Jury Rules Samsung Must Pay Apple $290 Million in Damages Retrial

[gnasher729]

Plus Apple will eventually have to pay Samsung royalties and interest for the standards essential patents that Apple has been using for years without payment so far.

"Fair and reasonable" royalties.

It should also be noted that Samsung wouldn't have accepted any payment below the rate that they want, because that would be a big problem for them in court. "We want $2 billion". "But you already accepted $10 million, so that's that". (Obviously an extreme example, but it shows the problem).

Same as Nokia eventually received fair and reasonable royalties, and it may have been a much bigger number than Nokia expected because Apple sold an awful lot of iPhones.

----------

They didn't steal anything from Xerox. ALTO was shown to more than 2000 people by the time Jobs has seen it. Not to mention Jobs already traded 10000 APPL shares before the IPO to Xerox in return of the rights of the visit. So they were entitled to use any of the ideas they liked. PARC was more like a scientific lab where people had ideas about computing and those ideas weren't really a big secret. So obviously it had a big effect on most computer projects, including the mac, since most computer pioneers have seen what's being done there.

It's well known that Adele Goldberg protested quite heavily. She thought that Xerox was making a huge mistake for letting Jobs and his engineers in (for a generous payment), and quite possibly she was right. But fact is that Apple paid to be allowed in, and Xerox top management fully agreed to it. (I think the payment was permission to buy $10,000,000 worth of pre-IPO AAPL shares. Which would probably be worth a few billion if Xerox had kept them). But it is also a fact that Xerox didn't have many of the features that Apple created. There's the story of Bill Atkinson implementing overlapping windows because he was absolutely sure that he had seen them at PARC - turned out he was wrong, and the PARC guys had no overlapping windows because they thought it was too hard to do.

Similar, Microsoft was allowed to copy much of Apple's GUI because someone at Apple had actually signed a contract that allowed them to do it. Which was probably also a mistake.

 

[AppleMark]

Haha. I never get why developing a tightly integrated tool (hardware and OS), and a focus on usability and utility to enable users to achieve the best possible result as quickly and painlessly as possible, is considered a sign of "1984" tendencies on the part of Apple...

While Google is the ultimate BigBrother!

Yeah, it's so "BigBrother" for Apple to essentially say,

"Thou shalt not (or at least you are advised not to) use thy screwdriver as a hammer; please remember that however ubiquitous nails are, it's not a great idea to pound screws into things -- it's not good for the screw, the tool or the project requiring them. You will get better mileage and results out of using products and tools in their intended capacities. Otherwise, knock yourself out and buy a hammer. Hey, get a sledge hammer -- it's not real usable, but the specs say you can pound just about anything with it and make a real impact!"​

Please stop confusing and conflating the products, tools and intended uses of things with real 1984 issues of identity and the tracking of personal activities and habits. Give me a break.

Do you have a better and more concise example of an analogy? One without the melodrama and frustration denoted by your needless use of exclamation marks?

Anyway, you are probably describing Job's controlling personality disorder more than Apple itself, in why the platform is closed. If Steve Job's had his way we would not have had any 3rd party Apps' as he did not want to 'pollute' the 'integrity' of the OS.

Fair enough you could say. Yet every good dictator tells their people (when given no choice), that they are doing it for the good of the masses.

So nothing in Apple's software can take advantage of tracking you, noting your habits etc? What about controlling your hardware upgrade pattens though the unreasonable withdrawal of software support of hardware only a year or so old? Funny how "Jailbreakers" can often get those yearly updates [Sorry - 'innovations'], to work on those 'old and obsolete' devices.

Hmm, interesting and how very naive. Just because one Company does this on a larger scale (with no shame), or is open about it (gets caught at it) does not make the other superior.

Also, and very crucially, the freedom and personal expression of creativity is in the results you can achieve and goals you can accomplish with the tool; not in the personalizing of the tool itself, with little, mediocre or undifferentiated output to show for it. Yay, let's all get unrestricted and personalizable tools... so that our painful output and the results we finally achieve look just like everyone else's crappy results. That'll teach people to think different! Because, hey, "I" can do "anything" I want with my Android! Power to the people! LOL ...Such a misplaced sense of "freedom" and "creative expression", that it's laughable if it wasn't so pathetic, demoralizing and soul-destroying.

Yes, Henry Ford had the same thought process when he released the Model T. I am sure he is spinning in his grave watching Snoop Dog drive by in his Pimped-up ride.

But then who said that Android was an expression of freedom? Not me. You are confusing yourself again...

I merely posted regarding choice, not what was better. Choice is subjective, did you know that? Or has Apple not told you that yet?

