Considering the cash amount was originally a lot more - i think something like $9mil...and the fact that Samsung have agreed on the new amount... and that Samsung have taken Apple to court in the past for patent issues - Samsung should just pay and move on...
The trouble with certain patents is that they do limit you - for example, you should not be able to patent a screen size... but the technology behind it that make it work can be...
For example, the way force touch works, or the apple track pad etc -- these should be patented and are...
Things like the bands on the back of the iphone that are a design feature to improve the signal due to a metal shell - this should be patented... but the choice of color, the curved corners -- these shouldnt (unless for some reason the design is an element to improve the use of the phone, such as the grip, being reflective for safety, having curved edges for protection bumpers inside...
@pad1986: I think Apple initially asked for $3B, not $9M.
There are four different types of patents at issue here. Apple's patents are "utility", "design" and "trade-dress," whereas Samsung's patents in its countersuit are mostly technical "method" and "utility" patents.
Apple's "utility patents" (eg, slide-to-unlock, bouncing-back) have been declared boink and Apple pretty much lost almost all its claims on those everywhere, but in the US. Even, then, a recent SCOTUS case, Alice vs CLS, pretty much invalidate all software utility patents are based on known abstract ideas, though this now has to be tested in court. Samsung however never argued the case on this legal theory, so they can't raise it now. So Apple walks away with $130+M in utility portion of the damage (can't be appealed and this portion of the damage is apportioned, so no complaint from Samsung).
This SCOTUS appeal is largely about the second part, "design" patents. Samsung is basically arguing (1) the amount awarded to Apple is way too much, or based on Samsung "entire profit" on the infringed devices, (2) no functional (or non-ornamental) elements should be design patentable. So the example provided in your comment wouldn't be design "patentable" if the band on a metal shell is required for functional (ie, better signal) purpose if the SCOTUS agrees with Samsung on (2).
I think Samsung is guilty (or infringed) on Apple's trade dress claims, but as said earlier, the appellate court reversed Apple's win early this year. This part of the lawsuit is also controversial in that, after initially agreeing not to bring any evidence that might influence/taint the jury's opinion on other "design" related claims (for obvious reasons) during pretrial, Judge Koh allowed Apple to present the infamous Samsung memo as evidence for their "trade dress" claim, but rejected Samsung's counter evidence on procedural grounds (and there were many other such odd procedural rulings against Samsung that crippled their defense). Samsung's lawyers at QE went to the media in anger, released a "summary" of their counter-evidence that the court wouldn't allow and was "almost" sanctioned. But it did expose the court's blatant favoritism for Apple. So we would never know how the jury might have decided on the design claims without the infamous memo (or at least with Samsung's defense). But based on all the responses (take for instance, response
#43 in this thread) I hear form Apple supporters, this same exact memo mistakenly is used by Apple supporters to demonstrate Samsung's design infringement, as had been warned by all parties during the pretrial, (but Koh conveniently allowed only Apple to present). So the outcome would have been much different, had the presiding judges (Koh and Grewal) been a bit more impartial.
But what Samsung is being sued for is mostly blatant copying... granted all companies copy - and there are some phones that look very similar to apples (they look like a cheap knock-off) and I'm not talking about the chinese fake phones, but actual companies that have copied the shape, size, color, and even positioning of buttons.
Regardless - Samsung have copied and infringed on several patents... not all...but enough to warrant the amount...
And now that theyve tried to postpone it by accusing the people in the court not to know their jobs, Apple now have a chance to ask for more money seeing as though samsung are now announce "3D touch"... at least change the name.
