Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Lengthy Lawsuit With Samsung Over Copying iPhone's Design Headed Back to Court
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You really believe that Apple was the first one to come out with a design like that? There were other phones that were similar and had no keyboard, had a glass front, and had one or more buttons. And do you understand the word "risk"? Apple had no market for phones, so there was nothing to risk, and everything to gain.
So who gets the patent for the mostly glass front TV? Its basically the same thing at this point. Someone should sue Apple for their minimal bezel design.
Samsung did push the envelope in how much to mimic another design, but this was uncharted territory... the court ruled against them... and they no longer have a design that remotely resembles an iPhone.
Considering the cluster **** that this lawsuit has been,yes I think it’s more than fair to question the patent system
Except I'd argue they really haven't done that, at all. Smartphones never stopped looking like the iphone in general. And in the case of someone like Huawei, their shameless rip offs have gotten more brazen at points
For those who are actually interested in why this was sent back down by the Supreme Court:
The original infringement decision still stands. Instead, this is about using common sense and fairness when coming up with DESIGN patent infringement award amounts.
Here's what the SCOTUS ruling was about, and why it was an outcome that even Apple no doubt secretly wanted:
The way the District court had interpreted the design patent law (which had originated in 1887 as a Congressional favor to a carpet maker), was that every design patent was worth the ENTIRE profits of the infringing product. Even if it contributed very little.
What that meant was that even someone who only had a design patent on say, what a single cupholder looked like, could sue a car maker for ALL THEIR PROFITS. Do you think that is fair and right? No, of course not. In fact, about the only ones who think so, are designers. D'oh! No surprise there.
-- The overturned interpretation was extremely dangerous to every product maker, big or small:
But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Interpreting the law that way had far worse implications. You see, it theoretically meant that EACH DESIGN PATENT holder could try to claim ALL THE PROFITS. Wait, what? Yep.
Let's say Apple used five infringing design pieces. Each of the design patent holders could in theory ask for ALL of Apple's profits. So if Apple made $10 billion from its sales, it could have to pay out $50 billion, or far more than it made. And that's just five design patents.
Now imagine all the design patent trolls that would've sprung up suing Apple, each one claiming that they were owed ALL of Apple's profits for infringing. Each designer could ask for billions. Such an interpretation could lead to the demise of Apple, much less any other company.
So, doesn't it make more sense that awards should be sometimes be apportioned according to the contribution to the overall design? Yes, of course. Apple itself uses that argument constantly when it's being sued over utility patents.
-- The ruling simply says, the award does not automatically encompass the entire product. But it still can!
Note that the ruling does not say that the lower court cannot still decide that each infringing sale was totally due to a certain design patent. That is still possible.
All it says is that it should not be automatically assumed to.
Calculating an award based on a smaller contribution is now also allowed, just as is done already for utility patents.
Modern devices use tens of thousands of designs. The Supreme Court simply ruled that it was not okay for the lower court to tell the jury that all design patents are always worth up to all the profits.
The original infringement decision still stands. Instead, this is about using common sense and fairness when coming up with DESIGN patent infringement award amounts.
Here's what the SCOTUS ruling was about, and why it was an outcome that even Apple no doubt secretly wanted:
The way the District court had interpreted the design patent law (which had originated in 1887 as a Congressional favor to a carpet maker), was that every design patent was worth the ENTIRE profits of the infringing product. Even if it contributed very little.
What that meant was that even someone who only had a design patent on say, what a single cupholder looked like, could sue a car maker for ALL THEIR PROFITS. Do you think that is fair and right? No, of course not. In fact, about the only ones who think so, are designers. D'oh! No surprise there.
-- The overturned interpretation was extremely dangerous to every product maker, big or small:
But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Interpreting the law that way had far worse implications. You see, it theoretically meant that EACH DESIGN PATENT holder could try to claim ALL THE PROFITS. Wait, what? Yep.
Let's say Apple used five infringing design pieces. Each of the design patent holders could in theory ask for ALL of Apple's profits. So if Apple made $10 billion from its sales, it could have to pay out $50 billion, or far more than it made. And that's just five design patents.
