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

[C DM]

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.

No implication was made that you replied to me. Not sure where that is coming from. Simply that you expressed a similar type of opinion around the same time in a different thread that you seemingly distanced yourself from here. (Notice that nothing about agreeing with me was mentioned there, despite you saying that it was. Seems like twisting and reading into things is happening elsewhere and not on my side of it all.)

 

[Markoth]

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.

You know the country's messed up when we're more corrupt than South Korea! Good lord!

 

[gkpm]

Duh there is no single component for the patented features that were copied by Samsung, they're the result of the whole system.

 

[tooltalk]

Duh there is no single component for the patented features that were copied by Samsung, they're the result of the whole system.

No, you get a design patent for a very specific element and, this case, Samsung was accused of copying rounded corners and rectangular icons -- which IMHO is a complete hogwash. The SCOTUS will address whether Apple's win based on "total profit" damage award legislated last century is appropriate for modern multi-component communication device.

What you are describing here is the overall impression of the whole system and that usually falls under trade dress. The federal appeals court already addressed the 'trade dress' part of the lawsuit last year and reversed Apple's win because no functional (or non-ornamental) aspect can be protected under the law. Apple can not claim they have the exclusive rights to "rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners.”