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.
Samsung Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court in Last Effort to Avoid $548 Million Apple Payment
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
@gnasher729 : Sure, and you do realize that Apple lost ALL tablet design claims against Samsung. Not even Apple's own hometown jury bought Apple's claims. In the UK, Apple was ordered to publicly apologize for their deliberately misleading campaign against Samsung and was sanctioned when they refused.
So despite Judge Koh's heroic efforts to paint Samsung as a blatant infringer by holding them both at far distance, there was just too much evidence against Apple's absurd claim of originality.
I do agree though that MOFO lawyers were far better prepared than QE lawyers. Did you read the Vanity Fair's hit job article against Samsung (along with another hit-job VF article against Judge Dennis Coates who presided over Apple's e-book case), written by MOFO lawyers?
Last edited:
Doesn't really change the patent being invalidated though. That was the question you asked? Invalidated patents.
@gnasher729 : Well, Florian was actually Apple fanboi extraordinaire, until he came to his senses recently. The lower court case unraveled exactly as he had predicted, but he changed the gear after realizing the insanity of Apple's lawsuit and as the PTO's and courts around the world also started to see through the garbage.
Your poisoning-the-well fallacy is one thing, but you can't change the fact that Apple patents are all but boink (invalidated).
Last edited:
@gnasher729: the problem there wasn't so much that Apple paid for Xerox's patents, but that they tried to claim they owned the rights to the GUI and sued Microsoft, another licensee of Xerox GUI, for infringement. The case was dragged out for years and Apple still lost after most of their patents got narrowed / invalidated to the point of being just irrelevant. The SCOTUS didn't even want to hear Apple's case.
EDIT : Microsoft was not a licensee of Xerox GUI, neither was Apple. The only known Xerox licensees were Sun Microsystem and Metaphor Computer Systems. So in another word, Apple sued Microsoft & HP for what they had essentially stolen from Xerox and the court threw away Apple's claims because Microsoft, unlike Apple, had already licensed most of Apple's GUI patents. Xerox subsequently sued Apple to prevent it from further misleading and scaring away Xerox's potential licensees. And you see how screwed up Apple licensing/legal strategy has always been?
Apple vs Microsoft
Xerox vs Apple
Last edited:
@danwest : that's just crazy, isn't it? One of the patents for Samsung infringed was also "invalidated" -- final-final, meaning no more appeal -- by the USPTO, but the court still ordered Samsung to pay for the patent that is no longer valid. They are really going out of their way to make it so easy for Apple.
Last edited:
@igorksy : do you also want to hear about this guy who cofounded Apple, but walked away with only a teeny weeny share of the company after he got caught cheating with option-backdating scandal?
I will gladly let you tell me about this story if you then spend equal time listing all of the instances of Apple contributing to charities, supporting humane working conditions, supporting gay rights, and undertaking green initiatives. Deal?
@igorsky: Sure, I'd gladly tell if you could explain why all these dumb folks, clearly not bright enough to capitalize on Apple's success would spend so much on charity, poor working conditions, while continuing to outsource jobs to 3rd word countries with much lower labor standard?
Last edited:
Apple didn't pay Xerox any shares. Xerox bought them.
Xerox Development Corporation, an angel investment division, was one of several major Valley companies who took Apple up on its offer of pre-IPO stock sale prices, which Apple was offering because they needed the money.
The Jobs visit was naively arranged by XDC people interested in possible future Apple computer marketing purposes, not by the PARC people who were doing the GUI work. The PARC managers were dead set against the visit, convinced that Apple would steal their ideas.
Note that at no time, even during trials, has anyone at Apple ever claimed they had a license from Xerox saying they could use what they saw during the visits.
Xerox did eventually spend $1.6 million to buy 100,000 shares. Due to splits, each share would be 56 shares today. So 56 x 100,000 x ~$111 per share today = about $622 million. A lot, but not "billions". Unfortunately, Xerox did sell off their Apple stock long ago, and thus only made a profit of about $5 million at the time, IIRC.
ONE lawyer couldn't spot the difference. Other lawyers behind her, who were further away, instantly spoke up and identified the correct tablet.
Perhaps she wasn't wearing her distance glasses at the time. Perhaps she cared more about the legal aspects than device looks. (Certainly you're right that most anyone would've instantly spotted the round home button on an iPad and known the difference.)
In any case, she WON. The jury decided that Samsung had not infringed Apple's tablet design patents or look and feel.
Last edited:
No one is talking about patents. Samsung copies Apple in everything they do. Apple Pay, Samsung Pay. iPhone 5S, Galaxy S5, Apple does fingerprint reading, next Galaxy has a swiping fingerprint mechanism. Apple improves theirs, Samsung adjusts theirs so the finger just has to rest on it like the iPhone. It's not even flattery anymore at this point, just annoying.
Google had Google wallet on mobiles long before Apple pay.
Motorola had a fingerprint reader on the back of a smartphone before Apple's Touch ID.
Galaxy range has always had an 'S' in it's naming, the first one was called the Galaxy S.
One could almost state Apple is actually just copying everyone else....
Did you really just claim the S5 naming convention was a copy of the 5s, oh dear.. stop trolling fella, or at least try harder..
Its funny. Not a single thing you posted here is actually true.
we can all accuse samsung or apple of borrowing from eachother. Both are fantastic tech companies that are leading the market. But come on. Don't be ignorant to actual facts.
Apple Pay, Samsung Pay
Truth: Samsung Pay actually pre-dates Apple pay, and used to be called Samsung-Wallet. Was the name change suspect? Sure, but from a functionality perspective, NFC payments via Samsung's wallet had already existed. Apple Did a great job with their implementation, and I think it's better and more trustworthy (Opinion), But Apple did not invent mobile payments
iPhone 5S, Galaxy S5,
Samsung had been using the "S" badging of their flagship galaxy line since the original "GALAXY S" which debuted in 2010, the First 'S" from apple came out in 2011, with the iPhone 4s. Neither of these "S" numbers are copied from eachother as they are related to their own product line-ups.
Apple does fingerprint reading, next Galaxy has a swiping fingerprint mechanism.
Fingerprint reading was done before Apple's 5s included it. Albeit not well. However, while Apple was first to use this particular method and technology, It wasn't invented by Apple. The company that invented it, is called AuthenTec. At the time leading up to the 5s, AuthenTec was reported to be in discussion with many other smartphone players, including MotoRola and Samsung to implement AuthenTec's technology into their devices. However, Apple purchased AuthenTec for the technology and refused to license it out to the competition. This left samsung having to "re-invent" the finger print scanners they were going to use, and Moto decided to just wait. The first "moto dimple" was supposedly the location where the authentec scanner was going to go.
What is annoying is when people make baseless comments like yours without understanding that this entire industry has been borrowing and building off each other for generations. This dates back decades. is nothing new. Apple does it. Samsung Does it. These companies don't exist inside a vacuum