Apple Demands $1 Billion From Samsung for Design Patent Violations as New Damages Trial Kicks Off

[LordVic]

It may be an assumption, but it comes off that way. I get the rest of your statement here though and I agree with you, I feel that some of the claims are ridiculous. At the same time though, Samsung was pretty blatant in their approach (at the time). The prior art part you mention, I agree with. My only point was that Apple deserves credit for what they created. Instead, we get the same group of people trying to downplay it, basically saying it was inevitable and was only successful due to marketing. I just find that ridiculous.

Never mean to demean that Apple put together one hell of a device. I've for years been wowed by hwo they manage to take "Geeky" and "unsightly" tech that we use, and transform it into consumer friendly and fun to use products. I was all over the iPod line myself and replaced numerous different MP3 playback devices when it came out.

you can give credit where credit is due without also blindly giving too much credit. IMHO, Apple has a claim for the design patent of the iphone v s1 when it comes to overall look and it took Samsung till the S3 to truly differentiate themselves. However, that's not what this lawsuit was mainly about. This lawsuit was mainly about bits and pieces of technology in the devices and not the overall look. this is what confuses many people about this lawsuit. They SEE the devices on the outside and immediately say "Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone therefore everything is copied". these things are far more nuanced than that, and this lawsuit isn't about the sum of the parts, but the individual pieces.

 

[DNichter]

Never mean to demean that Apple put together one hell of a device. I've for years been wowed by hwo they manage to take "Geeky" and "unsightly" tech that we use, and transform it into consumer friendly and fun to use products. I was all over the iPod line myself and replaced numerous different MP3 playback devices when it came out.

you can give credit where credit is due without also blindly giving too much credit. IMHO, Apple has a claim for the design patent of the iphone v s1 when it comes to overall look and it took Samsung till the S3 to truly differentiate themselves. However, that's not what this lawsuit was mainly about. This lawsuit was mainly about bits and pieces of technology in the devices and not the overall look. this is what confuses many people about this lawsuit. They SEE the devices on the outside and immediately say "Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone therefore everything is copied". these things are far more nuanced than that, and this lawsuit isn't about the sum of the parts, but the individual pieces.

That's fair and I would agree. I think some of the claims in this case are far reaching and shouldn't be valid. I do feel Samsung ripped off Apple though. I think there were even internal documents that proved that Samsung purposefully copied the look and feel of the OS. All in all though, I think it's just time to move on when it comes to the copying stuff. Soon enough, all phones will be thin slabs of glass and it will all come down to software. Android and iOS are differentiated enough that I don't really see an issue taking and improving on ideas, on either end.

 

[LordVic]

That's fair and I would agree. I think some of the claims in this case are far reaching and shouldn't be valid. I do feel Samsung ripped off Apple though. I think there were even internal documents that proved that Samsung purposefully copied the look and feel of the OS. All in all though, I think it's just time to move on when it comes to the copying stuff. Soon enough, all phones will be thin slabs of glass and it will all come down to software. Android and iOS are differentiated enough that I don't really see an issue taking and improving on ideas, on either end.

this is ultimately how I feel. All tech is built upon the shoulders of those who have come before them and are inspired by eachother. no company has craeted their products in a complete vacuum independantly of what the overall industry is doing and was doing. Apple borrows. Samsung borrows. HTC, Nokia, etc, etc ,etc. Every company sees when something works and attempts to implement and borrow to try and make their customers life better. There's a big difference between KIRF and inspiration. We should be going after those who commit KIRF, not those who just are inspired.

 

[DNichter]

this is ultimately how I feel. All tech is built upon the shoulders of those who have come before them and are inspired by eachother. no company has craeted their products in a complete vacuum independantly of what the overall industry is doing and was doing. Apple borrows. Samsung borrows. HTC, Nokia, etc, etc ,etc. Every company sees when something works and attempts to implement and borrow to try and make their customers life better. There's a big difference between KIRF and inspiration. We should be going after those who commit KIRF, not those who just are inspired.

