Apple Loses Renewed Bid for U.S. Ban on Samsung Products

[2457282]

Nope.

First off, it's incorrect to use a word like "steal" in software patent cases, since there's almost never anything actually stolen. Anyone can infringe without stealing code or seeing someone else's methods. Infringement is mostly about who manages to get a patent first. Which yes, is stupid in the case of software, but that's a different topic.

Secondly, Apple did prove infringement, but the devices that infringed haven't been sold in the US for years.

Thirdly, Samsung modified their code long ago to no longer infringe.

--

In short, this is NOT about any current infringement, nor would it affect any current Samsung devices.

Instead, what Apple really wants is a precedent to use against any future infringements. They're hoping to get a court to decide on a pretty lenient standard for a "causal nexus" to allow future injunctions.

In other words, they want to be able to ask for an injunction based on what judges so far have seen as relatively minor (in relation to the entire device) consumer shopping points.

--

For example, Apple's primary expert witness claimed that his survey showed that consumers would pay an extra $400+ for a smartphone with just six "Apple features" included.

However, he did not convince that judge that people actually decide which phone to buy based on those features, since there are alternative features he did not offer, plus he didn't factor in supply and demand, etc.

And the judge is apparently correct about buyers, since tens of millions of people have indeed bought phones even without such fluff as the bounceback that Apple claims is worth so much that phones should be banned over it.

Also, an injunction... which the Supreme Court calls a "drastic and extraordinary remedy".. requires proof that no other compensation can take their place.

TL;DR - Apple had wanted to set a precedent for future sales bans over relatively minor features, by first asking for a ban on old devices that are no longer sold.

.

Thank you for the well thought out and clear response. This very much helps my understanding.

 

[kdarling]

Thank you for the well thought out and clear response. This very much helps my understanding.

You're very welcome. Thank you for the kind response.

I have updated my post a bit, now that I've had more time to read through her ruling, the majority of which was a debate about the value of the patents involved.

The Federal courts nowadays have high standards for injunctions over any patent (essential or not) since a sales ban can have far reaching effects.

 

[cullen43]

I will be interested to see Apple bringing out their iWatch, then being sued by Samsung!

 

[Rodster]

Hey Apple, how about concentrating on fixing and releasing a good version of iOS 7 instead of wielding the ban hammer? I've checked and still no 7.1 for my Air.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Hey Apple, how about concentrating on fixing and releasing a good version of iOS 7 instead of wielding the ban hammer? I've checked and still no 7.1 for my Air.

http://www.apple.com/feedback/

I have a feeling the attorneys who are arguing the case and the few individuals called to testify are not significant parts of the iOS 7 development team, and probably would have very few lines of code to contribute, if they were diverted to the iOS 7.1 project. I also strongly doubt that anyone got the word to hold-off on 7.1 development until Judge Koh had her say.

Further, can anyone seriously think that "fixing" iOS 7 (well, better-tailoring the iPad version to iPads) should be the company's sole focus? Perhaps they should shoot it out with those whose new Mac Pros need firmware fixes, or those waiting for the next generation of iPhones or Mac Minis, or clamoring for Apple to invent a new, earth-shattering product category, or those waiting for additional purchase safeguards for in-app purchases, or who want Apple to stop sending buses to pickup up their employees....

 

[macs4nw]

Samsung is a joke！

Corrupt perhaps, but a joke? If you believe that, the joke is on you!

 

[nylonsteel]

re: original article
ok so the courts dont see it our way
so aapl needs to step up more to get more "insanely great" products in our hands - faster then

 

[albusseverus]

So the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told judge Koh to reconsider her decision, but she did not take the hint, and came back with the same ruling stating that Apple "has not proved that its infringed upon patents drive consumer demand for Samsung devices".

Unfortunately for Apple, that might be an exceedingly difficult thing to prove.

I just wish they had something serious on Koh, they way they have Cote conspiring with the e-books monitor. She'll do time for that.

Koh did everything to advantage Samsung in the various cases, and I don't see Apple running that down. Maybe Apple are worried it will be characterised as a race issue. Korean judge, Korean defendant. There must be a way to call a spade a spade and specifically exclude the race issue.

Every time Samsung broke the law to get a mistrial, Koh let it ride. Samsung leaks to the press, evidence denied by the judge, she lets it ride. Samsung's lawyers offer Samsung private commercial information and it not only takes it, but disseminates it, Koh's flunky punishes the lawyers as if they were the only party in the transaction. If Samsung hadn't taken the information, which they knew they were under a court order not to have, there wouldn't have even been an issue!

This the second instance where a judge in a high profile Apple case has basically been told by the court system, you're wrong, think again.

The facts of the case are simple. When you go into a store, the staff all tell you a Samsung phone is just like an iPhone. It should be easy to prove damages, if an honest judge will accept the argument.

It's worth following these cases as a test to see if the court system can right itself in the face of these monumental wrongs.

