Apple Says U.S. Supreme Court Should Reject Samsung's Appeal Request

[tooltalk]

Apple is ....what does Arnold usually say about cry baby? Gurly girl. Apple... U need to man up and stop being patent troll

Apple still has to deal with patent trolls, with or without competitors like Samsung. What's so rotten about Apple's legal practice is that they are actually fighting to set legal precedents that would harm not only Samsung, but the whole industry, including Apple. I'm pretty sure deep inside no (sane) Apple lawyer wants this ridiculous design patent damage award to stand.

If allowed to stand, it's not too difficult to speculate whom(/who??) patent trolls would go after first.

 

[Deuce on the Clock]

They all copy each other. This patent thing is old and makes all sides appear arrogant.

 

[tooltalk]

Could someone explain to me why they have sued especially Samsung and not any other OEM or Google?

Apple sued at least one other Android maker HTC, but they eventually settled when HTC counter-sued. Moto, later acquired by Google, and Apple also had been fighting in courts for a while, but their fight had to do with non-Android specific issues.

Strategically speaking, it's easier to sue a foreign company in US courts -- there are empirical studies demonstrating domestic litigants' chance of winning increases by 2-3 in jury trial, compared to 50-50 equal chance in bench trial.

 

[2010mini]

The real winners of this battle are the lawyers.

 

[tooltalk]

The point is that they ripped off the "Look and Feel" of a product, which is one way people are persuaded to buy something.

The look and feel part of the lawsuit (aka, "trade dress") was struck down by the appeals court a couple of years back and I think they are supposed to have yet another re-trial soon.

 

[macfacts]

Could someone explain to me why they have sued especially Samsung and not any other OEM or Google?

One at a time, iOS only recently got multitasking.

 

[Yelmurc]

How is this news, why would Apple not tell them to reject it. Yes Supreme Court please allow them to keep kicking this can down the road.

 

[Karma*Police]

Did Samsung "infringe"? Yes. However the results are a bit steep. I don't buy my smartphones based on how an icon looks.

Steep? I think most would say Samsung got away with barely a slap on the wrist considering how much they profited by copying Apple.

I'm surprised Samsung is still pursuing this. If I were them, I'd be ecstatic and continue to copy Apple knowing the consequences are negligible compared to the benefits.

 

[tooltalk]

Steep? I think most would say Samsung got away with barely a slap on the wrist considering how much they profited by copying Apple.

I'm surprised Samsung is still pursuing this. If I were them, I'd be ecstatic and continue to copy Apple knowing the consequences are negligible compared to the benefits.

Samsung's sales really skyrocketed after the lawsuit started in 2012 and all accused features were removed. Although they did so to avoid further potential infringement, I would say differentiating their smartphone from Apple products benefitted Samsung greatly.

 

[chukronos]

Apple should just buy the Supremes.

Yes they should so they can use it to pay VirnetX.

I lol'ed. Great posts.

 

[countryside]

This is silly. They should end this once and for all.

If they didn't get that money, they would not have made their profit goal (from what I can tell).

 

[pat500000]

Apple still has to deal with patent trolls, with or without competitors like Samsung. What's so rotten about Apple's legal practice is that they are actually fighting to set legal precedents that would harm not only Samsung, but the whole industry, including Apple. I'm pretty sure deep inside no (sane) Apple lawyer wants this ridiculous design patent damage award to stand.

If allowed to stand, it's not too difficult to speculate whom(/who??) patent trolls would go after first.

It's a shame..to be honest. No companies need to deal with this. Apple is total wrong on this one.

 

[danranda]

Did Samsung "infringe"? Yes. However the results are a bit steep. I don't buy my smartphones based on how an icon looks.

Go back to what Samsung was actually doing in 2011 and 2012. They opened up stores, designed just like an apple store, with big banners about the apps available on their devices, and ALL those app icons came straight out of Apple's Ads, Marketing, and design work. They were even including app icons that were exclusive to iOS.

Apple had a point. That in the time where these new(ish) devices called smart phones showed up with App stores and proclaimed all that could be done with one of these devices, a company would market the same exact possibilities, but in regards to a different device and app store that don't have the apps on the big banner in that same store, is exactly what apple claimed it was. Infringement and misleading to the GENERAL public. Not to you personally, sir.

And the design patents weren't just about icon shape.. they were about sliding on a touch sensitive screen to unlock a phone, which was a unique patent. It was about the look of the device,the packaging, the advertising,everything that came right down to nearly identical looks.

