Appeals Court Rules Judge Must Reconsider Banning Samsung Devices for Apple Patent Violations

[Renzatic]

Have a court require a company to have to do this with each one of these "Tech Infringements" and the word will quickly get out that the punishment fits the crime.

Considering how often patent infringement happens by complete accident, such a system would eventually drive just about every tech company currently operating out of business, up to and including Apple.

That's a harsh penalty to pay for infringing on something as innocuous as bouncy screens and devising a system in software that identifies phone numbers and makes them active links.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Thread closed temporarily for moderator review


Thread reopened, please debate the topic, and do not attack or insult other members.

 

[apolloa]

Judge Koh was the only one in the end with any sort of common sense, but typical Apple went crying to the appeals court like a scalded baby.

gah get used to modern capitalist corporate living, suing is the way they do business, oh and ensuring they can patent an 'idea' they have only drawn in pretty colours on an A5 sheet of paper

I really want to see Google and Apple and Microsoft go at it at each other like a pack of wild dogs in the courts, and as a result ruin and I mean ruin each other into the ground. Maybe then, just maybe this pathetic behaviour and business practices will stop?

Oh and kudos to the MOD note above and then the immediate response to another members post haha! I don't think anyone took any notice of you Mr Moderator?

 

[zoltronix]

Both as bad as each other.....

I far as I can recall these two (Apple & Samsung) have been at each others throats for years. However its easy to note and state Samsung copied this... Samsung copied that from Apple.

But more recently it is Samsung who have been developing curved screens and more recently LG pioneering flexible LCD displays. Yet apple have recently stated they plan to bring or have plans to make use of curved displays. Is that not taking an idea or patent from Samsung and LG.

Its too easy to bring a lawsuit just because a piece of technology is rectangular shaped with curved edges, and that the OS lays out icons in a grid like fashion.... Its just ridiculous tit for tat, at the end of the day it is the end user who will make his/her informed decision on what to buy.

But do you know what I think, consumer devices should be designed like F1 cars. They should be split into differing generations, and strict guideline laid down on how it should look and perform...... Only joking..

But on a serious note it would bang these companies heads together and make them focus more on what the customer actually needs, rather than what they think the customer might need.

But I think Samsung need to give Apple a good kicking, as I believe it is Samsung technology in Apple devices, just stop supplying screens, memory and other components. That would throw a spanner right in Apple's game plan.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I far as I can recall these two (Apple & Samsung) have been at each others throats for years. However its easy to note and state Samsung copied this... Samsung copied that from Apple.

But more recently it is Samsung who have been developing curved screens and more recently LG pioneering flexible LCD displays. Yet apple have recently stated they plan to bring or have plans to make use of curved displays. Is that not taking an idea or patent from Samsung and LG.

Its too easy to bring a lawsuit just because a piece of technology is rectangular shaped with curved edges, and that the OS lays out icons in a grid like fashion.... Its just ridiculous tit for tat, at the end of the day it is the end user who will make his/her informed decision on what to buy.

But do you know what I think, consumer devices should be designed like F1 cars. They should be split into differing generations, and strict guideline laid down on how it should look and perform...... Only joking..

But on a serious note it would bang these companies heads together and make them focus more on what the customer actually needs, rather than what they think the customer might need.

But I think Samsung need to give Apple a good kicking, as I believe it is Samsung technology in Apple devices, just stop supplying screens, memory and other components. That would throw a spanner right in Apple's game plan.

What Samsung copied, most of all, was Apple's trade dress.

Samsung didn't develop curved screens, they developed ways to manufacture them...the screens themselves are over a decade old. We've yet to see if it's even a useful feature for that matter.

The customer will never know what it needs without being shown examples. Examples they'll never see if someone doesn't bring them to market. It would help if the products brought to market were already proven to be worthwhile though.

As far as what Samsung manufactures for Apple, you do realize that it's Samsung that would lose the most from something like that, right? Or that there are contracts in place...or that Samsung really doesn't make as many parts in an iOS product as you think they do.

 

[Renzatic]

As far as what Samsung manufactures for Apple, you do realize that it's Samsung that would lose the most from something like that, right? Or that there are contracts in place...or that Samsung really doesn't make as many parts in an iOS product as you think they do.

Not really. Samsung fabs most of the ARM processors, and a goodly portion of the screens for iDevices and MBPs.

Their loss would ultimately hurt both companies, but wouldn't exactly cripple either one. Apple is one of their largest customers, yet Samsung is also the one company most able to produce quality parts at the highest yields. Yeah, Samsung could live without Apple's money, in much the same way Apple could live with selling LG/Sharp screens exclusively.

...considering the way things have been going recently, would you really want that?

 

[giantfan1224]

I really want to see Google and Apple and Microsoft go at it at each other like a pack of wild dogs in the courts, and as a result ruin and I mean ruin each other into the ground. Maybe then, just maybe this pathetic behaviour and business practices will stop?

So you're in favor of Samsung's behavior and business practices?

 

[wikiverse]

But multitouch isn't apple's technology

This.

Pinch to zoom was invented by Mitsubishi in the 1990s.

