Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 30, 2013, 09:21 AM   #51
BatCraft
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Christopher Judge

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.
BatCraft is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 09:33 AM   #52
Bubba Satori
macrumors 68040
 
Bubba Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B'ham
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarPower View Post
Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.
Cultists to the front lines. Fix Bayonets. Charge.
Bubba Satori is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 09:33 AM   #53
cambox
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: omnipresent
Samsung lost.... Apple lost.... The Lawyers won!
cambox is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 09:45 AM   #54
Rene.V
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BatCraft View Post
If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.
The definition of "willful" in the context of patent infringement is not the same as the dictionary definition of "willful". 'Willful infringement" is defined by the patent statutes, and the statutes state that if one relies on the competent opinion of independent counsel that a patent is invalid and/or that you don't infringe, then you are not deemed to be a "willful infringer", as the statutes define it, if the patent is ultimately held valid and infringed. Understand that this does not let you off the hook! You are still liable for the actual damages that the patent holder can prove ($1 billion in this case). However, the judge won't award a punitive damage award IN ADDITION TO the standard damage award if you obtained a legal opinion that the patent is likely invalid and/or not infringed.
Rene.V is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:03 AM   #55
oneMadRssn
macrumors 6502a
 
oneMadRssn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid. But since they are valid, they should pay, no? Saying they didn't willfully violate them means that they created something that was infringing on Apple's patents inadvertently. Which wasn't the case here. Samsung full knowingly infringed on Apple's patents. They willfully did it on the basis of thinking they were invalid according to Samsung's own defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene.V View Post
The definition of "willful" in the context of patent infringement is not the same as the dictionary definition of "willful". 'Willful infringement" is defined by the patent statutes, and the statutes state that if one relies on the competent opinion of independent counsel that a patent is invalid and/or that you don't infringe, then you are not deemed to be a "willful infringer", as the statutes define it, if the patent is ultimately held valid and infringed. Understand that this does not let you off the hook! You are still liable for the actual damages that the patent holder can prove ($1 billion in this case). However, the judge won't award a punitive damage award IN ADDITION TO the standard damage award if you obtained a legal opinion that the patent is likely invalid and/or not infringed.
This ^ .... sort of.

Though I'd add there is no statute on willful infringement, it's developed in case law. The only statutory reference says that courts may give enhanced damages for infringement. Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung “(1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants].” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.
oneMadRssn is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:16 AM   #56
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewfly View Post

However, I do believe that Samsung has built their company by taking this risk often, while other companies will be less risk adverse.
Risk aversion suggests that other companies have a high degree of insight into the degree to which their products are likely to be challenged in a patent suit.

I don't think this is mainly what's going on as Samsung is as sophisticated as the come on the patent side. I think it has more to do with other companies are dying in the marketplace, so are far more likely to be offered licenses by Apple and far less likely to be sued.
pacalis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:17 AM   #57
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben123456 View Post
I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?
Kind of. The validity would have granted them a new trial. But the willful judgement was not really solid. It's an odd thing. Basically the jury said that they feel there was enough evidence in all the emails etc to say that Samsung was willful but the final call is in the hands of the judge. Because that call is related to whether the Judge might double or triple the damages. Koh, it seems, feels like while yes they did use Apple as guidance in general stokes and that is proven, no where does it say they where blatantly going to use Apple patents so the gun isn't really as smoking as it seems.

Last edited by charlituna; Jan 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM.
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:18 AM   #58
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneMadRssn View Post
This ^ .... sort of.

Though I'd add there is no statute on willful infringement, it's developed in case law. The only statutory reference says that courts may give enhanced damages for infringement. Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung “(1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants].” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.
This ^

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatCraft View Post
If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.
And certainly not this ^.

A lot of people don't understand that companies like Samsung have thousands of these things issuing each year. You need an army to keep on top of them. And even then, they are tough to interpret.

The patent law for willful infringement is tricky. You can be found to not have willfully infringed by being completely stupid. You can also be found to not have willfully infringed by being informed but diligent (i.e. seek outside opinion). Willful infringement is thus a pretty narrow condition, more or less atune to the company was behaving like a boastful *******.
pacalis is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:26 AM   #59
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEmajr View Post
Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.
They won't. They will keep hammering on the whole time limits thing when it was really their fault. They wasted time with their witnesses asking pointless and often repetitive questions probably counting on an appeal over the time issue. Now that Koh has denied them they will likely try to take it over her head.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by elietabet View Post
What's her heritage?
Lets drag out the whole 'She's Korean American and is smacking
Samsung hard so no one thinks she's biased towards the Korean company' nonsense. We never get enough of that one
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:31 AM   #60
Solomani
macrumors 68000
 
Solomani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
As long as the $1.05 billion damages stick, IMHO I'd still consider this an Apple victory. Not a huge victory, but more of a Pyrrhic Victory.... a token victory because $1 billion is not really all that much for Apple. But they won that modest financial victory at the expense of actually strengthening the brand recognition of their arch-rival Samsung.

Hopefully both sides have learned a lesson. Apple (and other tech titans) in the future may think long and hard before instigating a long legal war of attrition. Meanwhile, Samsung (and other similar tech titans) will be more cautious before they take the calculated risk of copying/stealing/imitating the patented designs of American corporations.
Solomani is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:33 AM   #61
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
There is any order still not issued?
Oletros is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 10:53 AM   #62
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).
Easy. The term 'willful' in legalese basically means "they knew what they were doing was wrong when they did it".

