Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Appeals Court Rules Apple Was Entitled to Sales Ban on Samsung Products in Earlier Trial

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,786
41,184



applevsamsung-250x81.jpg
A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that Apple was entitled to an injunction on multiple Samsung products that a lower court ruled to be infringing on the iPhone maker's patented technologies in an early 2014 trial.

As noted by Bloomberg, the ruling sets an important precedent, since it could have an impact on how damages are awarded in future trials involving patented inventions from large technology companies such as Apple, Samsung and Google.
The decision could have far-reaching consequences in how disputes are resolved when it comes to complex devices. The ability to block use of an invention is a powerful tool that increases the price tag when negotiating settlements.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington echoed that in its ruling:
"The right to exclude competitors from using one's property rights is important," the Federal Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision. "And the right to maintain exclusivity -- a hallmark and crucial guarantee of patent rights deriving from the Constitution itself --- is likewise important."
Click to expand...
In May 2014, a jury in the lower court Apple vs. Samsung trial found that Samsung willfully infringed on three of the five patents involved in the lawsuit, related to technologies including slide to unlock and data syncing. Samsung was ordered to pay Apple a settlement of $119.6 million.

Samsung informed the appeals court in March that only one of its products currently for sale infringes upon a single Apple patent, so any potential injunction would not have much of an impact on the South Korean company's bottom line. Nevertheless, Samsung is in the process of appealing the lower court decision before the U.S. Federal Circuit.

Article Link: Appeals Court Rules Apple Was Entitled to Sales Ban on Samsung Products in Earlier Trial
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/17/apple-vs-samsung-appeals-court-injunction/
Too little too late once again. The fines and settlements are small prices to pay in exchange for the profit Samsung initially make off the theft. They release a new product every few months that requires a new injunction that may not be upheld, so by the time the settlement comes down, the infringing product is already irrelevant!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bumblebritches5, Cartaphilus, Keane16 and 19 others
It's really like "do you HAVE to do this?" – Samsung makes parts for Apple, FFS. How do the legal departments of both companies convince the CEOs those lawsuits are a good idea?
 
Contract and copyright laws must be the most BORING subject in the world. Anyone telling me that they practice non-judicial law is immediately ignored...unless she's HOT...cause that means she's HOT and she has a JOB! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edgar Spayce
While I'm not thrilled with the current patent system, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't be able to profit from stolen IP. I don't like that these decisions are being made by juries though.

Part of my concern is that these are deeply technical questions that require a lot of nuanced understanding. By definition, patents cover technologies not obvious to one of "ordinary skill in the art" and we don't select juries based on their skill in the technical arts. That said, criminal trials can be pretty technical at times both in their presentation of evidence and their interpretation of the laws and we rely on juries to decide them with reasonable (though imperfect) success, I'd say.

So I guess the core of my discomfort comes from the idea that this group of people constitute a jury of peers for Apple an Samsung. People being peers to corporate giants. Perhaps the juries, when corporations are the litigants, should be other corporate representatives. If Google and Facebook, for example, think that Apple shouldn't be given the rights to their intellectual property here, give them the opportunity and responsibility to set that precedent into a legal decision. They best understand the environment they operate in, and will have to live by the consequences of those decisions-- which is the whole premise behind juries of peers.

I dunno, just thinking out loud...
 
Yeah, well, it's not like Samsung could have gone crying to the US President because of a sales ban now is it Apple...................

Such hypocrisy, ideas in OSX and iOS now that Apple has 'borrowed' (stolen) from other platforms.

Personally I feel the entire case should go the the high court, especially now that one of the main patents held by Apple in the case has been made void. Doubt it will happen though.

I've read on other sites about the slide to unlock feature, the feature Apple stole from Neonode, and that the highest appeal court in Germany rules Apple's slide to unlock patent as invalid because of Neonode having it before. Then any blocking of slide to unlock on devices by Apple would be void in Europe now?

In fact America is the only place Apple has won most of it's cases. So I guess it's possible in America you won't be allowed to have slide to unlock on any of Apples competitors, that's nice for you.
 
Last edited:
It's a huge black eye for Samsung, given how hard they're fighting tooth and nail against it and how butthurt they are in the media about any and every Apple announcement.

It also calls attention to their standard MO: steal IP willfully then fight the inevitable lawsuit with all the massive profits they gain with their theft in the hopes that by the time it's all over, there will be a net positive amount of money in their coffers. So far, it's played out exactly the same with Apple. They've made billions and have a judgment against them for millions, but so far haven't paid anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bumblebritches5 and Will do good
I'm just curious;

one of the patents they listed was the Slide to unlock. wasn't that recently invalidated? Edit: Just checked, it was German court that invalidated their slide to unlock patent, Nothing to do with US that I can find

Also: how does Apple have a patent on "word completion' recommendations that was awarded in 2011, when this technology has existed in various forms prior to that?

The 3rd patent is a little more complex. But the fundamentals are "if you click something in one program it'll launch the other program with that info already, like clicking a phone number in mail to open the dialer".

again, very interesting patent. Does the patent cover the action or the method to cmplete such action? For example, I had been writing programs for work that did similar action as this. Click a weblink in a browser program that would launch Word or excel for example already filled in.

There's more here than simple patents. there's clearly a fundamental problem with how patents are awarded, what they're awarded for, AND how they're enforced.

NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE FOR EITHER PARTY!?!? i swear, it almost seems like lawyers are just running this show so that they can keep making money off everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamezr, rjohnstone, 69Mustang and 2 others
bladerunner2000 said:
Agreed. Would rather see apple and samsung get back to producing products instead of wasting EVERYBODYS time with this piddly ass crap. Everyones tired of it.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell they're both still producing products. EVERYBODYS time? Yours? Your neighbor's? Maybe the country's teachers, firemen, and plumbers? Certainly not my time.

Whose time is being wasted and why do you care about other people's time so much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdlink and BlueParadox
Since you cannot go back in time it is only fair a similar current version of the product(s) represented by the incorrect ruling be banned for a period of time, perhaps a year.

Further the monetary damages should be increased to account for opportunity cost losses and order the funds be paid instantly/immediately.

Time is of the essence.

Either it is justice or it is not. Either it is a punishment or not. Let a court stand behind the system for real for a change, or admit in a ruling justice delayed is the new normal.

Rocketman
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: peterdevries
Since it has become possible to patent such obvious things as rubber banding, sliding to whatever and clicking all of one time to blah blah foo, Let's just FRAND all of this so everything out there can work in a reasonable consistent way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bumblebritches5, apolloa and Waxhead138
This may not be a waste of "everyone's time", but there definitely has to be a coefficient here that is being passed on to "everyone" who uses any product of these corporations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back