 

[mib1800]

I just wish they had something serious on Koh, they way they have Cote conspiring with the e-books monitor. She'll do time for that.

Koh did everything to advantage Samsung in the various cases, and I don't see Apple running that down. Maybe Apple are worried it will be characterised as a race issue. Korean judge, Korean defendant. There must be a way to call a spade a spade and specifically exclude the race issue.

Every time Samsung broke the law to get a mistrial, Koh let it ride. Samsung leaks to the press, evidence denied by the judge, she lets it ride. Samsung's lawyers offer Samsung private commercial information and it not only takes it, but disseminates it, Koh's flunky punishes the lawyers as if they were the only party in the transaction. If Samsung hadn't taken the information, which they knew they were under a court order not to have, there wouldn't have even been an issue!

This the second instance where a judge in a high profile Apple case has basically been told by the court system, you're wrong, think again.

The facts of the case are simple. When you go into a store, the staff all tell you a Samsung phone is just like an iPhone. It should be easy to prove damages, if an honest judge will accept the argument.

It's worth following these cases as a test to see if the court system can right itself in the face of these monumental wrongs.

Samsung phones no longer use over scroll bounce back or evenly square icons but they are still selling much better than apple. Samsung is gaining much more market share worldwide over apple.

It would be ridiculous to issue a ban using these reasons. Everyone can see this except apple fans.

 

[kdarling]

I just wish they had something serious on Koh, they way they have Cote conspiring with the e-books monitor. She'll do time for that.

That's extremely doubtful.

Koh did everything to advantage Samsung in the various cases, and I don't see Apple running that down.

Probably because Apple knows that Judge Koh has also done a lot to disadvantage Samsung:

She has thrown out some of their patents. She allowed Apple its way with jury forms. She refused to issue a delay while the USPTO decides whether to invalidate Apple patents that were the cause of awards. She did not allow Samsung to show prior art that would've proved the non-uniqueness of Apple designs. She did not order a re-trial after the jury ignored her instructions and instead followed a foreman who came up with his own rules. She is trying a case that involves her home state company, Apple. She refused to sanction Apple for trying to turn it into a patriotic war. And so forth.

This the second instance where a judge in a high profile Apple case has basically been told by the court system, you're wrong, think again.

The same court also said "you're wrong" when she DID agree with Apple's requests and issued injunctions that Apple wanted.

For that matter, the same appeals court has told Apple to think again, as well.

The upshot is, decisions have gone both good and bad for both sides, so an informed observer cannot claim any true bias one way or the other.

Basically, it's clear that she's been trying to apply each pertinent law and precedent without much change. So if we want to blame something / someone, we really have to blame those laws and precedents.

In this case, that precedent would be the so-called eBay decision, which laid out a four prong test for granting a permanent injunction based on a patent infringement, all of which must be met:

1. that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury;
2. that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
3. that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted
4. that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

 

[Oletros]

Koh did everything to advantage Samsung in the various cases

Anything to back your claim?

, and I don't see Apple running that down. Maybe Apple are worried it will be characterised as a race issue. Korean judge, Korean defendant. There must be a way to call a spade a spade and specifically exclude the race issue.

Or perhaps because Apple just see reality and Koh didn't favored any party

Every time Samsung broke the law to get a mistrial, Koh let it ride.

Anything to back your claim?

Samsung leaks to the press, evidence denied by the judge, she lets it ride.

Source?

Samsung's lawyers offer Samsung private commercial information and it not only takes it, but disseminates it, Koh's flunky punishes the lawyers as if they were the only party in the transaction. If Samsung hadn't taken the information, which they knew they were under a court order not to have, there wouldn't have even been an issue!

You have to re read the court rulings

This the second instance where a judge in a high profile Apple case has basically been told by the court system, you're wrong, think again.

No, the court didn't said that she did wrong, the court said that she had to look to other things. And what is the other case where the court said that the judge did wrong?

The facts of the case are simple. When you go into a store, the staff all tell you a Samsung phone is just like an iPhone. It should be easy to prove damages, if an honest judge will accept the argument.

No, those are not facts, those are just your opinion


It's worth following these cases as a test to see if the court system can right itself in the face of these monumental wrongs.[/QUOTE]

Wrong only in your imagination.

----------

The upshot is, decisions have gone both good and bad for both sides, so an informed observer cannot claim any true bias one way or the other.

When both "sides" say that she is biased it only means that she is not biased

 

[kdarling]

When both "sides" say that she is biased it only means that she is not biased

A few days ago, someone else here wryly commented about her varying decisions, that both sides were complaining about:

"Why, it's almost as if she's deciding things on a case by case basis."

It was funny, because there's truth in it.

Mind you, personally I think that her decision to disallow prior art evidence was a total travesty of justice. However, I also have to admit that she was following evidence rules by the book when she did so. She seems to strive to do things by the book so her rulings will not as easily get shot down on appeal. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.