What is "artificial elimination"?

What constitutes as "unfair methods"?

What kind of safeguards would prevent "artificial elimination" and "unfair methods"?

How does antitrust law actually work in the US?

Therefore there needs to be better antitrust laws that prevent the larger corporations from using their capital to construct artificial monopolies.

What is an "artificial monopoly"?

What are the alternatives to antitrust laws which would achieve your goals, whatever they may be exactly?

The most popular anti-competitive method of today is exploitment of the patent system. The current patent system allows big corporations an unfair advantage, as they can use patents to squash their competition, instead of competing fairly with the quality of their products. Smaller companies, start ups, and such cannot afford patents, and even if they could they couldn't afford to defend those patents in court if they were violated. Ultimately, the end user, the consumer, is the one who loses in this game, as anti-competitive practices hinder innovation and improvement of products.

I agree, but how did patents become used in this manner?

In other words, the outcomes of patent law "way back when" differ from today. Why? Which institutions evolved, and in what way are they responsible for the past 40-100 years of consequences primarily involving patent law?

The patent system should be abolished altogether - it's an ancient institution that no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. Today, the patent system only hinders innovation instead of encouraging it, and only benefits patent lawyers and patent trolls.

Except it also benefits the larger corporations whose recipients of political donations also benefit from the status quo.

I'm hesisitant to agree with you because this is an empirical matter. How much does the patent system affect innovation overall? What is the optimal time limit on patents? Could better outcomes be achieved through stricter definitions of a patent?

(Honestly, I'm not familiar with the above literature regarding this empirical claim).


And what are the alternative to patents?
(e.g. maintaining trade secrets, i.e. private provision of securing one's inventions)

"But natty dread, if the patent system is at fault, why not just abolish the patent system, why do we also need antitrust laws?" I hear you asking. We need them because patents are only one way of exploitment, and no system is perfect - there will always be ways which allow corporations with larger capital to use their capital to push smaller competitors out of the market. Therefore, safeguards are always needed to ensure fair competition between businesses.

Agreed, but the means do matter. If it's voluntary and not violating other people's rights, then on what grounds is "using capital to push smaller competition out of the market" not justified?

If you want freer competition, you can't inadvertently advocate for a lesser competitive environment through (unknown) safeguards implemented by a bureaucracy exposed to revolving doors (regulatory capture) and overseen by politicians who are fronted money and constantly lobbied by interest groups.

I agree that safeguards are needed, but they need not come from bureaucrats and politicians, who will always distort those safeguards for their own self-interest. I'll list examples of market discipline, but these will come after and perhaps during our discussion on your stance and your responses to my questions.

I get the impression that both you, TGD, and you BBS, are big supporters of free market ideals. Let me thus pose the question: is a market truly free if it can be manipulated and exploited by whoever happens to have the largest assets, regardless of their actual merits in product/service development and innovation? Wouldn't a truly free market be one that encourages and enforces fair competition between business entities, regardless of their size and accumulated capital?

Please define "manipulated" and "exploited" because those are loaded terms which usually prevent people from understanding how economics and the market operate.

Define "fair competition."

But I'll answer your questions:

(1) Based on my definitions, it would still be free, but it depends on how you define those terms you used.

(2) Fair competition in a free market is free competition and the ability to satisfy the demand (willingness and capability) of customers. Simply because a business fails to satisfies its customers and goes bankrupt, there is no justification for appealing to "fair" competition and bailing out it--if such an event uses involuntary extractions of other people's money (e.g. taxes, and government bailouts). That example need not be your version of fair, but I use it to clarify the problems of using a loaded term like "fair."


In a free market, there would be free competition through free entry (i.e. legally free, as in having the permission to enter, thus compete). Free entry does not mean zero start-up costs, which are as inevitable as having to feed yourself. In a free market, there may be only 3 businesses which build aircraft, or 200 businesses. Whatever their sizes and capital may be, it doesn't matter as long as their exchanges are voluntary, they satisfy customer demand, and don't violate certain rights (negative right to life, property rights, etc.).

[natty dread]

BBS, in order to keep our discussion structured and more easy to follow, I'm going to chop up your post and group your questions by subject. If I miss anything you'd want addressed, please let me know in your next post.

What is "artificial elimination"?
What constitutes as "unfair methods"?
What is an "artificial monopoly"?
If it's voluntary and not violating other people's rights, then on what grounds is "using capital to push smaller competition out of the market" not justified?

