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

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

macduke said:
Since this trial first started I've graduated from college, worked three different jobs, moved three times, bought my starter home, sold my starter home and bought another home, my wife started her own business, and we've had two children—the first of which will be starting school next year. I hardly recognize my life, much less the world we live in today compared to 2011. And Apple is still suing Samsung for the same $1,000,000,000. WAT.
Click to expand...
So, if Apple was YOUR company, you'd just say c'est la vie?

Just LOOK at those two phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooloud10
apolloa said:
Yes and the Supreme Court agreed with Samsung that the 300 odd million the billion was reduced to was still too much hence this new case, so the high court has declared the amount they should pay has not been properly set.
Samsung copied ‘some’ of the original iPhone design elements, not an oblong with round corners or the colours black and white!
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court did not agree that the "300 odd million" was too much. It didn't express an opinion in that regard.

The Supreme Court determined that the relevant "article of manufacture" wasn't necessarily the smartphone itself, that it might be some component thereof. In more general terms, the Court determined that a relevant article of manufacture, when it comes to design patents and for which a successful plaintiff is entitled to all of the infringers' profits, doesn't have to be the end product which is sold to consumers. The Court determined that it could be some component of that end product.

The Court expressly declined to determine whether, in this case, the relevant articles of manufacture were Samsung's infringing smartphones or just components of those smartphones. It left that determination to lower courts to make.
 
justiny said:
Did you guys miss the first paragraph, second sentence of the article? Samsung was found GUILTY of violating Apple’s patents.

I’m pretty confident if any company was found guilty in court of violating patents you owned, you’d want your damn money ASAP.
Click to expand...

Many people disagree that the patents of this nature should exist in a first place (I am talking about "round corners")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hamado, simonmet, Ulfric and 1 other person
apolloa said:
Yeap, and now you can kick yourself for not being a Samsung or Apple lawyer......

Kinda sad it’s still going on but not surprising either. It was a joke of a case because how far Apple went with its silly evidence and claims and damages amount it wants. Then again Samsung did copy some parts of Apple and could find a billion down the back of the sofa!
All based around a phone that was out before your kids were born!
Click to expand...
Copied "Some Parts"????

Some PARTS?!?!?!?

It's a damn-near pixel-for-pixel, dimension-for-dimension, UNABASHED RIP-OFF!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig
pdaholic said:
Do U.S. lawyers get paid a percentage of the verdict? That’s a staggering amount of money being exchanged.
Click to expand...

Depends on the agreement between the attorney and party. It can be an hourly billing, percentage (contingency) or flat fee. I'd think a mix as well. Depending on the state. There may also be limits to the percentage.
 
apolloa said:
Nope, it was reduced to 599 million then 399 million.

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/10/11/13241446/samsung-vs-apple-supreme-court-design-patents

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2017/02/07/apple-samsung-lower-courts/amp/
Click to expand...

Huh? What do you mean “Nope”?

You just posted two old articles, one from 2016 and one from 2017. I posted one article from today.

And I never refuted the awarded damages are being calculated to a lower amount, hence the reason they’re back in court.

I think you’re confused and intended to reply to a different forum member’s comment.
 
apolloa said:
Yes and the Supreme Court agreed with Samsung that the 300 odd million the billion was reduced to was still too much hence this new case, so the high court has declared the amount they should pay has not been properly set.
Samsung copied ‘some’ of the original iPhone design elements, not an oblong with round corners or the colours black and white!
Click to expand...
Show me the ones that Samsung DIDN'T copy!
[doublepost=1526422903][/doublepost]
rhoydotp said:
Exactly! Essentially Samsung is saying that they are guilty but does not want to pay the full price for knowingly doing something completely illegal.

EDIT: to be fair, Apple have pulled similar stunts in the past too
Click to expand...
Never to even 1% of that scale.
 
Tramtrist said:
Samsung's entire smartphone business is predicted on ripping off Apple's designs. There was nothing like a keyboard-less, touch full-screen pocket computer/phone with apps before Apple made the iPhone. Apple spent years and a huge amount of their money coming up with a revolutionary design, figuring out how it would work and how to make it. They bet the company on it. It was a huge gamble that everyone said was doomed to failure. Less than a year later Samsung's got their own b-grade phone so closely copied on Apple's designs that they look and behave almost the same. That's what this lawsuit is about. Samsung should design their own damned phone, or else pay Apple for having designed it.
Click to expand...
You are simply not familiar with the history of mobile devices. Nothing you said is correct. First iPhone did not really have full fledged apps. But many phones before it did. Some phones (and PDAs) before iPhone did not have keyboards. The real innovation in iPhone was capacitive touch screen and this was not Apple invention. Apple just happened to enter mobile phone market when this technology was finally perfected to be usable in mobile phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hamado and Ulfric
justiny said:
Did you guys miss the first paragraph, second sentence of the article? Samsung was found GUILTY of violating Apple’s patents.

I’m pretty confident if any company was found guilty in court of violating patents you owned, you’d want your damn money ASAP.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I agree with the verdict. The Samsung phones are blatant knockoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chizzlebot
justiny said:
Did you guys miss the first paragraph, second sentence of the article? Samsung was found GUILTY of violating Apple’s patents.

I’m pretty confident if any company was found guilty in court of violating patents you owned, you’d want your damn money ASAP.
Click to expand...

Like VirneTX and the half a billion they are owed by Apple for stealing their patents?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulfric
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back