Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is silly. They should end this once and for all.

Agreed. Samsung should just pay what they were ordered to pay by the court of law and move on.
[doublepost=1454683714][/doublepost]
For those who are still having doubts, here is a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V old post of mine.


If we just stay in 2015 territory then the design of the S6 is uncannily similar to the iPhone 6.

tumblr_nkotcwQV0q1r3kdlto1_500.jpg



Beyond that you have the aptly named Samsung Pay (Apple's version is called Apple Pay).

The box and accessory design

samsung-galaxy-s6-unboxing-2-1024x678.jpg

IPhone_6_unboxing.jpg


The fingerprint scanner setup

tumblr_nl5sboWEJ51r3kdlto1_500.png


The stock keyboard

images

image-7.37.05-PM-640x352.jpg


Samsung Wallet

tumblr_mnqd66ZeTD1r3kdlto1_r1_400.jpg


The headphones

tumblr_nkos9aYZcn1r3kdlto1_500.png


Don't forget that's just recently. They have been doing this kind of thing for years now.


These are always good for a laugh.

What kills me is that Samsung's history of stealing ideas from Apple blatant and egregious , and yet the bleeding-heart apologists come on here and say "eh, they all copy from each other...this stifles innovation". What a joke. Maybe companies borrow ideas or direction, but wholesale ripoff and stealing should always be condemned.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Samsung should just pay what they were ordered to pay by the court of law and move on.
[doublepost=1454683714][/doublepost]


These are always good for a laugh.

What kills me is that Samsung's history of stealing ideas from Apple blatant and egregious , and yet the bleeding-heart apologists come on here and say "eh, they all copy from each other...this stifles innovation". What a joke. Maybe companies borrow ideas or direction, but wholesale ripoff and stealing should always be condemned.


So I'm assuming you think that Apple should pay Virnetx and not appeal that decision too then?
 
All the money from these cases should go into the Gates Foundation Fund.

This level of ignorance angers me.

Why don't you Google "Gates Foundation" + "self-serving" & wake up from your fairytale world where the greediest man in the world is suddenly a philanthropist, lol.

TLDR:
Gates "charity" only supports people going to school if they're specifically going to program for the Windows platform, only gives medicine to poor countries if it's from a pharma that he's heavily invested in & can write off at multiple values, creating a net profit gain, etc.
There is NO philanthropy going on... there's more greed than ever, now with "new" tax protection & public feelings of goodwill by the easily duped.
 
So I'm assuming you think that Apple should pay Virnetx and not appeal that decision too then?
Sam, Sam, Sam.... must I teach you everything? Sheesh. Here's the way it's supposed to work.
1. If Apple does something you're supposed to parse the issue to the Nth degree until you can rationalize why it's okay.
2. If it's done to Apple you're supposed to conflate varying issues into one Grand Unification theory of why Apple was victimized by company X.
3. Then you're supposed to start introducing unrelated evidence to change the narrative, but somehow manage to tie it back to Apple being in the right.
4. If all else fails, mention profit. Always mention profit.

If you can't do that Sam... if you can't ignore higher brain function and get with the program... there are people we can send to convince you to see things the right way. We know where you are because we've been tracking you through your gmail. Let's not have this conversation again okay. Next time, I might not be so... you see where I'm going here Sam. Don't you?
 
Last edited:
So I'm assuming you think that Apple should pay Virnetx and not appeal that decision too then?

Not sure what this has to do with the OP's point...we're talking about the length of the appeal process between Apple and Samsung, and the OP's displeasure with a lack of resolution. If the Virnetx decision drags all the way to the Supreme Court, I'll be happy to discuss it with you then.

[doublepost=1454686613][/doublepost]
1. If Apple does something you're supposed to parse the issue to the Nth degree until you can rationalize why it's okay.
2. If it's done to Apple you're supposed to conflate varying issues into one Grand Unification theory of why Apple was victimized by company X.
3. Then you're supposed to start introducing unrelated evidence to change the narrative, but somehow manage to tie it back to Apple being in the right.
4. If all else fails, mention profit. Always mention profit.

Right, people try to . Nobody else makes these arguments on behalf of any other company EXCEPT Apple. Awesome way of applying reverse logic. And thanks for clearing this up...glad you're here to introduce us to your higher way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Apples and oranges. This isn't Samsung's first appeal.
[doublepost=1454686613][/doublepost]

Right, people try to . Nobody else makes these arguments on behalf of any other company EXCEPT Apple. Awesome way of applying reverse logic. And thanks for clearing this up...glad you're here to introduce us to your higher way of thinking.

You didn't answer my question.
 
Incorrect:

Touchwiz is far more than just a skin. It does encompass the skin, but it's a very deeply integrated re-write of the Android code base. Included, is a custom Kernel exclusive to Samsung devices, and a whole whack of other hardware optimizing features, Including their multi-windowing capabilities.

