Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So not only do you not understand patent trolling, you've somehow decided the proper outcome, no doubt after countless hours of meticulously studying the details of the case.

I was wrong, the zealots and cultists have convinced me and should have known better, Apple is suing so they are absolutely be right and the other company obviously was stealing their shouldn't even be a trial. Apple should just be awarded what every think feel they are owed and no their should be no appeals process.
 
Or how they patented an oblong shape with round corners in the colours of black and white... and submitted drawings that looked like 10 year olds did them of said shape as evidence in court against Samsung.

Please don’t try to claim Apple isn’t a patent troll and is innocent..

You are trying really, really hard. Who cares about facts, when you can just make them up. "Please don't try to claim..." - Anyone can judge for themselves, and when they do, you look very sad indeed.

Apple has a design patent for a mobile phone, which among other elements has a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Plus many other design elements. To infringe on a design patent, you have to copy _all_ elements. That's what Samsung did. Samsung has design patents as well, for mobile phones with a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Looking totally different from an iPhone.

The drawings that you think look like they were made by a ten year old are not "evidence". They are the design. These drawings are what is patented. It's not "here's the iPhone, here's the Samsung phone, it's copied, these drawings are the evidence". It's "here are drawings for which we have a design patent, and Samsung copied it". The infringement isn't copying the design of the phone, the infringement is copying the design from the drawings. So you are effectively saying that these Samsung phones looked like copies of a ten year olds drawings, right?
 
Apple has a small team of in-house patent litigators who manage outside counsel, which is generally what all big companies do. Small companies simply have the ceo or gc manage them. Some companies have patent attorneys who create patents.

Patent litigators will sometimes take cases on contingency, but mostly for non practicing entities. I’ve never heard of patent litigators being on retainer, though. It wouldn’t make economic sense.

Small team? Pretty sure Apple’s legal team consists of nearly 500 layers, etc. Not exactly a small number.

Also I believe a lot of work for companies on a permanent basis since the companies want them to be familiar with their products so that they have a better chance of winning.
 
Small team? Pretty sure Apple’s legal team consists of nearly 500 layers, etc. Not exactly a small number.

Also I believe a lot of work for companies on a permanent basis since the companies want them to be familiar with their products so that they have a better chance of winning.

No, they have around a dozen in house patent litigators, not 500. And your second paragraph is also incorrect. I’ve been a patent litigator for more than a decade, btw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
Apple has a design patent for a mobile phone, which among other elements has a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Plus many other design elements.

Nope. Apple used case design patents that were basically just rounded rectangles. There were not "many other design elements".

To infringe on a design patent, you have to copy _all_ elements. That's what Samsung did.

Yeah, but there was very little to them. Apple could not use a full iPhone case design drawing, since Samsung's phones all had different curves, back, and certainly no circular home buttons. So instead Apple went simple.

Here's the design patent that the jury found all Samsung's phones to infringe:

image.png

To a layman it looks like a full drawing. But with design patents, dashed lines don't count. So when you look at just the solid lines, all that remains to infringe is a rounded rectangular front with a rectangular display area and a rounded rectangular speaker slit:

image.png


The simple 2D design outline on the right is what was found to be infringed by Samsung. And it's such a simple design that it was later invalidated due to its similarity to previously registered designs from LG, Sharp and even Samsung itself, designs which the USPTO had not been aware of at the time they gave Apple its patent. The Sharp one had all the same frontal design elements:

image.jpeg


Virtually ditto for the tablet design patent Apple used, which really was just a rounded rectangle, but even the poorly led jury saw through that generic attempt and found Samsung had not infringed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tooltalk
Here you go again with your usual BS.

Apple profits hugely from iOS and their software services, from their vastly superior processors that are light years ahead of Samsung and Qualcomm, from their outstanding service/support, from the premium construction of their devices and many other small details.

Qualcomm is a minor contributor to the success of the iPhone, though they like to pretend they are a major reason. This allows them to justify what they feel they’re owed.

I'd love to know how well an iPhone would fare if it couldn't connect to any of the cellular wireless networks.

Almost all of what you listed here, might be true. But would be absolutely meaningless without this capability. the iPhone is Apple's biggest revenue producer and the current image of their company. Without it being a "phone", it would just be an iPod, which is a dead product category (That Apple themselves helped kill by having a Phone that could connect to wireless networks)
[doublepost=1512326072][/doublepost]
Clearly *any* product with Qualcomm cellular modems in it will be *wildly* profitable / successful then ...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
[doublepost=1511974559][/doublepost]https://seekingalpha.com/article/86862-the-ripple-effect-of-the-qualcomm-nokia-settlement

The move to Qualcomm’s chipsets certainly worked out well for Nokia... Lol.

Having cellular connectivity doesn't guarantee success. NOT having cellular connectivity would likely have killed the iPhone's success.

you had a logic failure in your post.
[doublepost=1512326605][/doublepost]
Pretty sure the Intel modem in my iPhone X works just fine ... :rolleyes:

Intel pays a different license deal to Qualcomm for the ability to create those modems.

the lawsuit's here between Apple and Qualcomm isn't about the physical hardware, but the technologies those hardware use to connect. it's been long standing practice in the mobile field that the end device seller pays a separate license to actually use the technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phonephreak
I'd love to know how well an iPhone would fare if it couldn't connect to any of the cellular wireless networks.

Almost all of what you listed here, might be true. But would be absolutely meaningless without this capability. the iPhone is Apple's biggest revenue producer and the current image of their company. Without it being a "phone", it would just be an iPod, which is a dead product category (That Apple themselves helped kill by having a Phone that could connect to wireless networks)
[doublepost=1512326072][/doublepost]

Having cellular connectivity doesn't guarantee success. NOT having cellular connectivity would likely have killed the iPhone's success.

you had a logic failure in your post.
[doublepost=1512326605][/doublepost]

Intel pays a different license deal to Qualcomm for the ability to create those modems.

the lawsuit's here between Apple and Qualcomm isn't about the physical hardware, but the technologies those hardware use to connect. it's been long standing practice in the mobile field that the end device seller pays a separate license to actually use the technology.

What you call cellular capability is a standard that was only made a standard because Qualcomm agreed to license its standards essential patents on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis. Qualcomm must also comply with anti trust law and with patent law concepts such as exhaustion, Impression Products v. Lexmark, Vernon v. Monsanto, quanta computer v LG, etc . This was the deal. Otherwise everyone would still be able to connect to cellular networks, but we’d be using a different technology that didn’t use Qualcomm’s patents. The penalty you pay when you want your technology to be the standard is you have to comply by these rules.


You cannot charge for the chip and then charge a license fee to use the chip, for example. (Longstanding practice or not. The Supreme Court says if the chip substantially embodies the patent you exhaust all patent rights in the chip when you sell it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.