Let's start with artificial elimination of competition. Like I said, a corporation with a larger prior capital can use its capital as leverage to compete unfairly. So basically, it's artificial because the larger corporation is not competing with its merits, it's not offering better products or services, it's not marketing its products better, it simply manipulates the markets to drive its competition out of business.

A classic example is what I believe you americans call the "walmart phenomenon", which is also well known around here: a large corporation starts a supermarket in a town, and sells all its wares with no profit margin - or even losing money on sales, thus "stealing" customers from the smaller stores. The large corporation can afford to do this thanks to its capital, as it's a beneficial strategy in the long term - once the smaller stores are driven out of business, the large corporation gains a monopoly and can set prices however high it wants. The large corporation recoups its losses by pricegouging after it achieves a local, artificial monopoly. An artificial monopoly is simply a monopoly gained by artificial elimination of competition.

Do you think an absolutely unregulated market could spontaneously fix this problem, and if so, how?

As for your last question, I don't really understand your point - how could it be "voluntary"? Do you think any smaller business would volunteer to be driven out of business by a large corporation using unfair methods of competition? Also, no, I don't think it is justified to compete in this manner - in fact the only justification for it is a purely ideological one, and fallacious to boot - an absolute, unrelenting, dogmatic approach to "free market economy". From a utilitarian point of view, the consumers are harmed most by monopolies and unfair competition or anti-competitive practices. I maintain my position that a truly free market would allow free competition between businesses regardless of their prior capital.

I also posit that the freedom of the consumers to have more choice is more important than the freedom of the corporations to use whatever possible methods to control the markets.

How does antitrust law actually work in the US?
What are the alternatives to antitrust laws which would achieve your goals, whatever they may be exactly?
What kind of safeguards would prevent "artificial elimination" and "unfair methods"?

I have to confess at this point that I'm not all that intimately familiar with the US antitrust laws. The impression I have is that it's kind of a fuckugly complex mess (most legislations are). I don't really have a concrete solution for fixing it overnight, but I can mention certain issues that should be better addressed.

For example, if we take microsoft and the way it has historically bullied OEM:s and retail stores to curb competition. With it's market status, microsoft was able to set terms to OEM:s, discouraging them from offering systems with other operating systems installed, the same with retailers. Microsoft was able to do this because they had (have) the leading market position, and OEM:s thus need their operating systems and license deals. If they disobeyed, other OEM:s / retailers would get an advantage over them because microsoft would in effect sell their OS cheaper to them. Ultimately, consumers lose as they get less choice of OS:s when buying a computer from a retail store or straight from an OEM.

This behaviour has been pretty much untouched by antitrust laws.

I agree, but how did patents become used in this manner?

In other words, the outcomes of patent law "way back when" differ from today. Why? Which institutions evolved, and in what way are they responsible for the past 40-100 years of consequences primarily involving patent law?

I'm no historian, but...

When patent law was introduced, the technological development of mankind was in an entirely different phase. Great inventions were being made, like light bulbs, radios, etc. Today, it's increasingly rare to see any kind of groundbreaking, game-changing inventions; in other words, there is increased granularity of innovation. Almost all of the patents of today are simply improvements to existing inventions.

Fast forward to today: we have corporations that have patented the genes of a certain breed of pig. We have patents on mathematical formulas. And you're right that the patent system benefits the large corporations, it helps them maintain the status quo, thus curbing competition and stagnating innovation. Part of this is due to flaws in the legal systems themselves, that require capital to be able to afford legal services, and part is the flawed nature of the patent law itself.

I'm hesisitant to agree with you because this is an empirical matter. How much does the patent system affect innovation overall? What is the optimal time limit on patents? Could better outcomes be achieved through stricter definitions of a patent?

I don't think there are much studies available on this, so I can't give you exact figures. I think it's clear that the patent system is detrimental to innovation, due to the fact that it is clearly detrimental to free competition, and without competition there is no innovation - producers of goods and services become complacent and stagnated if there's no pressing need to improve their goods or services.

And what are the alternative to patents?
(e.g. maintaining trade secrets, i.e. private provision of securing one's inventions)

It's an interesting question. I think all inventions should just be made public and anyone should be free to utilize them, provided they are capable of reverse-engineering them. Then the corporations would just compete on the quality of their work, who is able to create the best implementation of any particular invention, or who is able to provide best services, who is able to come up with the best business models... I don't think much would be lost by abolishing the patent system - it's become so convoluted that it doesn't really protect anyones intellectual property anyway, and doesn't offer any of those benefits that are used to justify its existence.

