Court Rejects Samsung's Latest Appeal in Patent Case

[aloshka]

You should see Samsung's new Apple Watch......competitor:

Are you kidding? Did apple officially patent the square and circle shapes? WTF, I think if Samsung would release something completely off the wall different, people would say... well it uses glass. That's copying apple. Stop it fanboys!!

I love Apple, but man, stop worshiping them. It's not god, it's not love, it's a damn device that is designed to help you through the day.

 

[Taz Mangus]

An Enthusiast isn't a hardcore, blind supporter though. Take the Gear S2 Smartwatch's OS. It has circular icons, but still some people think that Samsung copied Apple. Why? Because of circular icons? Without even looking at how the OS operates, an assumption was made with supporters who agree. It's just as ridiculous as it sounds, but still people tend to agree with it.

But then again, Android users do it too with their "Apple just got that feature. We've had this feature since Gingerbread..." or something.

I wish there was a site where people who loved technology could just talk ... without there being any sort of divisions between iOS and Android, OSX and Windows (and Linux)...

Go find one and let us know when you do.

 

[aloshka]

So to those that just came to the thread, let me summarize.

Apple has innovated and invented the following:

1. The circle
2. The square
3. White box of any shape
4. Circular icons
5. The phone icon
6. All envelope images
7. The picture of a human finger print and most likely innovated the fingerprint itself
8. Glass
9. They created aluminum, the element
10. Round edges of any kind
11. The touch screen
12. Pixels
13. Pixels that are packed together (officially tilted retina)
14. USB-C

Samsung has used most of these elements, like squares and they also did circles (IKR). They also represented a human fingerprint with a fingerprint image instead of a hexagon shaped dinosaur. They also did not pay royalties on the aluminum element. Worst company ever IMO.

For those that are not morons, Samsung does copy and take design cues from Apple. Sometimes overly so, and in the last few years they got hit with this hard. More than the lawsuit, their sales are down. I wouldn't be surprised if it's because their phones are starting to look like cheap knockoffs instead of flagship phones.

 

[aloshka]

I wish there was a site where people who loved technology could just talk ... without there being any sort of divisions between iOS and Android, OSX and Windows (and Linux)...

That would be nice. But I'd think you'd have to restrict it to people that own both types of devices and are open minded either direction. There are a ton of pros on both sides and both sides have made some impressive innovations.

 

[JackANSI]

If I were in charge of Apple, I would announce that all the money Apple would get from the suit would be given directly to charity. The harder Samsung would fight, the worse they will look in some people's eyes. Samsung would still be out money they need, Apple looks like a pretty big hero. Besides it's not like Apple has been short 500 mil and needs this to stay afloat...

 

[paulsdenton]

The legal fees in this matter must be approaching the amount at issue. Obviously there's more than money at stake for both companies. Reminds me of Dickens' Bleak House Jarndyce vs Jarndyce. The lawsuit has taken on a life of its own.

 

[Keirasplace]

Watches used to be round because of the mechanical movement inside. Digital watches have been squarish since day 1. The point here is not to look at how watches were made historically and make new watches that resemble that design style, but to look a bit further at what people actually do with the device. Smartwatches are used now to do much more than to just tell time. For 90% of the functions of a smartwatch, a square design makes more sense.

The round smartwatches that are on the market build on that old "a watch is supposed to be round" principle, but reviews from most of the reputed sites have shown that the round interface does the actual functionality not much good. But hey, at least it is round right?

Actually, even in 1919, a few years watches appeared, there were square models from luxury makers. Square and rectangular models were very popular in the 1920s-1930 also. There isn't inherently right about round watches; they have been mostly round for fashion reason more than practical reason for most of their existence.

Square models also have been very popular in women's watches almost continuously (because they can be made to look like bracelets that way). The reason watches came in round initially is because they were adaptations of pocket watch making equipment; so, to save money...

 

[apolloa]

So to those that just came to the thread, let me summarize.

Apple has innovated and invented the following:

1. The circle
2. The square
3. White box of any shape
4. Circular icons
5. The phone icon
6. All envelope images
7. The picture of a human finger print and most likely innovated the fingerprint itself
8. Glass
9. They created aluminum, the element
10. Round edges of any kind
11. The touch screen
12. Pixels
13. Pixels that are packed together (officially tilted retina)
14. USB-C

Samsung has used most of these elements, like squares and they also did circles (IKR). They also represented a human fingerprint with a fingerprint image instead of a hexagon shaped dinosaur. They also did not pay royalties on the aluminum element. Worst company ever IMO.