Now imagine all the design patent trolls that would've sprung up suing Apple, each one claiming that they were owed ALL of Apple's profits for infringing. Each designer could ask for billions. Such an interpretation could lead to the demise of Apple, much less any other company.
So, doesn't it make more sense that awards should be sometimes be apportioned according to the contribution to the overall design? Yes, of course. Apple itself uses that argument constantly when it's being sued over utility patents.
-- The ruling simply says, the award does not automatically encompass the entire product. But it still can!
Note that the ruling does not say that the lower court cannot still decide that each infringing sale was totally due to a certain design patent. That is still possible.
All it says is that it should not be automatically assumed to.
Calculating an award based on a smaller contribution is now also allowed, just as is done already for utility patents.
Modern devices use tens of thousands of designs. The Supreme Court simply ruled that it was not okay for the lower court to tell the jury that all design patents are always worth up to all the profits.
Last edited:
How powerful is Apple's design? Ever phone maker today that makes money is using Apple's design, because every phone maker that makes money (and a bunch that don't) uses Android.
All the other smartphone designs are dead and gone. Before iOS, there were at least three: blackberry, WinMo, and Symbian. And there was PalmOS.
All the other smartphone designs are dead and gone. Before iOS, there were at least three: blackberry, WinMo, and Symbian. And there was PalmOS.
Customers, I mean average people on the street looking out for their wallets and who don’t go fan crazy over Samsung or Apple like they would over sports teams or Taylor Swift vs. Katy Perry, don’t give a rats patootie if Samsung copied Apple or Leonardo Da Vinci.
They want to know “Does the phone do what I need it to do at the price I can afford to spend.” For a lot of middle class and affluent Americans, the IPhone is the default choice because it’s what most of their friends are using. They don’t think much about it. That’s why one of the late night talk show hosts was able to fool so many people into thinking one of the older iPhones was a new iPhone last year.
I can guarantee none of my IPhone toting suburban soccer mom and dad peers knows there is even a lawsuit at all. If I were to bring it up in casual conversation they would look at me like I lost my ever loving mind. There are very, very few iPhone owners I can talk tech to.
I find that it is usually socially safe to bring up tech subjects to people who use Androids, because they had to do a bit of research and defy the default choice of many Americans and they are therefore more open to discussion of their phones, because they spend time on forums. Because a lot of them use Samsungs, don’t expect much sympathy for Apple’s situation.
Even the developers that work for my husband don’t give a rats patootie. Most of them were kids in middle school and high school when this all started. They don’t know the Apple we older people know. Nor remember Steve quite the same way and empathize with his fury at Samsung for what they did. That’s the problem, since this sprang up a whole generation has come of age. They take for granted smart phones have always had this form. They look at Huawei now with wide eyes and think Huawei are a bunch of innovators.
Now to the second part of your post, well sad to say I don’t see this lawsuit helping Apple against the Chinese, who continue blatantly copy Apple’s design language right down to the funky camera bumps. Again, there are now a new generation of fanboys and girls for those companies who will look right at a point for point chassis copy of an IPhone 7 Plus and post “Oh I don’t see any resemblance. Wow look at the specs you get for the price, Apple is doomed!”
I would love to see Apple stomp all over those copycats. It would be more of an example of the kind you’re talking about, because it’s happening now and is therefore more relevant. When it comes to the kind of optics you’re talking about, the general public has information overload and therefore has the attention span of a gnat. There are thousands of people displaced by floods and fires and earthquakes but if it doesn’t appear on their newsfeed daily, something else comes along that will consume our attention. Even I am a part of this phenomenon despite being aware of it.
If this case can set a precedent that would help Apple take on the Chinese copycats, so much the better. But it’s dragging on so long that too many people are going to lose empathy for how Apple was originally wronged.
Nowhere in your post do you indicate anything being an example. You said:
That "but" indicates two things: 1) that Samsung is a patent troll, since you constantly refer to "this case" and 2a) you're saying that the second thing is directly related to the first, or 2b) you're saying that the second thing is directly related to the first, but don't mean to.
A comma and conjunction don't set apart an example, they tie the second clause to the first by contrast.
Edit for clarity
Last edited:
How do you think Samsung feels about losing billions in processor sales to TSMC? And then having those billions go to a competitor, who now have additional resources (revenue) to expand their production and push their processes/fabs forward?