I also posted my the opinion that choice has no real impact on, or caused anybody to "question our design skills in a way they never used to.". Nobody who mattered bought into it anyway, as the payout is much lower than predicted. So what is your gripe here?

Some of you guy's take everything posted so literally and unable to appreciate loose analogies. You are so rigid in your thinking, have you considered getting yourself checked out...? LOL

 

[CrazyNurse]

Apple will pay all this money back to Samsung in the end, all the components, memory, processor FABS and screens.

If nobody else can make a decent screen then they will have to keep going back and paying Samsung to do it.

who's the real winner ?

That's the funny thing about all this. Samsung can continue to crib design elements and features from Apple--but Apple needs Samsung.

If I were Samsung, I would just raise component prices charged to Apple to recoup the settlement payout.

 

[entatlrg]

Samsung ... disgusting, corrupt, knock off king of companies ... I wish them the worst ... proud to not own any Samsung branded products... that's all!

 

[CrazyNurse]

Apple should donate the proceeds to SRI and Xerox -- where they stole all their ideas from.

Just because you own a patent on it doesn't mean you invented it.

Apple's donation practices are atrocious and shameful.

Outside of their Red products, they do nothing significant for the world besides bless us all with their superior design prowess.

 

[kdarling]

"Fair and reasonable" royalties.

"Reasonable royalty" is also supposed to be the base for patent infringement awards, in cases where lost sales are not allowed.

This is where Apple's deals with Nokia and HTC should come into play. We know that Apple cross-licensed some smartphone IP with Nokia, and ALL such IP with HTC (*). In theory, those rates should be used to help determine what an actual "reasonable royalty" is... NOT what Apple claims in court.

The awards that these juries give, seem excessive for what those few utility patents should be worth on their own as part of the overall device. E.g. if Apple gets $10 per device for use of ALL their patents, why should they get $4 to $24 per device as an award for just five (rather flaky) patents?

(*) Ironically, even though HTC has full access to using Apple's patents, it has not helped them sell more devices.

 

[Terrin]

I want to see the breakdown award per patent.

Remember, this trial was only over 21 million Samsung phones and a few hundred thousand original tablets.

And the utility patents were about minor software features that Samsung hasn't infringed on in well over a year now.

What a strange world where software fluff... unnecessary to make a phone... is supposedly worth a large award per device, while essential radio patents with real R&D investment behind them are claimed to be worth only pennies.

Judge Posner was right. Untrained judges and juries should not decide technical patent matters, and software patents need to either disappear or be highly time limited.

Posner might be right, but your point does not mean very much. I recently heard a group of surgeons complaining that they only made a few hundred thousand dollars a year compared to the millions a year made by top sport and entertainment people. People are largely paid by what others are willing to pay for their work not necessarily the skill set or time developing the skill that is at issue.

The reality is that the software features are generally what the public sees and understands. It is what gives the hardware individuality, and therefore much of the value. Moreover, most of the radio patents are standard essential patents whereby companies saved a lot of money by not having to duke it out with various companies with competing standards. Companies like Apple are not required to license the non-standard essential patents, and that therefore makes them more valuable.

Further, Apple has always been about making products that stand out in the market place. Namely, products that look, work, and feel different. Samsung, has undermined Apple by copying all those aspects of Apple's game plan. Taking features, and willing to pay the price later. I am surprised the verdict is so small. After this trial the judge should treble the damages as Samsugn admitted to willing copying the features.

 

[Terrin]

"Reasonable royalty" is also supposed to be the base for patent infringement awards, in cases where lost sales are not allowed.

This is where Apple's deals with Nokia and HTC should come into play. We know that Apple cross-licensed some smartphone IP with Nokia, and ALL such IP with HTC (*). In theory, those rates should be used to help determine what an actual "reasonable royalty" is... NOT what Apple claims in court.

The awards that these juries give, seem excessive for what those few utility patents should be worth on their own as part of the overall device. E.g. if Apple gets $10 per device for use of ALL their patents, why should they get $4 to $24 per device as an award for just five (rather flaky) patents?

(*) Ironically, even though HTC has full access to using Apple's patents, it has not helped them sell more devices.

For non-standard essential patents Apple is not required to license the patents at all. It is perfectly acceptable for it to discriminate and license to one party at a certain rate, another at another rate, and to another party not at all.

If we were taking about standard essential patents, I think looking at licensing deals with competitors would certainly be relevant because the licensor must offer the patent at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. So, when Samsung asks Apple for a 2.5 percent royalty rate on the purchase price of every iPhone for standard essential patents, it is reasonable for Samsung to have to show Apple other contracts where it is receiving that rate. Of course, Samsung and other such companies like Motorola have refused to do so because they are not receiving those rates from anybody. Often time the radio manufacturer paid the licensing rate on behalf of its customers like Apple.