Currently, Stock android does not have multi-window displays. Which seems like something that would have been obvious to add when Samsung got so popular with it, and they pushed tablet use of Android. Still don't understand why it's not in 6.0 either.

This is actually crazy! Windows and iOS both have split screen multitasking, but stock Android doesn't.

What's weird, too, is sometimes things are added to Google's Android after Samsung has introduced them (even if it's so close that both companies must have been working on features at the same time).

Examples being:
S-voice (on the Galaxy S3, May 2012) followed by Google Now (Android 4.1, June 2012)

Supporting Fingerprint Scanning (on the Galaxy S5, April 2014) followed by Android 6.0 (October 2015)

Samsung Pay (Galaxy S6, March 2015) followed by Android Pay (May 2015)

64-bit chip (Galaxy Note 4, September 2014) followed by native 64-bit Android Lollipop (November 2014/Announced June 2014)
 
Go with quality arguments instead of a hit or miss quantity. Just a suggestion.

Go with willful ignorance if you want, doesn't change the facts of the case or the results. Just a suggestion.
[doublepost=1454687334][/doublepost]
You didn't answer my question.

Every company has the right to appeal a decision. That's how US laws works. The OP expressed displeasure with the length of the process...I suggested a way to make it end quicker.
 
This is true, however Samsung have specifically copied Apple so much now that it's become a parody of itself it's so predictable and blatant. Whatever the last iPhone had will be in the next Galaxy, and the next example is just round the corner. Just watch the S7 have some poor copy of 3D Touch.
We've all grown tired of Samsung. Hoping Apple doesn't go that route.
 
Right, people try to . Nobody else makes these arguments on behalf of any other company EXCEPT Apple. Awesome way of applying reverse logic. And thanks for clearing this up...glad you're here to introduce us to your higher way of thinking.

Could you kindly show me where in my quote there was an implication that Apple gets this treatment exclusively? I was specifically addressing my comment about Apple. Specificity does not equal "to the exclusion of all others". It's not binary. If what I typed falls under your definition of reverse logic, I hate to tell you but it doesn't mean what you think it does. I didn't realize my way of thinking was higher, but thanks for saying so. :)
 
Go with willful ignorance if you want, doesn't change the facts of the case or the results. Just a suggestion.
Case? My quote was about Jsameds evidence of copying. It was a direct response to that quote and the information contained in it, not some over arching commentary about the trial. I know it might seem novel to respond directly to the information presented without switching to outside narratives, but it's fairly productive. You should try it. Just a suggestion.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig
Actually, I hope the Supreme Court DOES take on the case and restores our patent system to the way it was originally intended.

For those that don't know, patent's were never intended to prevent others from basing their work off of what others have done. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Patents were created to setup a reasonable amount of time for the original inventor to have exclusive rights so as to be able to recover their R&D costs and make a reasonable profit. Then after that reasonable amount of time has elapsed, the base for the patent is supposed to be opened up for others to build (and potentially establish their own patent) off of. Thus patents were design to keep innovation moving forward. What the courts are currently doing is the total opposite.
 
For those who are still having doubts, here is a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V old post of mine.


If we just stay in 2015 territory then the design of the S6 is uncannily similar to the iPhone 6.

{snip}

Don't forget that's just recently. They have been doing this kind of thing for years now.

All the bile aimed at Samsung on this forum bores me. The Samesung comments and "die Samsung die" stuff, but when they launched the S6 I simply couldn't believe it. The utter laziness and total and utter lack of imagination they demonstrate is simply staggering. They even ditched their popular trump card of allowing sd cards.

It's pathetic, and your post demonstrates that with great effect.
 
So I'm assuming you think that Apple should pay Virnetx and not appeal that decision too then?
Agreed this needs to stop, Virnetx wouldn't have owned this patent if Steve Jobs wasn't born
Samsung copied Steve not Apple
 
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.

It's because every modern company is at risk due to an old and outdated law. Apple included.

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.

You're one of only a few people in this thread who understand a primary reason this case is being appealed to SCOTUS, and why it has so much support from other companies.

And yes, the biggest irony and hypocrisy of it all, is that other Apple lawyers (e.g. VirnetX case) have argued the same thing as Samsung, when placed in a similar situation: that patent awards should be apportioned by how much they contribute overall out of the tens of thousands of patents used in a smartphone.

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

There are two primary parts to their 200+ page appeal, and both have to do with a purportedly misinformed jury awarding Apple all of Samsung's profits on smartphones that infringed on design patents.

1. "Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope?"

This is about how Judge Koh instructed the jury on design patents. Or rather, didn't. Remember, you can only patent ornamental designs, not functional ones.