Even without patents, someone who makes a new invention would still have an advantage, as they could keep it secret until publication and have a head start to the markets. After that, they'd just have to make sure they offer the best services, the best quality of product, or the best business model to keep their customers happy. Or keep constantly innovating and adding new functionality, forcing your competition to stay one step behind.

And of course, some things don't even benefit from being kept secret - for example, formats and standards. Almost every time there has been a war between two competing formats or standards, the one that has been more open, more available to implementation, has won. The same can easily apply to many other areas of technology.

I agree that safeguards are needed, but they need not come from bureaucrats and politicians, who will always distort those safeguards for their own self-interest. I'll list examples of market discipline, but these will come after and perhaps during our discussion on your stance and your responses to my questions.

Please elaborate. How would these safeguards function?

[thegreekdog]

I'm solidly in favor of anti-trust laws (shocking, I know). My question was not a philosophical one, but a realistic one. The antitrust laws were simply created to stop one company from gaining a monopoly over the market through unfair business practices. It was not created to stop big companies from stomping on smaller companies. So, on that note, the anti-trust laws are roundly successful.

Further, and what I think BBS is getting at (and more philosophical) is that what Apple, et. al. are doing is competing in the political marketplace. The reason there are not laws to prevent Apple, et. al. from doing the things they do is because Apple et. al. lobby and otherwise financially support the politicians. Additionally, and more importantly, with limited exceptions consumers are happy with this situation. So you have Congressman Joe who is a second-term senator. His constituents aren't banging down his door talking about the unfair practices of Apple. In fact, his constituents love Apple because it's cool and trendy and because iphones. Apple also contributes to his campaign and Apple's lobbyists take him out for golf with Steve Jobs' corpse on occasion. And he's going to have a job on the Apple board of directors when he's done being a senator.

So, I guess the response to your unasked question is - No one cares. And it has nothing to do with antitrust laws.

[natty dread]

So, I guess the response to your unasked question is - No one cares. And it has nothing to do with antitrust laws.

That's kind of a lazy argumentation there. Firstly, how do you know no one cares? From what I hear the public opinion is largely turning against apple, and against the abuse of the patent system in general. If everyone was happy with Apple, their market share wouldn't be plummeting. Secondly, even if no one cares about an injustice, it's still an injustice. In nazi germany, "no one cared" that jews were sent to gas chambers, but it was still unethical.

[thegreekdog]

So, I guess the response to your unasked question is - No one cares. And it has nothing to do with antitrust laws.

That's kind of a lazy argumentation there. Firstly, how do you know no one cares? From what I hear the public opinion is largely turning against apple, and against the abuse of the patent system in general. If everyone was happy with Apple, their market share wouldn't be plummeting. Secondly, even if no one cares about an injustice, it's still an injustice. In nazi germany, "no one cared" that jews were sent to gas chambers, but it was still unethical.

That's a great and appropriate analogy.

It's not lazy argumentation. You ignored the entirety of my post wherein I gave to you the reasons why no one cares. I'll give it to you again, in a different way: The only people that seem to care that Apple plays games with patents are people who compete with Apple. Those people do not likely number in the tens of thousands, much less have enough political or material capital to make hay. Unless and until I can be assured that I will either (a) receive some benefit or (b) be spared some detriment to Apple playing games with patents, I won't care and neither will 200 million other people.

[Maugena]

So I was actually talking to two of my tech friends and they had said that this lawsuit apparently began like 2-3 years ago and just reached a verdict in the lowest court, here in the U.S. (Samsung won in South Korea over the same lawsuit, apparently?) They'll appeal of course... and maybe get a verdict on that one in another 3 some years... all the way down to the Supreme Court which could be another decade...
And then Google would slam Apple back with Motorola patents, as well...

[natty dread]

It's not lazy argumentation. You ignored the entirety of my post wherein I gave to you the reasons why no one cares.

Yet, you haven't really shown the validity of your claim that "no one cares". I can give you "reasons" why the earth is square, but it doesn't make my proposition valid.

I'll give it to you again, in a different way: The only people that seem to care that Apple plays games with patents are people who compete with Apple.

It doesn't seem that way to me. In fact the whole lawsuit seems to be massively bad PR for apple, and it seems that all but the most diehard fanatics of the church of apple are saying that apple is out of line with its baseless litigation and anti-competitive practices.

If you look at google trends with the words "apple patents", you'll see a huge spike right about now, which seems to indicate that lots of people are talking about it now and indeed seem to care about it. A similar spike is seen with "apple lawsuit". With only "apple", there is no such spike noticeable, which would indicates that people aren't just talking about apple or their products.

