Apple Urges Supreme Court Not to Send Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

[MacRumors]

Apple has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against Samsung's request to send a longstanding patent lawsuit between the two companies back to lower court for further proceedings, reports Reuters.

Apple told the court that its South Korean rival has "no evidence" that design patent damages should be based on anything less than the value of an entire smartphone, according to court documents filed on Friday. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Samsung's case in December.

Samsung argued that it has been hit with "excessive penalties" for allegedly copying the design of the iPhone. The company claims that the penalties were unfair because Apple was awarded damages from the total profits of the product, while the infringing patent only applied to a component of the smartphone rather than the whole device.

Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages in 2012, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million. Samsung has already paid the $548 million, but could win its money back if the ruling is overturned. The patent lawsuit dates back to 2011.

Article Link: Apple Urges Supreme Court Not to Send Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

 

[smacrumon]

The patent system is broken in general. Send it back to the lower court to battle it out and flesh out all the issues and get it over and done with. Enough of this.

 

[69Mustang]

Apple told the court that its South Korean rival has "no evidence" that design patent damages should be based on anything less than the value of an entire smartphone

Apple should realize they look pretty crappy using that argument since that's exactly how they want damages to be paid when they're on the losing end of lawsuits: damages paid on component cost, not entire device.

 

[apolloa]

Well duurrrr.... Like Apple wants anything else then to milk millions from a direct competitor over a patent that's been void by the patent office.....

Apple doesn't like competition.

 

[v0lume4]

The patent lawsuit dates back to 2011.

It's when you read things like this that you realize that's something's broken. Apple, Samsung, the legal system, or all three.

 

[itr81]

This lawsuit has went on too damn long. Stop wasting tax payers money and just tell Samsung no, otherwise it'll be 2020 before this thing is over.. Half a decade later and this lawsuit is still on going..

 

[C DM]

Well duurrrr.... Like Apple wants anything else then to milk millions from a direct competitor over a patent that's been void by the patent office.....

Apple doesn't like competition.

As opposed to what pretty much any other entity would be trying to do in situations like this?

 

[Fall Under Cerulean Kites]

It's when you read things like this that you realize that's something's broken. Apple, Samsung, the legal system, or all three.

What does that 2011 date have to do with anything? So if authorities are investigating a murder that happened 4 years ago, they should just stop wasting time and tell everyone “too bad” because it’s been “so long?”

 

[apolloa]

As opposed to what pretty much any other entity would be trying to do in situations like this?

You mean manipulate the law and the patent office with bogus claims to force your competitor out of your marketplace or business all together. Or at the very least damage their reputation or ban their prifucts from sale so you can increase market share and profit and sales numbers which in turn allows you to make lazy redesigns of your own competing product. Then yes I'm sure Apple does what anyone else would....

 

[C DM]

What does that 2011 date have to do with anything? So if authorities are investigating a murder that happened 4 years ago, they should just stop wasting time and tell everyone “too bad” because it’s been “so long?”

Well, there is such a thing as statute of limitations. That's not to say it applies here or anything like that, simply to comment on that comparison in the second part of it all (even though it doesn't generally apply to something like a murder, but plenty of other crimes).

 

[Someyoungguy]

You mean manipulate the law and the patent office with bogus claims to force your competitor out of your marketplace or business all together. Or at the very least damage their reputation or ban their prifucts from sale so you can increase market share and profit and sales numbers which in turn allows you to make lazy redesigns of your own competing product. Then yes I'm sure Apple does what anyone else would....

You either don't know the definition of "law", or "manipulate".

 

[keysofanxiety]

Jesus, I remember articles on this lawsuit when I first joined MacRumors. Has it been that long?

 

[pat500000]

We gotta fight this out......in person

 

[69Mustang]

I've said this before, but I sincerely believe Apple wants to lose this trial. Ultimately, it's to their benefit if they do. Apple has only wanted to pay judgments base on component cost. Somehow, a jury allowed them to receive a judgment based on entire device. That's the worst thing that could have happened for Apple. Companies suing Apple, troll or not, are looking for the same type of full device judgments. If SCOTUS sets a precedent based on component cost, Apple loses this case, but gains valuable ammunition against future litigation. Since they are the most sued company in America (world?), their potential liability is immediately lessened even before they enter a courtroom.

What's the old adage? Lose the battle, but win the war.

 

[samcraig]

Apple should realize they look pretty crappy using that argument since that's exactly how they want damages to be paid when they're on the losing end of lawsuits: damages paid on component cost, not entire device.

This, exactly this.

 

[apolloa]

You either don't know the definition of "law", or "manipulate".

You don't know the definition of dirty business tactics.

 

[C DM]

You mean manipulate the law and the patent office with bogus claims to force your competitor out of your marketplace or business all together. Or at the very least damage their reputation or ban their prifucts from sale so you can increase market share and profit and sales numbers which in turn allows you to make lazy redesigns of your own competing product. Then yes I'm sure Apple does what anyone else would....

On the other hand you pretty much agree with the kind of thing that I mentioned in another thread:

You mean it's legal fraud, considering they use loopholes in tax law. The same as Amazon and Alphabet use.

Close the loopholes, heavily punish those who breach breach them, job done.

 

[Zirel]

Samsung already paid Apple $548M in the end of 2015 (according to Apple's info). Is there still more to pay?

 

[69Mustang]

Samsung already paid Apple $548M in the end of 2015 (according to Apple's info). Is there still more to pay?