Just because apple was granted a patent, doesn't mean the patent is valid. That patent cannot be invalidated based on prior art.

 

[giantfan1224]

This.

Pinch to zoom was invented by Mitsubishi in the 1990s.

Just because apple was granted a patent, doesn't mean the patent is valid. That patent cannot be invalidated based on prior art.

Then why didn't Samsung use this defense? Why have they admitted to infringement and are now only quibbling about the total damages?

 

[JAT]

The chart is over a year old, so some of those might be settled now.

Don't be silly.

 

[Orlandoech]

Imagine being a lawyer at Apple. Every day you'd be like:

Image

Made me lol.... LITERALLY, while I was eating plain, boring, bland oatmeal with almonds.

 

[Piggie]

I assume, if Samsung wished to. They could crush Apple in one single swoop.

Samsung profit from Apple, but they don't NEED Apple, they can make their parts and sell their many products.

Apple NEED Samsung.

 

[apolloa]

So you're in favor of Samsung's behavior and business practices?

It's no different in any way to what Apple does, and don't tell me Apple doesn't steal when iOS7 is a carbon copy of Android and WebOS.

 

[Innoc3nt]

I assume, if Samsung wished to. They could crush Apple in one single swoop.

Samsung profit from Apple, but they don't NEED Apple, they can make their parts and sell their many products.

Apple NEED Samsung.

Samsung needs Apple for inspiration. A free ride for Samsung's R&D

look at how Samsung phones were before the iPhone, they even had a Mac mini clone.

 

[samcraig]

Samsung needs Apple for inspiration. A free ride for Samsung's R&D

look at how Samsung phones were before the iPhone, they even had a Mac mini clone.

And yet the S3 and S4 look nothing like the iPhone and have been selling incredibly. Please explain...

Oh - and after that - you can explain how Apple didn't get a "free" ride off of everyone who ever developed a phone and/or smartphone prior to 2007.

Grabs popcorn

 

[MarkyMarc43]

Unbelievable

I reckon most of you would be singing a completely different tune, if you came up with an idea for a product that was unique - spent millions creating it - only to have an asian company do a teardown, and release millions of cheap copies - taking money out of your pocket. I hope that most of you are lucky enough to experience that once in your lifetime. I would be completely pissed (as was Jobs) and I sure wouldn't take it sitting down.

On the other hand, if you're just a kid sitting in your folks basement - you haven't got a clue - except that who makes cell phones consumes your lives.

 

[9000]

Ban them. The finishing touch was the revealing of those Samsung documents detailing how they could put iPhone-like features in their products.

 

[KPOM]

My Galaxy S4 is nothing like and iPhone.
Apple might have a chance against the S4 and eat into that market if they had a phone with a 4.5" screen.

Until such time as Apple has a larger screen, I won't even consider an iPhone.
I'm an Apple shareholder!

Part of the reason Samsung has changed the design of their phones is to work around Apple's design patents. The utility patents might be a little harder to work around, though, at least without a noticeable impact.

----------

And yet the S3 and S4 look nothing like the iPhone and have been selling incredibly. Please explain...

Oh - and after that - you can explain how Apple didn't get a "free" ride off of everyone who ever developed a phone and/or smartphone prior to 2007.

Grabs popcorn

Regarding the S3 and S4, Samsung clearly benefitted from the success of the Galaxy S and SII. I get the sense that the S3 and S4 were deliberately designed to work around Apple's design patents (they are every-so-slightly assymetrical, aren't perfectly rectangular, etc.). However, the utility patents are a different issue.

Anyway, Apple's lawsuits relate to the aspects that Samsung was copying. Just because Samsung has had success with products that may not have copied Apple doesn't mean Apple isn't justified in going after a company for infringing on their patents. To the contrary, it just goes to show that there was no reason for copying in the first place.

As for pre-2007 smartphones, Nokia was very aggressive in going after Apple, and did negotiate an arrangement on some of their patents. They have reserved the right to seek additional fees based on other patents. They are actually even more aggressive than Apple at going after Android OEMs. However, their strategy is one of licensing rather than attempting product bans or design changes. It's the same with Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft supposedly makes more money directly from sales of Android hardware than does Google, and many Android OEMs (with the obvious exception of Samsung). Supposedly they get $10-15 per every HTC device sold (Apple reportedly gets about $3-4).

 

[samcraig]

Part of the reason Samsung has changed the design of their phones is to work around Apple's design patents. The utility patents might be a little harder to work around, though, at least without a noticeable impact.

----------



Regarding the S3 and S4, Samsung clearly benefitted from the success of the Galaxy S and SII. I get the sense that the S3 and S4 were deliberately designed to work around Apple's design patents (they are every-so-slightly assymetrical, aren't perfectly rectangular, etc.). However, the utility patents are a different issue.

Anyway, Apple's lawsuits relate to the aspects that Samsung was copying. Just because Samsung has had success with products that may not have copied Apple doesn't mean Apple isn't justified in going after a company for infringing on their patents. To the contrary, it just goes to show that there was no reason for copying in the first place.