For those that are not morons, Samsung does copy and take design cues from Apple. Sometimes overly so, and in the last few years they got hit with this hard. More than the lawsuit, their sales are down. I wouldn't be surprised if it's because their phones are starting to look like cheap knockoffs instead of flagship phones.

oh! Excuse me but they damn well copied the colours Black and White that Apple invented!!! Get it right sheesh....

Sarcasm for those that don't get it.






Anyway to copy the posting style of MANY people on here::::

The iPhone before the Galaxy Note:

iPhone after the Galaxy Note::

Yeah, Apple copying.

Sure the first Galaxy copied Apple, and those circle icon colours on that new Watch they've made do seem to resemble the Apple Watch circle colours, but the copying door DEFINITELY swings BOTH ways when to comes to Apple.

 

[HenryDJP]

If I were in charge of Apple, I would announce that all the money Apple would get from the suit would be given directly to charity. The harder Samsung would fight, the worse they will look in some people's eyes. Samsung would still be out money they need, Apple looks like a pretty big hero. Besides it's not like Apple has been short 500 mil and needs this to stay afloat...

You do realize there's no "one person" that's in charge of Apple right? The CEO deals with the decision making, true, but he's part of a board of directors that have a say in how the company is ran. They can also vote the CEO right out of the company by way of their voting shares. So thank heavens you're not "in charge" of Apple. You'd be out of a job in a quick second.

 

[JackANSI]

You do realize there's no "one person" that's in charge of Apple right? The CEO deals with the decision making, true, but he's part of a board of directors that have a say in how the company is ran. They can also vote the CEO right out of the company by way of their voting shares. So thank heavens you're not "in charge" of Apple. You'd be out of a job in a quick second.

That's the best you got? Sounds like someone is a little bitter about AAPL being down..

 

[kdarling]

The argument made by Facebook, Google, and others is that the aspects of Samsung's products that infringed on Apple's patents is only a small part of the value of Samsung's profits and it's unreasonable to set a judgement as if all the value came from Samsung's profits.

Out of all the posts in the thread, this is about the only one that understands what the actual topic is.

A lot of posters seem to to mistakenly think that companies are arguing against patent infringement awards. That's not it at all. Samsung was found to infringe, and thus is monetarily liable.

Instead, it's about the fact that an old law... applicable to design patents ONLY, and passed to help two brothers making rugs over 130 years ago... is still on the books, and allows giving the entire profits of an infringer to the holder of a single design patent, no matter how little it contributes to a product.

This might've made some sense back then when a product often only contained a single patent. But nowadays devices like TVs, smartphones and tablets are composed of thousands of patented pieces.

And when Apple has been sued, it's made this argument.

Exactly. When Apple is sued, they've done the same thing as Samsung: claim that the contribution of the patent that Apple infringed is small. It's the natural thing to do.

The biggest problem with Apple wanting a share of profits, is that this same law could come back and bite Apple, too. People moan about trolls now for tiny utility patents; imagine the potential rewards for a design patent troll since they could potentially gain all of Apple's profits for a single infringement.

--

Common sense tells most people that an award should be commensurate with the amount an infringed patent contributed to sales. And that is how is how it's done with utility patents, like slide to unlock. But not with design patents, which gives them power beyond their contribution.

Even the previous Appeals Court did not disagree, but simply said their hands were tied, unless Congress updates the law:

"(Law Professors giving supporting documents) 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

Why Silicon Valley’s giants are supporting Samsung in its patent fight with Apple - The Washington Post

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Their box and stuff is white! Apple has white stuff now! The fingerprint setup shows a fingerprint and instructions? WTF, thieves! They should throw a foot or something stupid in that setup screen! That keyboard looks straight Apple with the number row and the case shifting. Light themes are so Apple! Apple introduced suggestions too! I'm so heated about these multinational companies stealing from each other on the reg to stay on what consumer expectations become over time! But only if it's not Apple stealing.

Ok, I'll admit...that was amusing.

 

[AlecZ]

In other words, the US Supreme Court just gave the finger to samsung, google, Facebook and all those idiotic companies that sided with samsung.

It wasn't idiotic for them to side with Samsung, just skeevy. As usual, they'll all try to steal from the big guy and give some bogus explanation about "Apple stifling innovation". Samsung et al. stole from iOS so much that iOS-like systems became the standard.