I do not see the Nokia and HTC deals being relevant at all because since the patents are not SEPs, Apple can treat HTC and Nokia differently. It might have different strategic reasons for treating licensors differently.

----------

Plus Apple will eventually have to pay Samsung royalties and interest for the standards essential patents that Apple has been using for years without payment so far.

Maybe not. The first jury in California found that Apple did not violate Samsung's standard essential patents by virtual of Apple's patent exhaustion defense. Namely, the price of the license for Samsung's SEPs was included in the purchase price paid to whomever Apple bought the radios from. So, if that stands up on appeal, Apple will not have to pay anything for those SEPs.

 

[rtomyj]

I am not missing any point, my point was made clear in my first post. But in answer to your off-my-topic grumblings and to clarify:

Did Samsung infringe on Apple patents in order to evolve it's tech line, or copy another concept or idea? Well, a court has decided so and levied what it feels is the appropriate penalty.

Do I think Samsung did the above? Well, yes in line with the law on patents.

Do I believe that Apple suffered (and pertaining to my original post), in that it caused people to "question our design skills in a way they never used to."? No, that is a poor argument clear to see. So clear in fact that the court did not buy it either, if the much lower final settlement is anything to go by.

Has Apple ever infringed on patents in order to evolve it's tech line, or copied another concept or idea? Do really need me to answer that.... The fact that they are a Billon $ company which settles most of it's issues before entering a Court room, does not mean that they do not or have never breached patents. These days they just buy the company who's tech they want, as it is cheaper in the long run than being sued.

I know that may have beed a wrong answer for you, as it seems that you wish to continue on a straw-man basis and wish me to detail every patent dispute. Well I am not going to do that, as if you are as informed as you make out you are, you should know already.

Also, people with no background on phones will buy what meets their requirements. When I bought my iPhone in 2007, this was something I was eagerly waiting for, as a long term Mac user and iPod user with a .Mac account. I made an informed decision.

However, there were people who bought an iPhone and did not know what it did other than a iPod-Phone. There were many more people who thought that I was an idiot, to pay so much money for my original iPhone (who's to say they were not right). However, they made an informed decision [not to buy an iPhone, so they were aware of Apple] to wait until somebody else made a similar phone which met their budgets and requirements.



It continues to amuse me why my throw away footnote rankles with you so much. Especially, as you continue to feel it was some kind of defence because I cannot defend my own post's.

I can only conclude that it bothers you so much because you took it more personally than it was meant, because of it perhaps related to you more than anybody else on this forum. Given that you are the only respondent.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings....

Disclaimer: The views held by the OP are not intended to hurt the feelings of others. However the OP does not care if this disclaimer, in itself upsets others.

I don't think I've ever said that Apple didn't infringe, so the speech made no sense.

I'll drop it, but I will continue to say that your missing the point. From working at a phone shop I know people are idiots. You can pretty much sell them any phone and they'll be like, "cool here you go" (hands over money).

So the Apple guy (forgot his name) says that them infringing made customers question Apples designs. Right?

Alright so Samsung uses Apples design. They advertise it. Customers are know like, "oh look. Like Apple but cheaper". Then you have samsung bash the Apple consumer. People will then be, "Hmm only old people, sheeps, etc" (gotta be honest I didn't know what Samsungs commercials were trying to make fun of since waiting in line for a product is very well for a company, and teenagers don't have business needs for a phone (I'm 20 and I don't have business needs for a phone)). This gets People questioning Apples design, no?

And yes, it hurts my feelings so bad when you defend yourself prejudgment # #. This guy ladies and gentleman.

 

[kdarling]

They didn't steal anything from Xerox. ALTO was shown to more than 2000 people by the time Jobs has seen it. Not to mention Jobs already traded 10000 APPL shares before the IPO to Xerox in return of the rights of the visit. So they were entitled to use any of the ideas they liked.

It's well known that Adele Goldberg protested quite heavily. She thought that Xerox was making a huge mistake for letting Jobs and his engineers in (for a generous payment), and quite possibly she was right. But fact is that Apple paid to be allowed in, and Xerox top management fully agreed to it. (I think the payment was permission to buy $10,000,000 worth of pre-IPO AAPL shares. Which would probably be worth a few billion if Xerox had kept them).

According to Xerox, Apple did not pay for the right to use Xerox's ideas.

Apple had offered Xerox the right to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock in return for a visit. Later on, Xerox paid about $1.5 million for the stock and then eventually sold it for about $6 million. Xerox was okay with that exchange.

When Apple later sued other companies for royalties on GUIs, Xerox sued Apple for trying to make money off the ideas they'd shared:

"Xerox contends that the Lisa and Macintosh software stems from work originally done by Xerox scientists and that it was used by Apple without permission."