If no one cared about it, internet & media wouldn't bother covering the story, people wouldn't bother writing about it so much. I'm aware that google trends is by no means conclusive evidence, but it is at least indicative of... a trend.

Those people do not likely number in the tens of thousands, much less have enough political or material capital to make hay. Unless and until I can be assured that I will either (a) receive some benefit or (b) be spared some detriment to Apple playing games with patents, I won't care and neither will 200 million other people.

So, it seems you have intimate knowledge of the opinions and decision-making process of 200 million people. May I enquire how you have come to possess this knowledge? Have you conducted surveys or polls? Have you at least read the results of surveys or polls conducted by others? Have there been empirical studies?

Public opinion matters. Just look at what happened to the SOPA legislation. It seemed certain it could pass, but enough people made noise about it and suddenly the political situation was far different. The same thing happened with ACTA. The same thing can also happen to patent legislation and apple. Courts are supposedly impartial, but realistically they are affected by public opinion. And the bad publicity apple is suffering because of this case is sure to affect their profits and probably even scare away business partners.

[natty dread]

So I was actually talking to two of my tech friends and they had said that this lawsuit apparently began like 2-3 years ago and just reached a verdict in the lowest court, here in the U.S. (Samsung won in South Korea over the same lawsuit, apparently?) They'll appeal of course... and maybe get a verdict on that one in another 3 some years... all the way down to the Supreme Court which could be another decade...
And then Google would slam Apple back with Motorola patents, as well...

The fight is only starting and Apple has no way to win. They've neatly painted themselves to a corner with their idiotic patent litigation and aggressive, unethical business practices.

Either they'll win against Samsung and Google/Motorola will take them down, or they'll lose against Samsung and gain massive bad PR in the process, losing customers to Google and Samsung.

[thegreekdog]

It's not lazy argumentation. You ignored the entirety of my post wherein I gave to you the reasons why no one cares.

Yet, you haven't really shown the validity of your claim that "no one cares". I can give you "reasons" why the earth is square, but it doesn't make my proposition valid.

I'll give it to you again, in a different way: The only people that seem to care that Apple plays games with patents are people who compete with Apple.

It doesn't seem that way to me. In fact the whole lawsuit seems to be massively bad PR for apple, and it seems that all but the most diehard fanatics of the church of apple are saying that apple is out of line with its baseless litigation and anti-competitive practices.

If you look at google trends with the words "apple patents", you'll see a huge spike right about now, which seems to indicate that lots of people are talking about it now and indeed seem to care about it. A similar spike is seen with "apple lawsuit". With only "apple", there is no such spike noticeable, which would indicates that people aren't just talking about apple or their products.

If no one cared about it, internet & media wouldn't bother covering the story, people wouldn't bother writing about it so much. I'm aware that google trends is by no means conclusive evidence, but it is at least indicative of... a trend.

Those people do not likely number in the tens of thousands, much less have enough political or material capital to make hay. Unless and until I can be assured that I will either (a) receive some benefit or (b) be spared some detriment to Apple playing games with patents, I won't care and neither will 200 million other people.

So, it seems you have intimate knowledge of the opinions and decision-making process of 200 million people. May I enquire how you have come to possess this knowledge? Have you conducted surveys or polls? Have you at least read the results of surveys or polls conducted by others? Have there been empirical studies?

Public opinion matters. Just look at what happened to the SOPA legislation. It seemed certain it could pass, but enough people made noise about it and suddenly the political situation was far different. The same thing happened with ACTA. The same thing can also happen to patent legislation and apple. Courts are supposedly impartial, but realistically they are affected by public opinion. And the bad publicity apple is suffering because of this case is sure to affect their profits and probably even scare away business partners.

First, I don't have any vested interest in whether Apple succeeds in this context. I do not own any Apple products and I do not plan on owning any Apple products (mostly because of their hypocrisy). I agree that their patent practices are abysmal. I prefer to concentrate on their labor issues, because that's more important to me generally (probably because I'm not a computer scientist). So I'm not taking a stance against you because I support Apple. I'm taking a stance against you because I do not think the United States Congress or court system will solve any of the problems with Apple. I think this is for two reasons, as I've indicated previously: (1) Lack of relevant interest from the general public and (2) Support that Apple receives across the political spectrum from politicians.