 

[AlecZ]

No shame. Samsung did not have any legal basis for this appeal. They copy, steal and lie about it. And that's why I don't buy anything with their brand name on it.

I don't buy anything with their name on it because their stuff sucks. Good enough reason right there.

 

[duffman9000]

Even the previous Appeals Court did not disagree, but simply said their hands were tied, unless Congress updates the law:

"(Law Professors giving supporting documents) 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

Why Silicon Valley’s giants are supporting Samsung in its patent fight with Apple - The Washington Post

Show me the Samsung lobbyists that are pushing for patent reform. Samsung has tens of thousands of patents and has been sued many times over patents from many different types of companies and has established behavior of stalling. It's a game these big companies like to play.

 

[HenryDJP]

That's the best you got? Sounds like someone is a little bitter about AAPL being down..

Sigh, very typical. When someone (me) presents a valid argument to a person totally ignorant to a situation (you) then you come back with some childish nonsense reply.

"If I were in charge of Apple......." Oy vey. Pretty easy to tell the age level of some people here and their lack of knowledge about business.

 

[notabadname]

"arguing that forcing Samsung to turn over profits from devices that infringed Apple patents would stifle innovation"

One of the most moronic statements I've seen. Translated: Making us pay penalties for copying other products instead of innovating and creating a unique product (and more consumer choice) of our own, stifles us from our business model (copying), ummmmm, we mean from innovating.

I'm sorry, I just find that statement absolutely hilarious.

 

[shyam09]

"arguing that forcing Samsung to turn over profits from devices that infringed Apple patents would stifle innovation"

One of the most moronic statements I've seen. Translated: Making us pay penalties for copying other products instead of innovating and creating a unique product (and more consumer choice) of our own, stifles us from our business model (copying), ummmmm, we mean from innovating.

I'm sorry, I just find that statement absolutely hilarious.

 

[Everett96]

I don't understand why the Lawsuit is against Samsung and not anyone else. Are they the only ones who infringed on Apple's patents? It seems like just about any android phone out there is in someway copying the iPhone....

 

[AlecZ]

If I were in charge of Apple, I would announce that all the money Apple would get from the suit would be given directly to charity.

I don't think the public would fall for that.

 

[peterdevries]

Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense. A company innovates to differentiate its product from a competitor's. You can't copy someone else's work for the period of the patent...you have to innovate. That's the whole point.

Patents are intended to protect the inventor and to allow them to earn their investments into the invention back. Patents are not intended to avoid the entry of competitors within the same market with similar products.

The point that I'm making is that of course patents should protect against direct copying of specific functions or designs, but the specific product should still be subject to a certain amount of imitation or inventing around the patent (that is what they call the copying of a function using the original patent to find out what the limitations of the patent are) . This is what actually happens everywhere around us and it drives competition and innovation. If Apple would be the only smartphone maker and wouldn't be under constant attack from Google and Samsung, then we would not have remotely the same device as we currently have.

A great example is the car industry (even though I know everyone hates car analogies). This is an industry which generates a monstrous amount of patents every year. Yet all cars look the same and function the same. Each function gets copied in some way, making each of the producers run very hard to continue to innovate. An example is the bumper sensor for the rear door of the car. You wave a foot under your bumper and the door opens, so you can place your groceries in your car without putting them on the floor first. It took about a year for all major car makers to implement this function. All are based on slightly different technical concepts, but ultimately have the same effect.

 

[peterdevries]

I find it ironic that a lot of fanboys say that's copied from apple too, not sure how.

Source for that statement? I have never seen anyone here or on any other major Apple site claim that.

 

[mi7chy]

Considering larger iPhones with upcoming iOS 9 split view, PiP, etc. will be a mirror image of the 2012 Galaxy Note II the right thing for the court to do is drop the silly case but it won't happen because the court doesn't like to appear wrong and the judges' retirement 401K is heavily invested in AAPL stocks.

 

[grkm3]

Oh snap the main patent apple is using against Samsung just got thrown out the patent office and is now invalid.

US Patent Office Overturns Infamous Apple iPhone Design Patent, Samsung May Not Be Paying Apple Much After All!

http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/0...msung-may-not-be-paying-apple-much-after-all/

 

[ChazUK]

All this talk of copying round icons on the watch screen, I can't help but feel that their inspiration had been influenced from their South Korean competition, LG with their WebOS powered Urbane.

This was used in the LG QuickView window on the LG G3.