I wouldn’t count LG out. People said TSMC wouldn’t be able to ramp up to meet Apples demands (especially when Apple had to dual-source from both Samsung and TSMC for the A9) and look where they are today.
Like any company, they probably didn't like it. Who wants to lose business? But also like any company, they adjusted and looked for alternate opportunities, like OLED and NAND.
I'm not counting LG out. I'm saying LG has an issue with small panel production. If anecdotes about the Pixel are true, it could be more than a small issue. They're going to have to get their quality sorted before Apple uses them for panels.
iPhone OS is spiritual successor of Palm OS who happened to hold the design patent on Application Icon Grid.
Palm OS even had App dock like behavior with 4 app shortcuts that had their own hardware buttons. iOS just switched those hardware buttons for on screen dock at the bottom.
Battery icon and clock on the header? Palm OS.
All the default apps that came with original iPhone OS came straight from Palm OS.
Someone had to thought of all that as well before Apple adopted it as standard for iPhone OS.
Palm OS even had App dock like behavior with 4 app shortcuts that had their own hardware buttons. iOS just switched those hardware buttons for on screen dock at the bottom.
Battery icon and clock on the header? Palm OS.
All the default apps that came with original iPhone OS came straight from Palm OS.
Someone had to thought of all that as well before Apple adopted it as standard for iPhone OS.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple's over six year old legal battle with Samsung for copying the iPhone's design is headed back to court yet again.
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Sunday ordered that a new trial is required to determine whether Apple's $399 million award for Samsung's design patent infringement should stand or whether a new damages trial is required.
Apple and Samsung have until Wednesday to propose a retrial date, according to intellectual property analyst Florian Mueller, but he believes there is about a 30 percent chance the two parties could settle out of court before then.
The lawsuit dates back to 2011, when Apple successfully sued Samsung for infringing upon the iPhone's patented design, including its rectangular front face with rounded edges and grid of colorful icons on a black screen.
Apple's damages were awarded based on Samsung's entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones, but Samsung argued that the amount should be a percentage based on individual components like the front bezel or display.
Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that the U.S. Court of Appeals reconsider the damages amount that Samsung owes.
Apple's statement at the time:Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, and over 100 other top designers backed Apple last year, arguing the iPhone maker is entitled to all profits Samsung has earned from infringing designs. They cited a 1949 study stating that more than 99 percent of Americans could identify a bottle of Coca-Cola by shape alone.
Apple was initially awarded nearly $1 billion in damages, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million. The amount was eventually lowered to $399 million in subsequent retrials.
Article Link: Apple's Lengthy Lawsuit With Samsung Over Copying iPhone's Design Headed Back to Court
Job Security....for Lawyers
Sam Semicondonductor being "different" is typical Cupertino-spin against becoming dependant on its former nuclear enemy. Both run under the same consolidated financial regime, led by the same Corporate Board deciding in strategic issues that surpass individual operating companies (...)
And Apple didn't outsell Samsung in 2016/2017 - it's the other way around:
https://developer.omnis.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Global_Smartphone_Sales_Infographic1.png
and if they're in different league's, then explain what separates those league's.
I am afraid your opinions are slightly Apple PR-biased.
Based on their current relationship, with Apple the most dependable, Apple'd better drop the case.
And because it doesn't, my duopoly theory (where a prolonged courtcase is to deny a collaboration that serves them better) still holds.
Last edited:
Apple needs to go back to suing MS too. There are tons of stuff with fluent design MS took from Apple:
It's one thing where you copy functionality because of the 'one possible way of expressing a particular idea'. But it's another when you copy the aesthetics too. They even added rubber banding.
It's one thing where you copy functionality because of the 'one possible way of expressing a particular idea'. But it's another when you copy the aesthetics too. They even added rubber banding.
I hear this BS a lot from Apple fans for some reason. They are different divisions, but they ultimately answer to the same boss. They are different parts to the same body. They will never see outsider like Apple as something better than their own. Their mobile display was created solely to support and as a show case to their mobile division, just like their Eyxnos SOC. Anything they sell to the outsiders are just icing on the cake.
Samsung already paid. Any change would be a rebate from Apple.