With respect to (2), Apple has a better, bigger, and wealthier lobby than any of its competitors. In order to upset that balance, there needs to be overwhelming public support. There is not overwhelming public support for shutting down Apple's patent practices, google trends notwithstanding. Perhaps that will come and I hope it does (although I prefer that people concentrate on Apple's labor practices).

With respect to (1), right now in the United States people are concerned with, in some order, jobs and the economy, gay marriage, and the various foreign wars we're engaged in. For example, I've yet to hear anyone from either political persuasion in the two conventions mention the word "patent" or "Apple." Perhaps this has more to do with (2) than with (1).

[natty dread]

I prefer to concentrate on their labor issues, because that's more important to me generally (probably because I'm not a computer scientist).

Well, you can concentrate on what you want. But you should know that you don't have to be a computer scientists to understand how harmful the patent system is. It's not just computers, it affects all areas of life and business.

Moreover, the labor issues aren't exclusive to apple, although I'm certainly not saying this excuses such practices.

I'm taking a stance against you because I do not think the United States Congress or court system will solve any of the problems with Apple. I think this is for two reasons, as I've indicated previously: (1) Lack of relevant interest from the general public and (2) Support that Apple receives across the political spectrum from politicians.

Again: how do you know there is no interest in the general public? On what do you base this assertion?

As for political lobbying, that's a problem of the political system, which is a whole another can of worms I won't be getting into here... however apple's competitors can bribe politicians too, it's not like they have a patent on lobbying or anything (yet).

[thegreekdog]

Well, you can concentrate on what you want. But you should know that you don't have to be a computer scientists to understand how harmful the patent system is. It's not just computers, it affects all areas of life and business.

Moreover, the labor issues aren't exclusive to apple, although I'm certainly not saying this excuses such practices.

This thread is not about the harmful patent system; it's about Apple's abuses of the patent system. If other companies abused the patent system similarly, perhaps there would be more public outcry. I used the term "computer scientist" because people that seem to be interested in this appear to be people interested in computer products at something more than a consumer level.

Again: how do you know there is no interest in the general public? On what do you base this assertion?

(1) No mention of patent law or Apple in either national convention.
(2) No mention of patent law or Apple by any prominent presidential candidate otherwise.
(3) I read one article on this from Forbes, hardly the bastion of public sentiment. That article recalled the decision favorably, by the way. I've read no other news articles on the subject.
(4) A quick google search reveals three articles: Nasdaq, Forbes, and Wired (a blog apparently). None of those are widely read by the general American public.
(5) All other google searches reveal articles with the word or phrase "tech" or "technology" or are located in techie parts of major newspapers.

Although I speak only for myself, I tend to determine whether the general public is interested in something based upon whether there is a headline article on cnn.com, Drudge report (he hates Apple by the way), or the WSJ.com. I have not seen this regarding Apple. Unless Fox, MSNBC, or the New York Times (other widely read publications/news, but not by me) are reporting on this, I don't think public sentiment is strong on this.

[natty dread]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500 ... peaks-out/

http://www.zdnet.com/apples-patent-vict ... 000003238/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... 00-an-hour

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 54138.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-oe ... 1673.story

[natty dread]

Instructions to Jury vs.

• What the foreman did

“In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits that were received into evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you:”

• The foreman brought forward his personal experience of patents without opportunity for Samsung to cross-examine him: “I took that story back to the jury. Laid it out for ‘em. They understood the points I was talking about.”

“(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.”

• The foreman planned his defence of Apple outside the court and planned to take sides: “I could defend this if it was my patent…”

“For each party’s patent infringement claims against the other, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the alleged infringer has infringed the claims of the patent holder’s patents and whether those patents are valid.
…
A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called “prior art references.”

• The foreman ignored the judge’s instruction by inventing a new rule for invalidation by processor, something that makes no sense since both Apple and Samsung used ARM processors: “…whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that patent and so with the moment I had I realized the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice-versa, and that changed everything”

“If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give. I will take willfulness into account later.”

• “We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the rist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful.”

[thegreekdog]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500 ... peaks-out/

http://www.zdnet.com/apples-patent-vict ... 000003238/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... 00-an-hour

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 54138.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-oe ... 1673.story

(1) CNET - Never heard of this; seems to side with Apple.
(2) ZDENT - Never heard of this; seems to just report on the issue and not take a side (despite the analyst).
(3) Businessweek - Seems to report on the attorneys' fees.
(4) Wall Street Journal - Seems to be just a report.
(5) LA Times - This seems to be critical of Apple.

I wish you luck on your crusade (mostly because I hate Apple), but I question whether you will have any luck.

[natty dread]