"Xerox contends that Apple ''intentionally and purposefully concealed'' the derivation of the Lisa and Macintosh software from Xerox software. It said that Apple's copyrights on Lisa and Macintosh software were invalid and that the company had unjustly received benefits that rightfully belong to Xerox."

- New York Times

But it is also a fact that Xerox didn't have many of the features that Apple created. There's the story of Bill Atkinson implementing overlapping windows because he was absolutely sure that he had seen them at PARC - turned out he was wrong, and the PARC guys had no overlapping windows because they thought it was too hard to do.

I think you meant rounded windows. Xerox already had the ability to do overlapping windows, but they were turned off because they noticed that users immediately rearranged their windows to be tiled, so they decided to make that mode the default. Later, they allowed the user to choose.

It's true that Apple (or rather, the engineers they hired from Xerox) continued to refine the GUI they had been working on, adding niceties like pulldown menus (they already had popup menus)... but the basic ideas were there and quite recognizable:

 

[MacBram]

Yes, Henry Ford had the same thought process when he released the Model T. I am sure he is spinning in his grave watching Snoop Dog drive by in his Pimped-up ride.

But then who said that Android was an expression of freedom? Not me. You are confusing yourself again...

I merely posted regarding choice, not what was better. Choice is subjective, did you know that? Or has Apple not told you that yet?

I don't know what your gripe is, but I am pretty sure I was responding to a very, very specific part of your post (you know, the part I quoted):

"He was probably upset that the consumer dare think:
2. Hey..., it uses an OS which is not controlled and restricted at times like something out of 1984."​

I don't even know if you agree with your #2 that you attributed to someone else. But I chose to comment on that specific sentiment, because it comes up a lot.

IE, that Apple users somehow define themselves by their narrow choice in some effort to appear cool, while Android users are merely exercising some kind of unfettered freedom in their choice, or not. While Android users go on and on about what they can do with the one Android device they chose, as though it has the attributes of all. While conveniently forgetting exactly who the real BigBrother is.

"But then who said that Android was an expression of freedom [sic]? Not me. You are confusing yourself again..."​

Hmmm, I don't know if you have even read 1984, but it's all about freedom of personal expression. In fact, that is why reference to 1984 is even invoked. And I am sure there is some allusion to Apple's famous SuperBowl ad in your post.

I was just contending, once again, that the average Android user's common perception of freedom and creative expression (as I outlined) seems to centre around a feeling that he is allowed to do something with his device. Never mind whether this "something" is even practicable or produces anything interesting. This to me seems limited and short-sighted, and rather sad.

Rather, freedom and creative expression are better represented by a desire to have the tool that can help you just get on and do something... accomplish a goal, perform a task, produce a result. Whether that is the developer who creates some amazing new audio app with a game-changing interface, or the DJ or Composer who uses that app to produce an award-winning performance, or "just" a student who wants to learn a trade.

Now, you might have a point about Model-T's if they came in stainless steel and you could snap on a new cover every day of the week. Certainly, if every other car started to look like it because it just couldn't be improved upon and the very representation of it defined "car", then you could assume that Ford did something right.

However, Ford did greatly influence manufacturing processes, assembly techniques and supply chain management -- for most industry since. Plus, Ford remains a good choice to this day, while other companies have since come and gone. All in all, a comparison to Ford could be worse.

"Choice is subjective, did you know that? Or has Apple not told you that yet?"

Ahh, and there it is again. Choice is great! Bully for you. Did it never occur to you that an Apple user chooses an Apple product, not because Apple has "told him" to accept it a certain way.... but because it just happens to be a good tool that helps by staying out of the way so the user can actually begin to differentiate himself by the things he actually accomplishes or produces.

Now, if "craftsmen" (of one sort or another) in their chosen fields are choosing certain tools, or brands of tools, to do certain things, then there is a little more than mere subjectivity going on here. Or hasn't anyone ever told you that? I don't know why that well-accepted observation wouldn't apply to mobile devices and computers.

 

[symphara]

If it's like you said, then anyone can do it. Why didn't Samsung patent those "most simple things imaginable" in US and sued Apple after they released iPhone in 2007? And if they are so simple and obvious, why copy them in the first place? Just find other simple and obvious things by couple of days of work, since they are simple and obvious.

As far as I can tell, Samsung (and many others) did just that. It seems to be common place in the US to attempt to patent everything back to the spoon and then use this as a baseball bat against the competition.

Thinking more carefully about this issue, I realise that Apple doesn't actually invent much at all. Invention (genuinely new, non-obvious technology, like, say, the GPS system, or the diesel engine) is different from innovation (making a nicer, more usable product, or bringing new uses to an existing technology).