Totally agree. Appreciate the rational conversation.

 

[ipponrg]

My only point was that Apple deserves credit for what they created. Instead, we get the same group of people trying to downplay it, basically saying it was inevitable and was only successful due to marketing. I just find that ridiculous.

I don't think anyone here has said it was ONLY successful due to marketing in the last 2 days. It's simply underestimated. Marketing also covers branding - which is how the i in Phone, Pad, Pod, Mac, etc came into the mix. It's quite ingenious if you think about it. Personalization is something everyone desires.

Your issue here is you need to read and not assume. I'd suggest to you to look through the course of Apple's products in the last 2 decades and analyze the progressive movement of how their products started to attract larger adoption. If you feel that marketing did not have a large contribution factor to this, then there's not much more to say here.

 

[DNichter]

I don't think anyone here has said it was ONLY successful due to marketing in the last 2 days. It's simply underestimated. Marketing also covers branding - which is how the i in Phone, Pad, Pod, Mac, etc came into the mix. It's quite ingenious if you think about it. Personalization is something everyone desires.

Your issue here is you need to read and not assume. I'd suggest to you to look through the course of Apple's products in the last 2 decades and analyze the progressive movement of how their products started to attract larger adoption. If you feel that marketing did not have a large contribution factor to this, then there's not much more to say here.

I understand how marketing works. I just happen to feel that their innovation also played a major part in the development of the iPhone. I know you'll never say that Apple innovated in any way so it's probably best just to move on. Plenty of other Apple fans for you to argue with on here.

 

[kdarling]

you can give credit where credit is due without also blindly giving too much credit.

Exactly. People can and should make up their own minds, but first they have to have enough knowledge... not internet myth... to help them decide how much credit to give.

My own post of historical information was in response to the naive idea that no one else had thought of finger friendly all touch devices with apps. That's way too broad a claim, as nothing could be further from the truth.

Heck, the very first smartphone had a finger friendly UI, and many of us had touch smartphones with touch friendly apps and large third party onscreen keyboards.

Apple did not invent multitouch, flick scrolling, pinch or tap to zoom, and many other things that people often think they did. But they were first to combine and market them to consumers in a big way. Previous efforts had been either internal to enterprises, or from small companies.

IMHO, Apple has a claim for the design patent of the iphone v s1 when it comes to overall look ...

Actually, courts have ruled that Apple's look and feel (trade dress) legal claims have no merit, since they were trying to claim functional, not ornamental, items.

As for the original design trial, it's very telling that Apple's lawyers made sure that a lot of prior art was hidden from the jury. A company that truly believes its ideas are unique would not have had to do that.

But it's understandable that Apple's lawyers did so. In similar trials overseas which did include such prior art, the lawsuits failed to succeed.

 

[curtvaughan]

Headphone jack? Google, HTC, Motorola, and even Xiaomi have ditched it on their flagships. As for price, Samsung Galaxy Note line is effectively in the ~$1k category with its $950 price tag.

Back to my point about Samsung, yes, Samsung is running out of ideas that they’re not doing a new design yearly, just like Apple. That’s what I stated, so what’s your point?
[doublepost=1526491014][/doublepost]
I thought people want Steve Jobs-style management. This lawsuit was started back when Steve was at the helm.

Perhaps I misread your post's intent, as I agree that neither company has been particularly innovative with phone design over the last several years. There's only so much you can do to further innovate a mobile phone these days. Most Android phones still come with a headphone jack (thankfully) and that is the main reason my last iPhone will likely be my 6S+. I suppose you can say Apple was innovative with the face id on the X, but that isn't worth the excess price tag for me, and I don't want to be limited to wireless headphones and battery issues on long plane flights. Incidentally, worthwhile innovation could come in areas like battery life improvements.

As I've stated in earlier posts, I very much do miss Steve Jobs-style management. That isn't to say I'd want to work under him, but he churned out excellent products, and Apple's reputation is still tied to his coattails. I don't think suing Samsung was one of his better decisions.

