8 Comments

Summary:

I don’t agree with it — very small things I don’t really call that innovative. Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, doesn’t care for the Apple v. Samsung patent case, saying “I hate it,” when asked about the situation from Bloomberg. Last month, a jury ruled in favor […]

I don’t agree with it — very small things I don’t really call that innovative.

Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, doesn’t care for the Apple v. Samsung patent case, saying “I hate it,” when asked about the situation from Bloomberg. Last month, a jury ruled in favor of Apple to the tune of $1.05 billion for patent infringement by Samsung but Woz says, “I don’t think the decision of California will hold.”

Wozniak of course isn’t a lawyer — nor am I — but I can’t say that I disagree with the court’s finding. Where Woz and I would likely agree is that perhaps such software patents shouldn’t exist in the first place. In a court of law, however, that opinion is irrelevant and I’d be surprised if the court decision was overturned as a result.

Regardless, Woz is reportedly looking forward to purchasing an iPhone 5, which ironically will supplement his Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone.

  1. Wozniak is a tech-head. He probably carries every company’s smartphone on his person because each has some feature that he likes. He can afford to spend thousands of dollars on smartphones so he does it to please himself. Good for him. It’s nice that he shows up at iPhone launches but then again, he’s probably just doing it for publicity or he likes hanging out with the crowds. It’s a shame he’s not a hardcore Apple fan, but why should he be. He’s been alienated from Apple for dozens of years.

    Share
    1. He also showed up to the Galaxy Nexus launch. So yeah, he’s not exactly on any particular side.

      Share
  2. Michael W. Perry Thursday, September 13, 2012

    Kevin, you seem to know less about law than Woz. You really shouldn’t write as if your opinion mattered much in the scheme of things.

    The Samsung jury decision was hasty and ill-done. The jury doesn’t even seem to have read the jury instructions the judge prepared. When they found that dealing with something as important as ‘prior art’ was a bother, they simply dropped it. And they were dominated by a foreman who, from his remarks since the trial, seems to combine great ignorance and arrogance. Much of the jury’s decision simply doesn’t make sense as anything other than a haste to be done and go home.

    The real problem is that, like the OJ Simpson trial, there’s remarkably little the legal system can do to ‘fix’ the results of a lazy, clueless jury, although thus far Judge Koh seems to be trying to minimize the damage it’s likely to do.

    Kevin, if you intend to write on high tech and the law, you need to do the work required to know something about the topic. You should follow websites such Groklaw.net. If you don’t, then you’d be better advised to simply confine yourself to gushing about your feeling on some new gadget.

    Like a lot of others, I have no interest in hearing what some clueless IT reporter feels about a topic about which he knows nothing.

    Share
    1. Appreciate the feedback, Michael, but not the name calling. ;) I’m aware of the hasty jury decision, I followed the court case verdict as it unfolded in real time via live blogs and read the follow-up; both from us — we have a lawyer on staff — and from others. But I see the bigger issue as one of our current patent system, not this one specific trial. If that makes me “clueless” then so be it.

      Share
    2. Yet you read it didn’t you? Hypocrite. What a worthless reply.

      Share
      1. The Mathew Perry? Why are you so angry?

        Share
  3. try to think a little further than just “not invented here” … everybody outside of the US thinks the jury and the judge and the whole court just rule FOR Apple because it’s a US company and so be it … besides that Appel isn’t the best example of a no-copy company, never forget that

    Share
  4. Venkataramani Arunachalam Friday, September 14, 2012

    I would say the patents are valid and the fact that Samsung copied them is true as well. But is it really worth $1 billion is the question. Did consumers buy Samsung phones only because it had rounded rectangles and pinch zooming? There’s a lot more worthy features in it that are worth more than these features.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post