Apple is an excellent entrepreneurial company, a keen innovator and probably the best integrator out there, but I cannot pinpoint one piece of genuinely new, non-obvious technology (like, say, the algorithm used for Google Search) developed by Apple in the last 10 years, save for the MagSafe connector, which is as basic an invention as they get.

There's no wonder that outside the US, where you cannot patent the spoon, they have almost no patent footing, which is why most of this anti-competitive practice takes place in the US.

 

[thehustleman]

Samsung and Google need to team up and sue apple for the stuff they've stole.

 

[symphara]

You are ridiculous. Apple created the modern day smartphone market. Claiming that because devices previously were refereed to as smartphones doesn't change that.

You have zero credibility when you deny apple created the modern day smartphone industry.

I made no mention of Apple creating or not the modern day smartphone industry whatsoever, so what credibility do you have when you simply fight straw-men you put up yourself, and answer your own silly, preposterous, imagined arguments?

What does that have to do with patents? One can make extremely successful products and even create new markets without having a single patentable idea.

Patents are about inventions, and glossy rectangles with rounded corners are not inventions, as much as Apple would like to present them as such. People may go ga-ga for buying said rectangles with rounded corners for $1000 a pop, and you may call that what you want: genius marketing, uncanny anticipation of customer's desires, unparalleled rounding of glossy rectangles.

But it's no invention.

 

[portlandia]

FYI, that's called competition and innovation, Apple. Something, apparently, you've never heard of which explains the confusion.

Phil Schiller, senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, explained how Apple's marketing strategy worked and how Samsung's infringement caused consumers to 'question our design skills in a way they never used to.'

 

[Solomani]

In the always-silly words of Samsung, is that racist?

Samsung just hired Al Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson to represent them in the next round of Apple-Samsung court trials.

 

[iBug2]

It's well known that Adele Goldberg protested quite heavily. She thought that Xerox was making a huge mistake for letting Jobs and his engineers in (for a generous payment), and quite possibly she was right. But fact is that Apple paid to be allowed in, and Xerox top management fully agreed to it. (I think the payment was permission to buy $10,000,000 worth of pre-IPO AAPL shares. Which would probably be worth a few billion if Xerox had kept them). But it is also a fact that Xerox didn't have many of the features that Apple created. There's the story of Bill Atkinson implementing overlapping windows because he was absolutely sure that he had seen them at PARC - turned out he was wrong, and the PARC guys had no overlapping windows because they thought it was too hard to do.

Similar, Microsoft was allowed to copy much of Apple's GUI because someone at Apple had actually signed a contract that allowed them to do it. Which was probably also a mistake.

I don't think the first one was a mistake. Thanks to Xerox, the whole personal computing industry got a jump start with the Mac GUI. Xerox failed with the Alto and I bet they would have failed whether Jobs visited PARC or not.

About Apple allowing MS to copy their GUI, that never happened as far as I know. The only thing that happened was that eventually Apple made a deal with MS and dropped their lawsuit which probably would have won Apple around a billion dollars back then, and in turn MS promised to keep supporting Office on Mac, which was a good deal.

 

[giantfan1224]

FYI, that's called competition and innovation, Apple. Something, apparently, you've never heard of which explains the confusion.

What the court and jury call infringement, you call competition and innovation? Are you auditioning for a job at Samsung?

----------

"Reasonable royalty" is also supposed to be the base for patent infringement awards, in cases where lost sales are not allowed.

This is where Apple's deals with Nokia and HTC should come into play. We know that Apple cross-licensed some smartphone IP with Nokia, and ALL such IP with HTC (*). In theory, those rates should be used to help determine what an actual "reasonable royalty" is... NOT what Apple claims in court.

The awards that these juries give, seem excessive for what those few utility patents should be worth on their own as part of the overall device. E.g. if Apple gets $10 per device for use of ALL their patents, why should they get $4 to $24 per device as an award for just five (rather flaky) patents?

(*) Ironically, even though HTC has full access to using Apple's patents, it has not helped them sell more devices.

Except these are non-SEP's. It really doesn't matter how "flaky" the patents are, Apple is not obligated to license them. And in litigation, any award does not have to be based on FRAND or any other existing licensing agreement.

 

[iBug2]

As far as I can tell, Samsung (and many others) did just that. It seems to be common place in the US to attempt to patent everything back to the spoon and then use this as a baseball bat against the competition.

Thinking more carefully about this issue, I realise that Apple doesn't actually invent much at all. Invention (genuinely new, non-obvious technology, like, say, the GPS system, or the diesel engine) is different from innovation (making a nicer, more usable product, or bringing new uses to an existing technology).