If the patent is valid, but they had actual, reasonable belief that it wasn't, then they weren't *willfully* violating the patent, even though they were violating it. (Of course, that also wasn't Samsung's *only* argument against their actions being considered willful.)

Rene.V has a post describing the difference between willful and non-willful in a bit more detail.


----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatCraft View Post
If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.
You obviously don't understand what you're talking about. The first clue of that should have been the judge's ruling, where someone who *was* found guilty of patent violation had those actions ruled *not* willful.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 11:31 AM   #63
inscrewtable
macrumors 6502a
 
inscrewtable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard SG View Post
I don't know that consumers give a damn about that. I mean average consumers who don't really follow tech news.
It is more subtle than that, consumer perception as a whole, especially on high volume big ticket items, can have important long term consequences. For example Apple is succeeding in their strategy of painting Samsung as a company that copies Apple and whether it is true or not there will be a perception that a copy is not as good as the original.

Where this becomes important is for those buyers who are on the fence. My point was that a billion dollar fine is a not insignificant number in this propaganda war. You only have to look at Apple's response to the recent Emglish ruling to see how important this propagaganda war is to the companies involved even if we consumers do not see the big picture.
__________________
2013 2.7GHz rMBP
iPod Touch 5th Gen,
inscrewtable is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:10 PM   #64
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by inscrewtable View Post
It is more subtle than that, consumer perception as a whole, especially on high volume big ticket items, can have important long term consequences. For example Apple is succeeding in their strategy of painting Samsung as a company that copies Apple and whether it is true or not there will be a perception that a copy is not as good as the original.

Where this becomes important is for those buyers who are on the fence. My point was that a billion dollar fine is a not insignificant number in this propaganda war. You only have to look at Apple's response to the recent Emglish ruling to see how important this propagaganda war is to the companies involved even if we consumers do not see the big picture.
I don't think it's as big a factor as your making it out to be. I honestly doubt there are more than 1 million people *world wide* who are actually aware that there was an Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. And only a fraction of those people actually *care* one way or the other.

The thing to remember is that forums (such as this one) *aren't* good benchmarks for the knowledge/attitude of the general population. And that's probably a good thing, especially since internet forums are rarely known for their civil behavior.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:16 PM   #65
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Thanks for those that explained the legal BS around my confusion. Instead of going, " Isn't it obvious", "You're smarter than the judge!", and " This discussion is useless".......
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:44 PM   #66
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).
There is quite strong precedent that if you take qualified legal advice before doing something that _might_ infringe on a patent, and the legal advice tells you that you wouldn't be infringing (because the patent is invalid, out of date, or just doesn't cover what you are doing), then you are not _wilfully_ infringing, even if the legal advice later turns out to be wrong. (Kodak vs. Polaroid, $925 million payment instead of paying three times of much for wilfull infringement).
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 08:51 PM   #67
bwillwall
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by theanimaster View Post
This news has become such *yawn* that hardly anyone comments on it anymore.

...


... yeah.


But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products. They don't play 'fair'. They take calculated risks and pour their resources into it. They got lucky with the battery industry -- one of the first markets that they flooded their 'crap' into. The quality of their products however, is something to consider. They don't make absolute crap stuff (like a lot of Chinese companies do when they flood markets) but then again they don't make the absolute best stuff either, unless you're talking about the components industry (where they seem to produce some of the best components because of the research and development they put into it).

They gamble. A lot. For the past few years, they've been lucky at it too -- after batteries came lighting. From their lighting industry they started building TVs. They have enough money to play dirty and take huge risks where other companies can't afford to.

In the cellphone industry they designed their phones after EVERY popular phone that was trending at the time. They copied the RazR, the BB and of course, the iPhone because a lot of people don't know better.

Are they evil? Depends on how you perceive 'fair' in the giant corporate space. Because they actually put a enough (just enough) quality in their products, consumers can't say they're evil.

To corporations however, they're a NECESSARY evil because of their research and technology. Just ask Apple and everyone else who relies on them.
Yes, they most certainly are evil. I see their damn ad on every ****ing facebook page I visit. Underneath it it tells me that about 40 of my friends like their mobile page, most of which don't know anything about Samsung mobile. How they do this? I don't know. But it's very obvious their popularity comes from some kind of manipulation of the mind... just saying
bwillwall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 12:12 AM   #68
lordofthereef
macrumors 603
 
lordofthereef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexgowers View Post
I'm confused how apple still has bad rep when Samsung are the ones illegally copying here. I suppose when it comes to a product a consumer will pick a cheaper one over any moral obligation to buy the originators version. Shame society still hasn't progressed from cave man ethics.
You made a couple of assumptions and ridiculous accusations here...

1. You assume the reason people buy Samsung products is because they are cheaper than apple. Based on what? Last I checked these similar hardwares sell for similar prices. What about all the other products that are cheaper than Samsung OR Apple? They sell too, just not as well.

2. You assume people are aware these things are copies but feel no moral obligation to steer clear of them. Based on what? The average consumer doesn't look into a product to make sure there was nothing else like it before and if there was whether or not the proper licenses required were used before production. I am sure you have a flat screen tv. Was it produced by the first company to produce flat screens? Did you check and make sure all licenses needed to sell that product in your area were a green light?
lordofthereef is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Japanese Court Rules Apple Does Not Infringe on Samsung Patents MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 41 Mar 27, 2014 09:56 AM
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 366 Sep 25, 2013 11:29 AM
Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 93 Dec 19, 2012 09:06 PM
ITC rules that Samsung violates four Apple patents covering design, touch craftytony iPhone 0 Oct 25, 2012 11:30 AM
UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 798 Oct 18, 2012 09:25 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC