Talk:Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

Impact Section
The impact section seems pretty out of place. Google has an interest but is not actually involved in this dispute to my knowledge. To draw a supposed correlation between these cases and Google's purchase of a Motorola to "protect Android" seems like sensational original research/drawing conclusions. As this article is currently featured in ITN and as per WP:BOLD, I'll remove it. Restore it if you feel like it should be.

Suggestion: Tag with POV
Based on the current developments of this article and the nature of some of the comments on the talk page, I suggest marking the article with a POV tag. Objections? Bjornte (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong objection. Please point out this so called 'non neutral POV' sections. Also, 'per talk' is misleading as you only reacted to one editor. I've reverted your edit. Please point out the problem sections. Ging287 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I've added it. TimidGuy (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong objection. "AppleInsider" is not a credible, unbiased news-source. Slopswool (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Bjornte, you might be pleased to know that you must have made Dilger's day. After all, it is quite rare that his diatribes have any effect. But here we have it, this article is now labelled as biased, and will certainly be rewritten in a manner more pleasing to Cupertino. To be honest, I thought you, as a European, especially a proud Norwegian, would be above kowtowing to large American companies. Alas, I see Apple is inching closer and closer to its goal of eliminating all meaningful competition via its world-class legal and marketing departments, and its army of blind followers. Furthermore -- even more happy news for you -- since Wikipedia is apparently controlled by the American companies with the largest marketing and legal departments, just as any other American media outlet, I see no purpose in further contributing to, trusting in, or promoting Wikipedia. So have at it, edit as the overlords from Cupertino demand. Slopswool (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * i come from the german wikipedia and would say, yes. i read the appleinsider's critizism and this lemma, not in depth though. matters are too complicated to grasp without MEGO (an acronym i just learned via a wired.com article; sorry, off topic). since


 * 1) it's extremely hard to find a neutral balance for such a hot and legally tricky topic,
 * 2) this article, due to it's news character, grew steadily during tht elast two years,
 * 3) it's bound to grow even more,


 * ...the main goal of a wikipedia article - being neutral and informing the reader in a compact way - is in danger here. if you read the first draft : it looks sober and quite informative. as we all know, it's hard to cut down a long article. but maybe we can keep this in mind with the future of this article and with new articles about current news topics. best, Maximilian (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem is, "AppleInsider" is not a credible, unbiased news-source. It is essentially a site by Apple fans, for Apple fans. Slopswool (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be very clear and specific about what in Dilger's article you find to be incorrect (not liking his opinion is not enough). Because, frankly, your approach to posting here causes me to doubt your bona fides, given that your account seems to have been created fro no other purpose than to troll this page. I think a admin checkuser might be in order. So: clear and specific, becuase any article can be biased, but still factually accurate. 81.132.41.88 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 'AppleInsider' is considered a blog/self published source and would not be admissable per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SPS. Ging287 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Making vague assertions that the article has POV problems without even a single sentence or a paragraph quote from the article elaborating on the bias. This article is specifically for the litigation, not for which multinational corporation was right in legal proceedings. If there is something that needs to be added or omitted, and due to the high traffic to this page and the influx of new editors, consensus needs to be read, understood, and applied. Wikipedia is not censored and they have a right to argue for their addendums to the article just like everybody else. In the event of a dispute, the status quo is upheld until there is consensus. Ging287 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote Dilger At least another 17 citations in Wikipedia's article are used to attack the legitimacy of the jury that awarded Apple damages. Browbeating the jury's reputation in a passive voice, Wikipedia states that "the jury's decision was criticized for being Apple-friendly possibly leading to increased costs for Android smartphone users," while questioning the jury's impartiality and how quickly it reached its verdict. And while the article emphasizes that the jury awarded Samsung "zero damages in its counter suit," it doesn't cite any sources examining why the jury tossed out all of Samsung's patent claims or why "the jury decided after the first day of deliberations that it believed Samsung was in the wrong." It just portrays that decision as being rash and unfair. Clearly Dilger is biased so the question is he lying? Or exaggerating? Or just so biased he is blinkered by his view and can't read a fair article? As you say this article should just be about the litigation not which multinational was right or wrong? Dunk the Lunk (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Normally, I would have reworded the entire sentence you mention due to WP:NPOV, but I just did a good faith search on Google and found numerous other stories to back that up. Which include; http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/apple-vs-samsung-why-patent-dispute-has-major-implications-for-blacks-hispanics/ | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsung-lawsuit-verdict_n_1829268.html | http://www.androidauthority.com/apple-asking-40-per-device-samsung-5-patents-356538/ | http://bgr.com/2014/03/11/apple-vs-samsung-second-trial-damages/ | http://allthingsd.com/20120810/breaking-apple-offered-to-license-its-patents-to-samsung-for-30-per-smartphone-40-per-tablet/ | http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/10/3234909/apple-samsung-patent-royalty-rates So obvious, with the majority of sources, it passes notabability to mention that. The second sentence you mention has no bias that I can see. All it says is "Samsung was awarded zero damages". If there was a "Fortunately, Samsung was awarded zero damages" or a "Unfortunately, Samsung was awarded zero damage." then that would have indicated bias towards one company or the other. The last sentence you are indicating was in an interview with one of the jurors, who can be considered a reliable source. Ging287 (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Either way we should not be referencing blogs or opinion pieces especially on such a controversial topic. Refs 3, 9, 11 12.1 and 12.2 (as far as I got) are all opinion/analysis pieces which have the potential to be biased in either direction depending on what the author is wanting to present - not hard factual presentation of the various court cases.Dunk the Lunk (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Apple Bounce Back Effect
I have tried to research what the "bounce back effect" that Apple claims was infringed. Could someone add what it is?Odrinn (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)