 

[Dreamer2go]

Go back to what Samsung was actually doing in 2011 and 2012. They opened up stores, designed just like an apple store, with big banners about the apps available on their devices, and ALL those app icons came straight out of Apple's Ads, Marketing, and design work. They were even including app icons that were exclusive to iOS.

Apple had a point. That in the time where these new(ish) devices called smart phones showed up with App stores and proclaimed all that could be done with one of these devices, a company would market the same exact possibilities, but in regards to a different device and app store that don't have the apps on the big banner in that same store, is exactly what apple claimed it was. Infringement and misleading to the GENERAL public. Not to you personally, sir.

And the design patents weren't just about icon shape.. they were about sliding on a touch sensitive screen to unlock a phone, which was a unique patent. It was about the look of the device,the packaging, the advertising,everything that came right down to nearly identical looks.

Yeah I don't think people arguing Apple is the one at fault get this.
Clearly Samsung was copying in terms of what's said in this post. You go to a Samsung retail store, and you'd see the entire layout like Apple's.

No other retail store was like this before.

 

[macs4nw]

Apple is ....what does Arnold usually say about cry baby? Gurly girl. Apple... U need to man up and stop being patent troll

Of course you could say that to Samsung as well. "You've paid the damages, now stop crying and copying, and move on".

 

[Mw0103]

The real winners of this battle are the lawyers.

How so?

I don't know for sure, but I would hazard a guess that all of the lawyers were paid hourly--not a contingency. Most corporations pay for legal services by the hour.

 

[nia820]

Could someone explain to me why they have sued especially Samsung and not any other OEM or Google?

Because Samsung is their direct competition. Samsung is the world's top selling smartphone maker.

 

[nortofthe13th]

Could someone explain to me why they have sued especially Samsung and not any other OEM or Google?

Because, if you actually look at the case (and the phones that this case was about) the problem lies with how Samsung modified their smart phones to look like the iPhone and modified the OS to look & behave like iPhone OS. They were the ones that did it so blatantly. (But most of that is lost in the shuffle of the conversation now, and most people brush the issue off as trolling because they don't take the time to understand what the original argument was about.)

 

[kdarling]

Go back to what Samsung was actually doing in 2011 and 2012. They opened up stores, designed just like an apple store, with big banners about the apps available on their devices, and ALL those app icons came straight out of Apple's Ads, Marketing, and design work. They were even including app icons that were exclusive to iOS.

If you're talking about what I think you are, it was debunked long ago. You're apparently referring to that old misleading photo of a Samsung booth that happened to be in the middle of an EU chain store which had Apple icons on its store walls.

And the design patents weren't just about icon shape.. they were about sliding on a touch sensitive screen to unlock a phone, which was a unique patent.

Slide to unlock is a patent which only one judge out of over a dozen judges worldwide failed to invalidate... the single holdout being California Judge Koh. Every other judge immediately invalidated it over prior art, as slide to unlock had been used on a Windows phone back in 2002, and touchscreen slide switches had been around for decades.

 

[pat500000]

Of course you could say that to Samsung as well. "You've paid the damages, now stop crying and copying, and move on".

Yes... Both need to stop crying and move on.

 

[RobertMartens]

Apple Says You Should Buy More Apple Products

 

[thekeyring]

But Samsung were found guilty? What new evidence would mean this wasn't the case?

Maybe Netflix can make a documentary about it.
[doublepost=1454652261][/doublepost]

Could someone explain to me why they have sued especially Samsung and not any other OEM or Google?

I believe it's because it's difficult to sue someone who isn't making money off your IP.

As Google doesn't make money directly, and as the other OEMs are loosing money, Samsung is the best one to go for.

There also seems to be genuine belief at Apple that Samsung are copying them directly. Not just because Samsung use Android - but the design of the Galaxy S.

 

[thelookingglass]

They all copy each other. This patent thing is old and makes all sides appear arrogant.

I don't disagree. What's funny is after all of the lawsuits, it's almost like Apple broke even.

 

[Nick Edinburgh]

Remembering how radically different the iPhone seemed when it first appeared, and then how radically look-alike Samsung's versions were soon afterwards, you'd have to be a real Hater not to side with Apple on this one.

 

[AFEPPL]

Interesting that all the other technology companies say the hearing should go ahead.
I've no idea what the argument is about but, this does appear to have merit given the names backing the appeal.