It's not about the money. They (and the majority of the technical world) just want design patent awards to make sense in a modern world where one product can have thousands of patents involved, instead of blindly following a hundred year old rule that was originally intended to protect a carpet and wallpaper maker whose products included only a single design patent.
As for multiple times in court, you must not have ever followed the lengthy Apple appeals when THEY are hit with an infringement penalty
It's far too late for Apple in either case. The damage was done 7 years ago, and Samsung already became a leader by copying them.
[doublepost=1508778646][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1508778646][/doublepost]
Huawei just needs to die. They've been doing this stuff since their beginning, except with Cisco back then.
Not quite.
Just because you're making a product means nothing in itself. Me as a one man band may have a patent on a process but I might not have the money to get it off the ground, (at the moment). It doesn't entitle some big conglomerate to ignore the rules and start making it for me.
Honestly, if it isn't iPhone no matter how similar it looks to the original latest iPhone, I don't want it because if it's NOT iOS X then it's an Android base just like any other non 'iPhone' cell phones. iPhone has an Apple logo which means iOSX, plain and simple. I don't give a damn if Samsung duplicated, cloned the casing, Samsung will NOT put an Apple logo as their branding. And because it's going to be some form of Samsung branding, it automatically is an android Operating system which I am NOT a fan of. WOULD NOT try to touch with a 1,000 foot pole with. I despise it. I don't want to ever learn about Android operating system. I'm just content with iOS X and I do whole lot of things with it. If one prefers Android, great, that's their thing, certainly NOT mine.
I'm quite happy that all my devices just works, makes me very productive, has made me lucrative with it. All the Apple devices I'm using are ALL WORKING FLAWLESSLY together and each other. I love it all. I pretty much have it all, AppleWatch 3 data, iPhone 7 (Soon to be iPhone X), MacBook Pro 15", iPad Pro 10" with pencil and keyboard case, iPad 3. Incidentally, I use both iPad Pro and iPad 3 as my dual monitor to my MacBook pro and that is just sooo awesome and convenient when I'm at starbucks working on my graphic designs and web designs. Everything just works! Nothing to tinker with the troubles like windows 10 and android. My business partner is a web app programmer, he's a PC and Android user. He spends some level of time having to wonder what's going on with his windows not working in certain ways and have to waste time to adjust it, his latest samsung adroid, he would have to tinker with it every now and then. I never had to deal with any technical issues. I learn to use the productive software and I work away productively without missing a beat. That's Apple. Just saying. And I'm not technical guy. Just an artist that expects devices to work flawless through out the day. Time is money.
I'm quite happy that all my devices just works, makes me very productive, has made me lucrative with it. All the Apple devices I'm using are ALL WORKING FLAWLESSLY together and each other. I love it all. I pretty much have it all, AppleWatch 3 data, iPhone 7 (Soon to be iPhone X), MacBook Pro 15", iPad Pro 10" with pencil and keyboard case, iPad 3. Incidentally, I use both iPad Pro and iPad 3 as my dual monitor to my MacBook pro and that is just sooo awesome and convenient when I'm at starbucks working on my graphic designs and web designs. Everything just works! Nothing to tinker with the troubles like windows 10 and android. My business partner is a web app programmer, he's a PC and Android user. He spends some level of time having to wonder what's going on with his windows not working in certain ways and have to waste time to adjust it, his latest samsung adroid, he would have to tinker with it every now and then. I never had to deal with any technical issues. I learn to use the productive software and I work away productively without missing a beat. That's Apple. Just saying. And I'm not technical guy. Just an artist that expects devices to work flawless through out the day. Time is money.
Sorry, I said flagships in my earlier post. Most of those phones Samsung sold are $50-100 low end devices. Only a fraction are models like the S8 or Note 8. Apple doesn’t play in the sub $100 phone market where Samsung gets most of their sales. As I stated before, iPhone slaughters Galaxy S and Note sales.
And sorry, divisions within companies ARE typically operated separately. If one division is losing money, it will get spun off or sold outright as opposed to sucking money from other profitable divisions.
This is such a joke. We all know Samsung is one of Apple's most important suppliers. Can we all stop pretending there is a conflict here?