Apple is an excellent entrepreneurial company, a keen innovator and probably the best integrator out there, but I cannot pinpoint one piece of genuinely new, non-obvious technology (like, say, the algorithm used for Google Search) developed by Apple in the last 10 years, save for the MagSafe connector, which is as basic an invention as they get.

There's no wonder that outside the US, where you cannot patent the spoon, they have almost no patent footing, which is why most of this anti-competitive practice takes place in the US.

I can't tell the difference between innovation and invention really. All inventions, be it scientific or technological, use previously known scientific results and technological advancements. So nothing new comes totally out of the blue. For Einstein to invent relativity, many physicists and mathematicians had to play their part and invent other things. And when you look at the timeline of events and what was already known by everyone in the field, it seems like any other physicist would have invented relativity if Einstein didn't, maybe in a year or two. And this is one of the most important scientific inventions of the 20th century. Maybe it was obvious.

I'm a mathematical scientist myself and I invent theorems for a living. But I don't really give a too much of an importance to inventions because once you are doing them, they don't feel like such a feat (some big ones take the greatest minds living on earth of course) but put someone else working in my field to work on the same problem, he/she will find out the same result 99% of the time as well and maybe do it even better. Inventing things is about spending time on them. If Apple chooses to let other people to invent new stuff and then integrate those ideas together, then it's not something less valuable than inventions on their own, because as we saw over and over, inventing flash disks, inventing better battery tech, inventing music compression algorithms, inventing low powered displays don't mean much on their own until a company like Apple makes the iPod.

About Samsung, the rubber band effect was not something essential, and nobody had to copy that to make a working phone. So why did they steal it? I don't care if the patent was valid or not. For them at that point, it was something patented and it wasn't something essential, yet they stole it. And many other small things you call obvious. I think the value of what they stole shows itself simply because they stole it. If it wasn't something valuable, nobody would care to copy it because you risk being sued when you copy someone elses work. So Samsung obviously thought "hey this thing is so cool we'll sell more phones if we copy this and it'll be worth even if we get sued and have to pay in the future".

----------

According to Xerox, Apple did not pay for the right to use Xerox's ideas.

Apple had offered Xerox the right to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock in return for a visit. Later on, Xerox paid about $1.5 million for the stock and then eventually sold it for about $6 million. Xerox was okay with that exchange.

When Apple later sued other companies for royalties on GUIs, Xerox sued Apple for trying to make money off the ideas they'd shared:





I think you meant rounded windows. Xerox already had the ability to do overlapping windows, but they were turned off because they noticed that users immediately rearranged their windows to be tiled, so they decided to make that mode the default. Later, they allowed the user to choose.

It's true that Apple (or rather, the engineers they hired from Xerox) continued to refine the GUI they had been working on, adding niceties like pulldown menus (they already had popup menus)... but the basic ideas were there and quite recognizable:

View attachment 448558

Your screenshot is from 1981. Apple visited Xerox in 1979 and as far as I know Alto did not have overlapping windows in 1979. Atkinson developed overlapping windows on the mac team. Alto did not have a trash can, it did not have the whole "desktop" metaphors that appeared on the mac. Before the PARC visit, the Mac already had a bitmap GUI, fonts, menus etc. The PARC visit made Apple aware that the mouse was the definite input device to be used for the Mac, and some of the elements from the Alto GUI were implemented. But then again, the Mac team already had Xerox engineers that worked in PARC anyway so regardless of Apple's visit to PARC, they had people who have seen the stuff first hand.

And you must know that Xerox's case was thrown out of court.

 

[AppleMark]

I don't know what your gripe is, but I am pretty sure I was responding to a very, very specific part of your post (you know, the part I quoted):

"He was probably upset that the consumer dare think:
2. Hey..., it uses an OS which is not controlled and restricted at times like something out of 1984."​

I don't even know if you agree with your #2 that you attributed to someone else. But I chose to comment on that specific sentiment, because it comes up a lot.

IE, that Apple users somehow define themselves by their narrow choice in some effort to appear cool, while Android users are merely exercising some kind of unfettered freedom in their choice, or not. While Android users go on and on about what they can do with the one Android device they chose, as though it has the attributes of all. While conveniently forgetting exactly who the real BigBrother is.

"But then who said that Android was an expression of freedom [sic]? Not me. You are confusing yourself again..."​

Hmmm, I don't know if you have even read 1984, but it's all about freedom of personal expression. In fact, that is why reference to 1984 is even invoked. And I am sure there is some allusion to Apple's famous SuperBowl ad in your post.

I was just contending, once again, that the average Android user's common perception of freedom and creative expression (as I outlined) seems to centre around a feeling that he is allowed to do something with his device. Never mind whether this "something" is even practicable or produces anything interesting. This to me seems limited and short-sighted, and rather sad.