There's no more to pay. There may be some to pay back. Samsung paid the $548M to Apple with the condition that, based on the SCOTUS decision, the money (or a portion of it) could be returned to Samsung. AFAIK, the negotiated $548M is based on a full device calculation. Samsung argues damages should be calculated on component cost. It's the same argument Apple has used before. (There's an ironic joke in there about Samsung copying Apple's legal strategy)

 

[CarlJ]

Arguing that it's only about a specific component is forgetting the larger picture. Steve Jobs was furious, and rightly so, that Samsung made as close to an exact duplicate of the iPhone as they could possibly manage - Google was even trying to talk Samsung out of doing this (per papers that came out at trial). The original complaint was, they've cravenly copied our whole phone, and here's eleventy-seven patents to show that this is true. The court insisted they winnow it down to just a representative handful of patents, because all them details were too durn confusing to expect jurors/judges to pay attention to. So it got reduced to a handful of patent claims, to make things easier for the court. Then some of those patents got thrown out. Samsung was found guilty as hell, and rightly so. And ever since, Samsung has been whining because: a) they don't like having to give money to other people, and b) they apparently really don't understand that slavishly copying every detail of a competitor's product is wrong (this seems to be a cultural difference). Samsung won't stop fighting until they get back the money that they've had to pay Apple. If it were up to Apple, this would have been over several battles ago, but Samsung, despite having repeatedly lost, keeps it going. Sure, they've gone on to make some nice phones since. But then there are plenty of people in jail who have become nicer people than when they committed their crimes - does this excuse their crimes? Samsung got the attention they wanted in the market, early on, by selling close copies of Apple's phones (and that attention has helped them considerably), but they want the benefit of that act without any of the consequences.

 

[tooltalk]

Arguing that it's only about a specific component is forgetting the larger picture. Steve Jobs was furious, and rightly so, that Samsung made as close to an exact duplicate of the iPhone as they could possibly manage - Google was even trying to talk Samsung out of doing this (per papers that came out at trial). The original complaint was, they've cravenly copied our whole phone, and here's eleventy-seven patents to show that this is true. The court insisted they winnow it down to just a representative handful of patents, because all them details were too durn confusing to expect jurors/judges to pay attention to. So it got reduced to a handful of patent claims, to make things easier for the court. Then some of those patents got thrown out. Samsung was found guilty as hell, and rightly so. And ever since, Samsung has been whining because: a) they don't like having to give money to other people, and b) they apparently really don't understand that slavishly copying every detail of a competitor's product is wrong (this seems to be a cultural difference). Samsung won't stop fighting until they get back the money that they've had to pay Apple. If it were up to Apple, this would have been over several battles ago, but Samsung, despite having repeatedly lost, keeps it going. Sure, they've gone on to make some nice phones since. But then there are plenty of people in jail who have become nicer people than when they committed their crimes - does this excuse their crimes? Samsung got the attention they wanted in the market, early on, by selling close copies of Apple's phones (and that attention has helped them considerably), but they want the benefit of that act without any of the consequences.

Sure, when S Jobs became furious back in 2010, he was looking at HTC smartphones, not Samsung phones. Samsung was not even a big smartphone player back then -- HTC and MOTO were -- and it was an after thought.

While the court documents show Google engineers warned Samsung's tablet designs resembled the iPad's, we know from the court decisions around the world that NO COURT sided with Apple's claim that Samsung copied their tablet design -- and that Apple's design was merely a rehash of old ideas. In the UK for instance, Apple was ordered to publicly apologize to Samsung and to cease their misleading PR campaign against Samsung. Even in the US, where Judge Koh made heroic effort to depict Samsung as an infringer, the jury disagreed with Apple and Judge Koh.

We also know from the court cases around the world that only a few of those initial claims Apple filed still stand today -- and only in one jurisdiction, Apple's hometown court in SJ. Apple was in fact more or less forced to drop all non-US lawsuits once it became clear that all their patent claims have been either worked around, invalidated or thrown out of court elsewhere. In Germany, for instance, all of Apple's entire patent claims were thrown out. Even in the US, most of the so-called marquee patents Apple touted as their genuine innovation have all but been reviewed and invalidated.

In Apple's second trial, after winning a laughable victory in the lower court case in which Apple claimed its originality in autocorrect, hyperlink, etc, the appeals court reversed all of Apple's win and ordered Apple to pay for Samsung's legal expenses.

I'm guessing that you really haven't been following the lawsuits.. or perhaps confirmation-bias much?

 

[sudo1996]

Man, is Apple ever going to get its money? Seriously, nail these guys already. If it were the other way around, the Korean courts would've ruled in Samsung's favor before even hearing the case.

 

[tooltalk]

Man, is Apple ever going to get its money? Seriously, nail these guys already.

Apple was already paid a few months back. If the second trial is any indication, however, Apple might have to pay Samsung for starting a groundless lawsuit.

If it were the other way around, the Korean courts would've ruled in Samsung's favor before even hearing the case.

Well, the Korean court already ruled on this and decided that both Samsung and Apple violated each other's patents. Unlike the US where Obama jumped in to save Apple and reversed an import ban against the American company, there was no such presidential pardon for Samsung in South Korea.

 

[sudo1996]

Apple was already paid a dew months back. If the second trial is any indication however, Apple might have to pay Samsung for starting a groundless lawsuit.

I was considering it not really paid until it's settled even if Apple holds the money... But is there a difference in terms of taxes? Does Apple get this money into the U.S. tax-free, and can they pay Samsung if they lose later with money from Ireland?

 

[apolloa]

On the other hand you pretty much agree with the kind of thing that I mentioned in another thread:

Just checked my post you quoted and NO I did not make any reply to you, it was a reply to the story. Are you reading things that aren't there again?
It's nice you may 'share the same opinion' but it's far from me agreeing with 'you' as I didn't read anyone else's comments on the tax evading story before I made that post.