Actually, while samsung stock is way down, this is fantastic news for 
samsung.

* They can easily appeal here; the jury reached a verdict in 3 days. The 
jury instruction manual was something like 700 pages, so the judge is going 
to accept an appeal in about 5 seconds. The fact that various jury members 
made overtures that they see this as a 'slap on the wrist' for samsung, 
something the jury instruction manual specifically says is NOT their job 
(their job was to give fair compensation to apple, NOT to send a message to 
samsung). This keeps this farce going, and that's good for samsung, not 
just because they might get their billion back, but because...

* We now have a court-ordered claim that samsung devices are carbon copies 
of apple devices. Geez. That's quite a bold claim, and now _the courts_ are 
saying that this bold claim is, in fact, true. That's a marketer's wet 
dream, isn't it? A court-stamped and validated claim that your stuff is 
just as good as the top dog in the market?

* It's just a billion. I know, we civilized look at that and shake our head 
in disdain, but, it's like a week's worth of revenue for samsung. Contrast 
this to Microsoft, who, in a bid to stay relevant and try and make some 
leeway in the mobile phone business, bought skype for 8 billion. Let's put 
it this way: If I approached samsung 4 years ago with this deal: You can 
copy whatever you want from the device that is going to become the 
cornerstone of an entirely new market, and in doing so you'll actually 
outsell them, and all it'll cost you is the meager sum of a billion bucks. 
Oh, and, by the way, included in that price is a highly publicized court 
case which will highlight again and again how awesome your devices are.

* Their flagship phones that they are _CURRENTLY_ selling (notable the S3) 
are _NOT_ even in the list, meaning, if any motion to ban sales of their 
phones shows up for the US market, samsung won't even care much.


Now, is patent law as it applies to software and design a farce? You bet. 
The right answer is to abolish them entirely (not because this is the 
clearly most fair way to do it, but because the issue is clearly too 
complex for a law to handle, and abolishing them entirely leads to less 
economic damage to the IT sector than any other proposal I've ever heard 
about. Including Joe's various plans to try to make companies pay for 
getting their patent vetted for being actually novel. At the end of the 
day, taxing a law system to define novelty is a ridiculous proposal, think 
about it. Why should the government even be in the business of determining 
novelty? Why would anyone think that's actually going to work?). Would 
samsung be even happier if there was no patent case? I doubt they care. 
They got about a billion bucks worth of good press out of this I'd say. 
They can write this off as an expensive but effective marketing campaign if 
they want.

In the mean time, apple is focused on entirely the wrong thing (please, 
Team Apple: You need to be focusing on making cool devices and software, 
and crowing victory when said software/hardware combos end up being awesome 
in practice. The victory dance is for the home-run that are the 11" and 13" 
macbook airs, for example. Not for a legal verdict that is in the end quite 
meaningless, and a legally mandated cash windfall. I've been using an S3 
for a month or 3 now and from my perspective this thing is as good as an 
iPhone. A little better, even, because google is still much better at the 
cloud thing compared to apple.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java 
Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/GaVe6gm4VpQJ.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

Reply via email to