Apple and Samsung's Long-Running Design Lawsuit Heading to Supreme Court This Week

[Feenician]

Actually Apple copied HTC's M7 which was released 22 March 2013, (iPhone 6 was released September 19, 2014), iPhone 6's antenna bands look uglier actually:

HTC and Apple (and Microsoft and Apple for that matter) have existing legal arrangements between them.

 

[Analog Kid]

For everybody who keeps thinking that this type of litigation is new, pay attention to the part of the article that explains that the Supreme Court used to rule on the design of spoon handles...

 

[kdarling]

Really? Samsung didn't intentionally pick over the iphone interface of the era, dissect it piece by piece and copy it? I think that's a major stretch. I won't post the link again, it's a few posts up.

Yep, really. The judge ruled that it was not willful infringement. See:

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/3...ung-did-not-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/

I recently posted a little bit about how willful infringement is decided, here.

I'm not sure what link you're talking about, but if it's that design review document, then I bet nobody here except me has actually read it. I guarantee that nobody except me actually took the time to research what, if anything was actually used from it. Summary: only a handful of items, most of which anyone would consider to not belong to Apple alone. E.g. showing the type of Bluetooth connection. When I get back from my daughter's dentist appointment, I'll post some links with details. Never believe what you read on a fansite. It's rarely accurate.

 

[Feenician]

Yep, really. The judge ruled that it was not willful infringement. See:

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/3...ung-did-not-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/

I recently posted a little bit about how willful infringement is decided, here.

Ok, I concede that the judge ruled on the legal definition of willful. No argument there. You did use the word intentional instead in your other post though and I don't think anyone, in the face of the evidence, could say that Samsung didn't push the fast follower model to the limit and intentionally copy, clone even, significant amounts of Apple's design.

Edit: Saw your edit. We are very much going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The galaxy of that era was, imo, a blatant copy.

 

[marty11]

We all know that Apple invented the rectangle and stole the idea for icons. Time for them to profit.

 

[kdarling]

Ok, I concede that the judge ruled on the legal definition of willful. No argument there. You did use the word intentional instead in your other post though and I don't think anyone, in the face of the evidence, could say that Samsung didn't push the fast follower model to the limit and intentionally copy, clone even, significant amounts of Apple's design.

Yeah, I accidentally used "intentional" because someone else did. Brain glitch.

HTC and Apple (and Microsoft and Apple for that matter) have existing legal arrangements between them.

Right, although it's lop-sided. Apple can use anything of HTCs, but HTC cannot directly copy any design of Apple's.

That alone should tell everyone that Apple used HTC's antenna case design, not the other way around. Otherwise Apple could've stopped them. Instead, HTC publicly said they didn't copy Apple, and Apple has never made a peep.

 

[djgamble]

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"

1. It's an appellant matter so of course it's about the current matter (nobody's suggesting otherwise).
2. The USA is a common law country. The Supreme Court doesn't just make stuff up... they interpret the law, creating a binding precedent (because the decision can't be appealed).

 

[Feenician]

(because the decision can't be appealed)

Well that answers the question I was about to ask. At least we'll finally see the end of this one way or another. I feel like some of these conversations around it should be filmed in Technicolor they're so old

 

[magbarn]

Lol Samsung, at least copy a pre-trash can MP while you're at it.

 

[dk001]

As I said, don't care what people say. They've already lost tens of billions with all this exploding Note7 fiasco.

You obviously care enough to respond. Still. But 10's of billions?

 

[xaqt93]

Im just going to say it. Weather or not Apple wins or looses, Apple and Samsung have both stolen from each other. Some people might disagree but the truth is, when it comes down to it, the design of the first iPhone was very unique. Slide to Unlock was amazing. Before I had an iPhone, I had a Samsung touch screen phone and I will tell you that even though I could get on the internet and check e-mail, it was not until the iPhone came out when Samsung phones started to change. I remember I didn't even have a lock on my phone...It was just a button I pressed. The first iPhone was unique. Most phones look like each other now, unless you are a tech junkie, chances are, you won't be able to tell which phone is what is the logos are covered up.
[doublepost=1476128996][/doublepost]

You obviously care enough to respond. Still. But 10's of billions?