 

[elmateo487]

This is beyond asinine. Apple give it up ffs.

Did you not read the part about how Samsung was found guilty of infringement?

Should all companies just give up copyright protection on their stuff?

 

[elmateo487]

Since then Samsung created a design for the galaxy that is miles ahead of the iPhone or any other smartphone. In my opinion.

Oh. You mean with the money and popularity Samsung made by ripping off Apple they were able to further their market share?

You are right. Let’s up the costs.

 

[elmateo487]

Take a look at VirneTx before you make that accusation

They are by definition a patent troll. They haven’t sold a product with a single one of their patents. They gather patents, so they can sue people like Apple. The majority of their staff are lawyers.

 

[curtvaughan]

"No one has heard of."? Who is this "no one" you refer to? Heard of the Sony MiniDisc? You would probably consider it a failure, right? Wrong. Actually, it was pretty huge in Eastern Asia. What about Video CD? Failure as well, right? Wrong. Still in use today, even with its sub-par picture quality.

You state "no one" like you have access to the personal thoughts, memories, and shopping habits of a large population. Meanwhile, you probably polled the people living in your house.

Granted, the items that you are dismissing weren't huge, but they were all precursors to the iPhone that you seem to place on a pedestal. The iPhone was revolutionary in that it brought the smartphone to the masses, but was made with evolutionary tech and design.

In a paradoxical way, the advent of the iPhone and its success led ironically to _less_ innovation in the smartphone market. The person who posted all of the various phone devices pre-dating the Apple iPhone illustrated just how diverse and innovatively competitive the non-Apple products were prior to 2007. Ever since then, most of the high end phones have indeed been imitations based on the iPhone design. That trend may begin to change if iPhone design stagnates. I would argue that the directions (or lack thereof) Apple is taking with its recent Mac products has led to improvements in PC hardware as competitive alternatives.

 

[fairuz]

They are by definition a patent troll. They haven’t sold a product with a single one of their patents. They gather patents, so they can sue people like Apple. The majority of their staff are lawyers.

Idk if having patents only makes you a troll by definition, even though it's usually the case. You could be a research facility, like some universities are. But their lawsuits looked ridiculous. Impossible to believe anyone copied them.

 

[ipponrg]

I understand how marketing works. I just happen to feel that their innovation also played a major part in the development of the iPhone. I know you'll never say that Apple innovated in any way so it's probably best just to move on. Plenty of other Apple fans for you to argue with on here.

I'm going to be blunt here because it's clear you aren't comprehending.

I am not arguing that Apple didn't innovate.

I am not saying it's ONLY marketing.

I am only saying people underestimate the value of marketing. No where in this statement does it even remotely imply Apple's success is only marketing.

I agree with you that without innovation, they wouldn't be where they are today as well.

 

[elmateo487]

Idk if having patents only makes you a troll since you could be a research facility, like some universities are. But their lawsuits looked ridiculous. Impossible to believe anyone copied them.

Are the majority of the staff at a research facilities lawyers? Who specialize in patent lawsuits?

 

[fairuz]

Are the majority of the staff at a research facilities lawyers? Who specialize in patent lawsuits?

I don't know. But it's not easy to defend your IP. Probably there were more people patenting the iPhone UI than there were creating it.

 

[elmateo487]

I don't know. But it's not easy to defend your IP. Probably there were more people patenting the iPhone UI than there were creating it.

Apple has around 500 lawyers. And over 123 thousand employees. The phone isn’t entirely people who code the UI. There are people who test it, design it, research it, manage employees, manage resources, and on and on and on and on.

 

[fairuz]

Apple has around 500 lawyers. And over 123 thousand employees. The phone isn’t entirely people who code the UI. There are people who test it, design it, research it, manage employees, manage resources, and on and on and on and on.

It was the design and testing they stole, not the engineering. Wouldn't surprise me if it were a small team, considering that Discord was only ~50 people total when they had millions of active users.

 

[elmateo487]

It was the design and testing they stole, not the engineering.