Rather, freedom and creative expression are better represented by a desire to have the tool that can help you just get on and do something... accomplish a goal, perform a task, produce a result. Whether that is the developer who creates some amazing new audio app with a game-changing interface, or the DJ or Composer who uses that app to produce an award-winning performance, or "just" a student who wants to learn a trade.

Now, you might have a point about Model-T's if they came in stainless steel and you could snap on a new cover every day of the week. Certainly, if every other car started to look like it because it just couldn't be improved upon and the very representation of it defined "car", then you could assume that Ford did something right.

However, Ford did greatly influence manufacturing processes, assembly techniques and supply chain management -- for most industry since. Plus, Ford remains a good choice to this day, while other companies have since come and gone. All in all, a comparison to Ford could be worse.

"Choice is subjective, did you know that? Or has Apple not told you that yet?"

Ahh, and there it is again. Choice is great! Bully for you. Did it never occur to you that an Apple user chooses an Apple product, not because Apple has "told him" to accept it a certain way.... but because it just happens to be a good tool that helps by staying out of the way so the user can actually begin to differentiate himself by the things he actually accomplishes or produces.

Now, if "craftsmen" (of one sort or another) in their chosen fields are choosing certain tools, or brands of tools, to do certain things, then there is a little more than mere subjectivity going on here. Or hasn't anyone ever told you that? I don't know why that well-accepted observation wouldn't apply to mobile devices and computers.

You may want to re-edit your post again, as your rant is too long and boring for me or anybody else to bother reading. Neither is it in real context to my original post as a whole. You simply cannot grasp that my reference, however many times you read it did not state that Android was an expression of freedom and another reason why further discussion with you seems pointless.

Yes, you indeed chose to take and attack me over one extract of my post and that is your problem here, not mine.

You obviously take exception to my post reference regarding 1984 and you have thrown your toy's out of the pram as a result. I get it, but the result and your response is pure Zzzzzzzzzzzz and I have moved on.

Have I read 1984...?

 

[Renzatic]

About Apple allowing MS to copy their GUI, that never happened as far as I know. The only thing that happened was that eventually Apple made a deal with MS and dropped their lawsuit which probably would have won Apple around a billion dollars back then, and in turn MS promised to keep supporting Office on Mac, which was a good deal.

If you're talking about the original GUI lawsuit that closed back in '92 or so, that wasn't settled. It was fought all the way to the bitter end. MS was found to infringe on a couple of things (hence why Windows doesn't have a universal toolbar, and a recycle bin instead of a trash can), but the vast majority of what Apple was suing over had already been done elsewhere, or was deemed the only natural way to achieve an end result. Apple lost that case in a big, bad way.

The case you're thinking of came later, and had something to do with Quicktime. I don't know nearly as much about it, though.

And you must know that Xerox's case was thrown out of court.

Yup. Due to Xerox filing long after statute of limitations had come to pass, not because they didn't have a case.

 

[kdarling]

For non-standard essential patents Apple is not required to license the patents at all. It is perfectly acceptable for it to discriminate and license to one party at a certain rate, another at another rate, and to another party not at all.

Sure, but for patent awards of ANY kind... SEP or not... the base royalty award can be determined by previous contracts.

If we were taking about standard essential patents, I think looking at licensing deals with competitors would certainly be relevant because the licensor must offer the patent at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate. So, when Samsung asks Apple for a 2.5 percent royalty rate on the purchase price of every iPhone for standard essential patents, it is reasonable for Samsung to have to show Apple other contracts where it is receiving that rate. Of course, Samsung and other such companies like Motorola have refused to do so because they are not receiving those rates from anybody.

After reading hundreds of pages of ITC testimony on this topic, the problem apparently was that nobody had ever made a cash-only deal!

Every other licensee had gone into a cross-licensing agreement to keep the cost down. Therefore there was no recent cash example to be given.

As the ITC pointed out, there was no choice except to put out a starting price, which Apple could then negotiate down. (Apple instead usually goes straight to court, hoping to force a better deal.)

Often time the radio manufacturer paid the licensing rate on behalf of its customers like Apple.

AFAIK, only Intel's short term supply to Apple included a license. Others did not.

For example, Apple pays Qualcomm twice for each chipset. Once for the silicon itself, and again with a royalty of ~3.4% of the price of the phone.

Maybe not. The first jury in California found that Apple did not violate Samsung's standard essential patents by virtual of Apple's patent exhaustion defense. Namely, the price of the license for Samsung's SEPs was included in the purchase price paid to whomever Apple bought the radios from. So, if that stands up on appeal, Apple will not have to pay anything for those SEPs.

I believe that the jury only found that for Intel chips.