As for pre-2007 smartphones, Nokia was very aggressive in going after Apple, and did negotiate an arrangement on some of their patents. They have reserved the right to seek additional fees based on other patents. They are actually even more aggressive than Apple at going after Android OEMs. However, their strategy is one of licensing rather than attempting product bans or design changes. It's the same with Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft supposedly makes more money directly from sales of Android hardware than does Google, and many Android OEMs (with the obvious exception of Samsung). Supposedly they get $10-15 per every HTC device sold (Apple reportedly gets about $3-4).

I never said otherwise. I just think the notion that Samsung can ONLY copy Apple and can't design anything without cues from Apple is wrong.

 

[KPOM]

I never said otherwise. I just think the notion that Samsung can ONLY copy Apple and can't design anything without cues from Apple is wrong.

I agree that's probably extreme (Samsung designs excellent TVs, and is top notch in terms of components), however, the Galaxy Gear seems to indicate that they do struggle a bit when left to their own devices. That they didn't release separate men's and women's versions alone shows lack of foresight.

After all, it's a watch. First and foremost, it needs to look good. Few people are going to buy a watch based on the processor, or what kind of screen technology it uses (or the color gamut, for that matter). If Apple does do a watch, my guess is that it will look like a stunning piece of jewelry. It will be interesting to see how Samsung's future watches look like after Google and/or Apple have released their devices.

 

[Winni]

This is business. And EVERY business (be it Apple or any other) deserves to have its patented technology protected.

As long as there is real technology involved, sure, I agree. But Apple primarily holds design - and NOT technology - patents. And their innovation in the software patent category - which is a category that shouldn't even exist in the first place because it's like patenting mathematics or language - is basically limited to trivial things like "slide to unlock", where someone awarded them a patent for a method invented thousands of years before Christ was born.

So, are "rounded corners" and "slide to unlock" worthy of patents and billions of dollars? Most certainly not. This whole case only demonstrates how perverted the American patent system is.

----------

Then why didn't Samsung use this defense? Why have they admitted to infringement and are now only quibbling about the total damages?

Because, apparently, Apple has already hired all the good lawyers in your country and everybody else can only recruit the leftovers. At least everything that was published about this lawsuit so far does not leave much room for any other conclusion. Samsung's lawyers really blew this one. On further notice, Apple wasn't as lucky in the lawsuits that they launched in Europe against Samsung.

 

[wikiverse]

Then why didn't Samsung use this defense? Why have they admitted to infringement and are now only quibbling about the total damages?

They did.

The Jury stated very specifically that they did not consider prior art in their deliberations. Which makes the entire trial a complete farce.

 

[kdarling]

I reckon most of you would be singing a completely different tune, if you came up with an idea for a product that was unique - spent millions creating it - only to have an asian company do a teardown, and release millions of cheap copies - taking money out of your pocket.

Not a good analogy in this case, since it was OTHER companies (such as Samsung) who had together spent DECADES and BILLIONS creating a worldwide cellular infrastructure, and a huge customer market via affordable handsets, all of which Apple... late to the party... came in and was able to utilize at low cost to make tens of billions in profit.

It was those other companies who had defined the basic expectations of smartphone capabilities (phone, apps, browser, GPS, maps, etc), plus the displays and chipsets to do it, along with training cellular engineers that Apple could later hire. No wonder it only took Apple about a year to get the first iPhone working well enough for a public demo. The talent and basics were already available.

As for the finger friendly UI (which was the only major difference), it certainly didn't take hundreds of millions or deep thinking to come up with. Such things had been in use in industrial scenarios since the early 1990s.

Heck, it's estimated that Apple only spent about $150 million developing the iPhone, which was a tiny 0.8% of their entire 2006 revenue. Hardly the huge risk people try to make it out to be. If the iPhone had failed, they could've acted like it was just another hobby like ATV.

Apple is not the one to worry over. I'd reserve that for pioneering cell/smartphone companies like Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry, and HTC, who helped found the very industry that Apple profited so hugely from as a newcomer with no legacy UI or hardware to support.

I also worry far more about the problem of deep pocket companies grabbing silly software patents and hurting the smaller guys and the industry in general.

 

[ChrisTX]

So when Steve Jobs quoted Pablo Picasso in saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Was he saying that it's ok for Apple to steal, so long as no one else steals from Apple?

 

[Renzatic]

I agree that's probably extreme (Samsung designs excellent TVs, and is top notch in terms of components), however, the Galaxy Gear seems to indicate that they do struggle a bit when left to their own devices.

I think it has less to do with Samsung's lack of design sensibilities, and more to do with the almost complete absence of a solid smartwatch market to tap into. Samsung was hedging their bets on the hype surrounding some vague up and coming Next Big Thing, rather than building a product that fulfills any currently unanswered wants or needs from consumers.

They jumped the gun and released a product that, at best, is nothing more than a mediocre smartphone accessory. It doesn't mean they can't design for crap, rather they failed to think things through.

As much as I hate to say it, I think the old tired spaghetti analogy actually applies here. They threw the Gear at the wall, and it failed to stick.