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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,484
40,603



apple_samsung_logo3-250x277.jpg
Nearly six years after the legal battle over smartphone design similarities began between Apple and Samsung, the two companies are now about to take the case to the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 11.

At stake is the outcome of how much of a combined $548 million patent infringement ruling Samsung will be required to pay to Apple (via Bloomberg).

That amount is taken from Samsung's total profit of the 11 disputed smartphones targeted by Apple in the trial, an amount which Samsung refers to as a "disproportionate" sum for the patent infringement accusations leveled at it by Apple.

The Cupertino company has remained adamant in regards to Samsung's "blatant copying" of various iPhone design features, still fighting to win the full $399 million reward (the case involves approximately another $150 million focused on Samsung's alleged infringement of Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent).

Specifically, Apple's design patents cover "the rounded corners of its phones, the rim that surrounds the front face and the grid of icons that users view." Last December, a federal court in San Jose ruled in Apple's favor, and Samsung appealed days later in attempts to avoid the $548 million reward payment to Apple. In Samsung's appeal, the company gave the court a metaphor centering around owing a car's entire profits to a rival company for infringing upon their cup holder design.
In urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal, Samsung said the ruling was akin to awarding the entire profits on a car because of an infringing cup-holder. Apple rejects that analogy, saying that its patented features are more like the design of the entire car.
The issue now appears to be focused on the difference between the court determining if Apple's accusations cover individual components of patent infringement, or the entire product. In court records, Apple is said to "accept" that in some cases the patent owner can collect profits only "attributable to a particular component," not the earnings of the entire Samsung smartphone.

All the same, Apple said that Samsung "failed to show that the patented designs applied only to part of its phones" during the previous half-decade of court proceedings, so the latter company's defense of paying less for individual parts of the smartphone shouldn't be allowed to stand. According to lawyer Kannon Shanmugam, the case "has essentially now devolved into a dispute over what party showed what at trial and who bears the burden of proof."

In total the patent dispute amounts to nearly $550 million aimed at Samsung. The company has already paid the amount, but a clause stipulates the potential ruling in its favor requires Apple to pay back the money. Just last week, in a completely separate Samsung-vs-Apple lawsuit, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Apple a $120 million win over Samsung concerning the company's slide-to-unlock patent.

According to Chicago patent lawyer Paul Berghoff, a clarifying decision on the specific amount owed by Samsung to Apple could be the ultimate "catalyst for a final settlement" in the long-running case.
"Sometimes once litigants have been battling for so long, what happens is they develop levels of enmity and distrust on both sides that make it very difficult to settle the cases," he said. "Face-saving is a very real issue for all companies. It's hard to get out of it once you're in it."
Interestingly, the case also marks the Supreme Court's first examination of a design patent dispute in 120 years, "which cover the ornamental look of an object rather than any functional aspect." Previously, the Supreme Court oversaw design patents in disputes focused on spoon handles in the 1870s and carpets in the 1890s.

Article Link: Apple and Samsung's Long-Running Design Lawsuit Heading to Supreme Court This Week
 
Hopefully common sense prevails and the SCOTUS throws this case out. I never owned an Android phone and never will, but I just don't see how the shape of the iPhone is unique. And neither is slide-to-unlock, which was around before the iPhone.
 
As time goes on, it must get harder for Apple to assert their design innovations, as not only have Samsung copied their every move, so have many other manufacturers. Most phones now look like an iPhone, to the point where now that is commonly accepted as to just how a phone looks. Convincing someone that it all stems from the iPhone is difficult.

But I assume this Supreme Court hearing will be to examine the legal processes thus far, rather than to re-assess the merits of the lawsuit?
 
Let's see if all those lawyers who advised Apple re: the trash can were right.

If copyright isn't enough to protect your design, and design patents are invalid, then your design isn't protectable.
 
One would think the highest court as more important and pressuring things to decide ....

That's because you don't understand what the day-to-day business of the court involves. Take a lock at their docket and see; it's not all earth-shattering stuff, except for the parties involved.

This case is more important than you understand, obviously.
 
Every time I hear about Apple patenting rounded corners I think this world is crazy.
When Jobs asked Woz to add roundrecs to the MacDraw shape features it was to conform to what he saw everyday walking on the streets. The acceptance of norms was a Jobsian thing and codifying it and recreating it was his forte. Nobody else was making roundrec devices, so a design patent was possible, on what some feel is the obvious. It may be obvious but it was not ADOPTED, thus making it unique in that respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xaqt93 and mr.bee
Every time I hear about Apple patenting rounded corners I think this world is crazy.

That's because:

1) It's wrong, that wasn't a patent.
2) That was angrily said by a Samsung lawyer when they were salty because they couldn't tell the visual difference between a Samsung phone and an iPhone .
3) All the haters took it at face-value without knowing the facts. This only proved their ignorance about the case by bringing it up at every given opportunity.
 
This case does not hinge on those details. It will be based on the law and the record, and anything not previously litigated will not be considered at all.

Unless the Supreme court does what it is oft accused of and "writes new law from the bench"

With only 8 on hand? For some odd reason I feel more like they will find a way to "punt". ;)
 
The idiots thinking Apple invented smart watch (Or smartwatch designs).

Smartwatch history (The Samsung invented smart watches)

In 1999, Samsung launched the world's first Smart watch phone, the SPH-WP10. It had a protruding antenna, a monochrome LCD screen, and a 90-minutes of talk time with an integrated speaker and microphone.

2009 – The Samsung S9110 releases a smart watch that is also a phone – sporting a touchscreen, Bluetooth, a music player, and email support. Check out Samsung S9110 -http://imgur.com/qcW5X0U

The Apple smartwatch is a basic cloning of Samsung smartwatch.

First of all, Check out old Samsung smartwatch patents (Before Apple smartwatch)

Filing Date: 12/02/2014

http://imgur.com/THkIwRN

http://imgur.com/zMDkXy5

http://imgur.com/zMDkXy5

Check out the website -http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2881842A2.html


Also the Apple circular design is a copycat from Samsung. And the circular design has already been patented by Samsung. Who copied?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.