(Infineon had never paid Samsung, so Apple was still liable for the chips they bought before Intel took Infineon over. Intel had cross-licensing with Samsung.)

Interestingly, the ITC ignored that jury's decision, instead finding that, because Apple had bought and sold the chips OUTSIDE the USA, the USA specific patent exhaustion defense did not apply.

 

[AppleMark]

I don't think I've ever said that Apple didn't infringe, so the speech made no sense.

I'll drop it, but I will continue to say that your missing the point. From working at a phone shop I know people are idiots. You can pretty much sell them any phone and they'll be like, "cool here you go" (hands over money).

So the Apple guy (forgot his name) says that them infringing made customers question Apples designs. Right?

Alright so Samsung uses Apples design. They advertise it. Customers are know like, "oh look. Like Apple but cheaper". Then you have samsung bash the Apple consumer. People will then be, "Hmm only old people, sheeps, etc" (gotta be honest I didn't know what Samsungs commercials were trying to make fun of since waiting in line for a product is very well for a company, and teenagers don't have business needs for a phone (I'm 20 and I don't have business needs for a phone)). This gets People questioning Apples design, no?

And yes, it hurts my feelings so bad when you defend yourself prejudgment �� ��. This guy ladies and gentleman.

But then your original reply:

"Or you know, Samsung marketed against Apple and people who used Apple. They then used Apples designs to get customers. So you have people question their buying habits (oh im a sheep) and find that Samsung looks like an Apple company."

made no sense either.

Marketing a product close to another is not in itself a patent breach, but that has all been dealt with, has it not? Sure "the Apple guy" can be upset about it, but cannot expect it to influence a ruling in the way he wanted. And it arguably did not...

I again, stand by my original and main point that it is a nonsense for Apple to claim that customers thought they were buying Apple, when they were buying Samsung. Your new argument where you claim your customers say:

"oh look. Like Apple but cheaper"

makes my original point exactly, as you admit that there is NO confusion amongst your customers, only an awareness of a cheaper budget option in those cases.

So what is your point exactly? And you say I have missed the point LOL!

I am also sorry to read that you feel that your phone shop customers are all "idiots", but they at least appear to know the difference between Apple and Samsung. Perhaps there is something in the water where you live and work?

Maybe you should give consideration to the fact, that you drink the same water? Hope you feel better soon.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

You've claimed this a bunch of times in this thread now, but there's no number. What patent are you talking about?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=7479949.PN.&OS=PN/7479949&RS=PN/7479949

AKA: http://bit.ly/18e1sX1

 

[Terrin]

Sure, but for patent awards of ANY kind... SEP or not... the base royalty award can be determined by previous contracts.



After reading hundreds of pages of ITC testimony on this topic, the problem apparently was that nobody had ever made a cash-only deal!

Every other licensee had gone into a cross-licensing agreement to keep the cost down. Therefore there was no recent cash example to be given.

As the ITC pointed out, there was no choice except to put out a starting price, which Apple could then negotiate down. (Apple instead usually goes straight to court, hoping to force a better deal.)



AFAIK, only Intel's short term supply to Apple included a license. Others did not.

For example, Apple pays Qualcomm twice for each chipset. Once for the silicon itself, and again with a royalty of ~3.4% of the price of the phone.



I believe that the jury only found that for Intel chips.

(Infineon had never paid Samsung, so Apple was still liable for the chips they bought before Intel took Infineon over. Intel had cross-licensing with Samsung.)

Interestingly, the ITC ignored that jury's decision, instead finding that, because Apple had bought and sold the chips OUTSIDE the USA, the USA specific patent exhaustion defense did not apply.

The problem with your argument regarding Apple running to court instead of negotiating first is that in the cases of Nokia and Motorola they sued first. Apple then asserted various cross complaints and defenses. The first trial also showed Apple tried to negotiate with Samsung and was willing to pay a licensing fee for SEPs even though it thought it had an exhaustion defense. Samsung just wanted a cross licensing deal to use Apple's non SEP patents, which Apple again was willing to offer Samsung / just for more than it wanted to pay.

As far as there never having been a cash cross licensing deal before, you may be right. However, Motorola was asserting the same as Samsung against Apple outrageous rate of 2.5 percent against Microsoft seeking I believe over two billion dollars in back licensing fees. That got knocked way down 1.8 million with Motorola being fined on top of that 14.5 million for failing to negotiate in good faith.

You are right the ITC ignored the jury's finding, but one member of the ITC objected and thought Apple's patent exhaustion defense should be heard, which was ignored by the ITC. The US Trade Representative essentially adopted the dissenting member of the ITC 's position in overturning the ITC's injunction awarded Samsung. Samsung cannot go back into Court now asking for money for the at issue SEP other than to appeal the jury's decision.