Even after being asked to, Koh failed to tell the jury that they should ignore the non-ornamental parts of Apple's design. E.g. rounded corners, flat face, bezel, and icon grid, none of which Apple can own. By failing to do this, Samsung alleges the jury mistakenly included such items in their decision.

Of note is that the Court of Appeals overturned the jury's verdict that Apple's trade dress was infringed, by ruling that the trade dress was unprotectable because it was functional, not ornamental.

Yet they then confirmed that the design patents (upon which the trade dress was based) were infringed. Huh? If they're invalid when combined as trade dress because of functionality, how could they be infringed on their own? This is one of the points in question.

2. "Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer's profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?"

The big one. This is why other companies are backing Samsung (and so would Apple if they weren't directly involved, because they're going to be a victim of it too someday).

You see, design patents have a extra wicked weapon in their legal arsenal, one that was added in 1887 to help a carpet company with friends in Congress. Anyone found infringing on a design patent can be made to give up their ENTIRE PROFIT on an item that infringes. This might have made some sense back when products contained one or two such patents, but modern products can contain thousands.

For example, if Apple were to say, accidentally use a patented image deep in some app, the owner of its design patent could in theory demand EVERY SINGLE PENNY that Apple made on all the millions of Apple devices that included it... even if that image was the very tiniest portion of the entire device.

--
So Samsung's (and many others', including experts who had previously testified on Apple's behalf) argument is that this particular old statute... created for much simpler times... which gives design patents the possibility of awards far outside of their actual impact, needs to be changed or removed, and courts use only normal patent award methods as originally intended before that 1887 design patent addition.

Even the Appeals Court did not disagree, but took the easy way out and claimed their hands were tied, unless Congress updates the law:

"(Law Professors) argue that an award of a defendant’s entire profits for design patent infringement makes no sense in the modern world. Those are policy arguments that should be directed to Congress. We are bound by what the statute says, irrespective of policy arguments that may be made against it." - Appeals Court

Companies and legal experts from all sides have filed supporting briefs, in the hope that perhaps the Supreme Court can bring some common sense to play, or failing that, wake up Congress or at least the Solicitor General.
 
Last edited:
You're dismissing it with a shrug, yet it has potential to be heard by the supreme court? Sounds like look and feel isn't simply a "stretch" or it wouldn't have gotten this far.

Personally I think it should be heard.
The level of detail and the alluded sales impact is significantly different enough that SCOTUS should docket this.
[doublepost=1454702349][/doublepost]
The real winners of this battle are the lawyers.

The legal teams are likely on retainer or in-house counsel. Not seeing ho they win.
[doublepost=1454702612][/doublepost]
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.

We will have to disagree. I see this almost every other consumer sector and none of the things I saw in the lawsuits were specific items that made me buy a Galaxy. Or an iPhone.
So, let's get this clarified and decided.

ON TO SCOTUS!!!
[doublepost=1454702731][/doublepost]
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.

Not saying they didn't copy. What I am disagreement with the is the associated alleged impact to sales or lack of sales and associated profit.
 
Last edited:
That's no Android, that's TouchWizz.
lol....which runs on Android. Split screen is an Android thing. Only recently did Apple copy that feature.
[doublepost=1454705000][/doublepost]
TouchWizz does an hack on top of Android for multitasking, just like similar Cydia jailbreak hacks.

Android still doesn't hack multitasking.
That is completely wrong. TouchWiz is an Android skin that adds features and options. It is not a hack or jailbreak in any way. You're spouting nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave.UK
Didn't that come from MS - i see another court case pending....
I should have been a lawyer.
 
I have no sympathy for Samsung despite disagreeing in large about the patent system. Why? Because Samsung has made a living out of copying other products and that does nothing for the market. HTC and all the other manufacturers have been fine without feeling the need to copy Apple but Samsung have done this to Nokia, Blackberry, Sony and virtually every other manufacturer on the market. If you invest money in creating a product and someone just copies the design elements that isn't right. Samsung were caught in court with emails saying they should make their phones more like the iPhone.

Sorry, Samsung, the $500 million was too low. It should have been $10 billion to teach you a lesson. I hope you get bent over in court so badly, you need a bucket to fill the hole.
 
I have no sympathy for Samsung despite disagreeing in large about the patent system. Why? Because Samsung has made a living out of copying other products and that does nothing for the market. HTC and all the other manufacturers have been fine without feeling the need to copy Apple but Samsung have done this to Nokia, Blackberry, Sony and virtually every other manufacturer on the market. If you invest money in creating a product and someone just copies the design elements that isn't right. Samsung were caught in court with emails saying they should make their phones more like the iPhone.

Sorry, Samsung, the $500 million was too low. It should have been $10 billion to teach you a lesson. I hope you get bent over in court so badly, you need a bucket to fill the hole.

First to Market and First to Look went out of fashion ($) long ago. Look and Feel are not patentable. Don't like it? Sorry about that.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.