Haha. Troll....

They lost money, however this won't put them out of business. The exploding Galaxy Note 7 won't do it either.

 

[Thunderhawks]

samsungrumors.com

Link doesn't work.

 

[symphara]

Link doesn't work.

Perhaps he/she meant http://www.sammobile.com?

 

[tooltalk]

Really? Who had this first? This was one of the features on the original iPhone that blew me away as I'd never seen anything like it!

(Genuine question - not trolling)

let's start with Neonode which has been the basis of prior art to invalidate the slide-to-unlock patent everywhere, but in the US.
[doublepost=1476134935][/doublepost]

View attachment 664484

Where are all the feature phones still being sold in the market? and where is LG Prada predecessor to Apple iPhone?

 

[kdarling]

Edit: Saw your edit.

Good. Sometimes you pick up what I say faster than my poor iPad can re-post

We are very much going to have to agree to disagree on that one. The galaxy of that era was, imo, a blatant copy.

Perhaps, but not because of that review document that everyone keeps referring to.

 

[tooltalk]

View attachment 664526 View attachment 664527
Lol Samsung, at least copy a pre-trash can MP while you're at it.

What exactly is this thing?

 

[wikiverse]

Yes, there's wars in the world. Lets stop defending our inventions

Apple didn't invent 'pinch to zoom' though. Mitsubishi did for the DiamondTouch - released in 2001.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwRjb4fNWAI

Apple should never have been granted a patent for it because Prior Art existed in a functioning commercial product. Apple deserves nothing for 'pinch-to-zoom'.

 

[Feenician]

Apple didn't invent 'pinch to zoom' though. Mitsubishi did for the DiamondTouch - released in 2001.

Apple should never have been granted a patent for it because Prior Art existed in a functioning commercial product. Apple deserves nothing for 'pinch-to-zoom'.

I didn't say they did

 

[MadeMyDay]

The Cupertino company has remained adamant in regards to Samsung's "blatant copying" of various iPhone design features,…

Unable to wait any longer for the Supreme Court decision, Samsung reveals its own Mac Pro.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm still obsessed with the spoon case. I like this quote from the Supreme Court Ruling:

"It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other."



White was found to infringe, despite the fact that the designs are rather distinct.

Samsung is making the argument that the world has changed, and the rulings such as the spoon ruling were for things where the design was much of the value of the product whereas today the design is only one part of a sophisticated device that has much additional value in its functionality-- so the award shouldn't be for the full value, but rather for the portion of the value attributable to the design.

I think Samsung is missing the point. The Ordinary Observer test is basically asking the question, "can a shopper mistake one product for another based on an ordinary level of scrutiny?", and if so, then it doesn't matter what the remaining value of the product is because the shopper has been "deceived" into buying the wrong thing, thus giving the full profit of the device to Samsung rather than Apple as the shopper intended.

 

[jimbobb24]

So this complicated business and technological case will be decided by court members chosen for their genders, opinions on abortion, gun rights, and allegiance to political
Parties. That should be fun.

 

[magbarn]

What exactly is this thing?

Samsung's very own trash can computer. Not as high specced as the nMP but still overpriced for what you get. Of course, the lack of upgrades is also included just like the nMP.

 

[tooltalk]

So this complicated business and technological case will be decided by court members chosen for their genders, opinions on abortion, gun rights, and allegiance to political
Parties. That should be fun.

Well, Apple's hometown jury already decided on the technical aspect of the case, however flawed. The question the SCOTUS is addressing here is whether the damage award, or about $400M, based on the esoteric 19th century design law for unitary products like cupholder, carpet, or spoon, is appropriate for modern multi-component mobile devices like smartphones.

 

[Kangastu]

let's start with Neonode which has been the basis of prior art to invalidate the slide-to-unlock patent everywhere, but in the US.
[doublepost=1476134935][/doublepost]

Where are all the feature phones still being sold in the market? and where is LG Prada predecessor to Apple iPhone?

If I remember my phone history - the lg Prada came out in the time between the iPhone announcement and actual launch and was widely cited as copying the iPhone and being rushed to market.

 

[PBRsg]

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.

But what about "the rounded corners of its phones"? ROFL.