And who made sure the lights were on for the computers the designers used? Or who handled travel for the researchers? And who handled paychecks? And who handled equipment upgrades?

You think this is a 12 man operation? To design an entirely brand new OS, UI, and hardware to match the capabilities of said OS and UI?

 

[BlargKing]

We can say that now. Back then, the lay consumers do think they are similar. The aim is to create similarity and feel of the iPhone.

We can easily look at Android skins. There’s a reason most Chinese OEM skins (Vivo, Oppo, Huawei, Xiaomi, etc) follows iOS style home screen with icons instead of Google’s app drawer. And before you say Samsung is Korean, LG’s skin also follow iOS style. It’s all to create the similarities with the iPhone.

IMO most of the "big" companies putting out Android phones these days, their UI doesn't look at all like iOS to me. Even a few years ago when I went from an iPhone 5S to a Galaxy S4, there wasn't a lot of similarity beyond "has a grid of icons".

I will agree though, a lot of the super cheap off brand phones do seem to try and style their UI closer to iOS, likely to try and trick less knowledgeable consumers.

I dunno. I've always been a tech person so the differences between iPhones and Samsungs were always immediately apparent to me. I could see less savvy people getting them confused I suppose, but at the end of the day, if you went into a phone shop and said "I want an iPhone" or "I want that Apple phone" you would still end up getting what you wanted.

Regardless, I don't think its a big enough issue to drag out a lawsuit over the better part of a decade. iPhone and Samsung are probably the two biggest names in cellphones right now, so clearly any similarities in the past haven't hurt either company.

 

[kdarling]

They are by definition a patent troll. They haven’t sold a product with a single one of their patents. They gather patents, so they can sue people like Apple. The majority of their staff are lawyers.

VirnetX is partly owned and managed by the creators of most of the patents they license. It's the perfect American success story: a group of inventors realized they did something worthwhile, so they quit their jobs and bought (from their previous employers) the patents that they themselves came up with. Now they sell licenses and software libraries (which is a product).

Imagine if you yourself came up with a new way to secure communications. Must you also come up with billions of dollars to create a product to use your invention? Or does it make infinitely more sense for you to license your invention to the entire world? The answer is obvious.

The idea that someone needs their own product is utter nonsense. The iPhone has tens of thousands of patented ideas in it. Did every inventor create their own iPhone? Heck to the no. They licensed their ideas to manufacturers like Apple. That's how those ideas got used and made money for both Apple and the inventors.

In a paradoxical way, the advent of the iPhone and its success led ironically to _less_ innovation in the smartphone market.

+1 It used to really fun when Barcelona came around. I mean, there were phones that looked like pebbles, that wrapped around your wrist, that had physical buttons that rose up out of a touchscreen when needed, and so on and so forth. Unusual ideas. Not just more slabs.

Although fortunately, the major players did NOT actually copy Apple that closely. For example, others kept their Back button, had multitasking from the start, and supported useful things like homescreen widgets.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Many companies copy each other...maybe add little bit of this and that...wah la....a new product.

are you saying there shouldn't be any protection for intellectual property? Can you copy a book but reword maybe 30% of it and sell it as a new book?
[doublepost=1526608619][/doublepost]i'm not saying one thing or another in terms of how much samsung sould pay apple back. but it's obvious to me that samsung took a LOT of liberties on apple's design and there should be a way for apple to be compensated.
[doublepost=1526608680][/doublepost]Also, I separate a legitimate issue with the deligitimate patents that apple may have been granted. I can only assume apple took samsung to court over EVERYTHING just to test their boundaries, i mean if you were going to sue already, why not. our patent system needs reforming.

 

[Mirice99]

Did you not read the part about how Samsung was found guilty of infringement?

Should all companies just give up copyright protection on their stuff?

Apple was found guilty of stealing VirneTx patents and ordered to pay over half a billion so Apple should pay than and not continue to fight that judgement any further right?

 

[coolgamer yt]

The article said it best

so like $500 most of the stuff isn't copied