Samsung Denied New Trial Over Apple's 'Bounce-Back' Patent

[Solomani]

but shouldn't apple work towards stopping these lawsuits and making better products? couldn't find anything wrong in that guy's post.

That Samsung was a pathetic blatant copycat, rather than innovate original products (or features), was the reason Apple was forced to protect its patents and IP to begin with. It started with Samsung.

Yes I understand that currently Samsung makes very distinct products that have NO resemblance to Apple products. But their original smartphones and tablets, features, and even the early packaging and boxes, were blatant rip-offs from Apple. That's what they got caught with. Had they been smart, they would have settled it some years ago when Apple first called them out and said "OK OK we got caught being blatant copycats. We admit it. Let's just settle this, we will write you Apple guys a check for settlement, and then let's just move on and put this crap behind us OK? We promise our future products will look nothing like any of yours. Let's just end this before it drags on for years to come."

 

[bnnentertainmen]

Uh, Samsung didn't stop, the judge did.

ok, my mistake. but at least samsung is not whining and commenting(on apple). MATURITY!

 

[Solomani]

one photo = to a 1000 words (but I'll add a few more here).

Samsung copied Sony and Panasonic for years, then moved on to copy Apple.

Sony wasn't the first company that Samsung blatantly ripped-off tho. Once upon a time, there were American industrial giants like General Electric, Maytag, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, etc. Korean Samsung not only "learned" from the Americans, they were often accused of actually stealing designs and blueprints outright.... by having planted corporate spies within these American companies. Eventually, Samsung perfected their replicated American-designed appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, washing machines), sold appliances for dirt cheap thanks to dirt cheap Asian labor (especially in the 70s and 80s), and overtook the US companies. Then after Sam was done gutting the American companies, they looked to Japan and began doing the same thing to Japanese electronics industry (televisions, radios, VCRs, etc).

 

[bnnentertainmen]

I've been to plenty of sports stadiums that have the opposing teams fans there. And I have no issue with that. Apparently you haven't been to a Yankees-Red Sox game....

In matter of fact having the opposing teams fans there help enhance the atmosphere of the stadium. Now that the Baltimore Orioles are good again, the O's fans that finally show up at Camden Yards always try to drown out or counteract the Yankee fans there. It's all in good fun.

completely agreed, great things happen when two opposing forces clash.

----------

Nonsensical statement. Samsung didn't stop anything. They continue to fight the rulings that they violated the patent. This was a judge denying them another bite at the jury apple (no pun intended). She told them that they have to live with the consequences of the first trial.

It would be nice if Samsung would start innovating, though. It would break new ground for them.

samsung is already innovating, they have the best devices in the market, (and their GS4 has outsold the iphone 5), it's apple who needs to innovate.

 

[Sadsam]

one photo = to a 1000 words (but I'll add a few more here).

Samsung copied Sony and Panasonic for years, then moved on to copy Apple.

Then you might find the following interesting - especially since Apple NEVER blatantly copies anyone

And the accompanying article:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3189309/apple-sony-iphone-design-inspiration-iphone-4-looked-old

I'd like to see how you excuse the above...

 

[bnnentertainmen]

The only thing Apple could learn from Samsung is how to double-dip on patent licensing fees on FRAND patents. Samsung is the worst offender out there. Samsung has been seeking bans all over the world for unimportant FRAND patents that constitute a minor portion of the GSM 3G standard. In Europe they got slapped with anti-trust charges for doing this and in the US, President Obama stepped in and vetoed an ITC ruling in order to set a precedent that FRAND patents cannot be used in this way.

You have to offer FRAND patents and fair and reasonable rates (like Apple does with its H.264 patents via MPEG-LA consortium). Asking somebody for over 2% of the selling price of the finished product as well as access to your entire patent portfolio in order to use FRAND patents that make up a portion of the IP on an $11 chip does not quite constitute "fair and reasonable".

Samsung's drunk. They need to go home.

----------



You don't see anything wrong with his post?

1) Samsung did not stop litigating, they failed at litigation.

2) Samsung's example in patent litigation is hardly pristine considering they go for bans based on FRAND patents. They got anti-trust charges in Europe because of this and then dropped the lawsuit saying they'd rather compete in the marketplace than the courtroom (because they did not want the anti-trust charges)

So as far as I can tell, the only things Apple could "learn" from Samsung is how to lose in the courtroom and how to use abuse FRAND patents. I'd say that there is plenty wrong with his comment. He should have probably read the article and a few others first in order to make a more educated comment.

http://www.voanews.com/content/samsung-wins-patent-ruling-over-apple-electronic-devices/1675608.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577479273522982932.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/technology/in-japan-a-setback-for-apples-patent-fight.html?_r=0

...and their $1.05B fine has been reduced to about $590M

----------

Of course Samsung learned. Copy as much as you like, reap the benefits, drag out any court case as long as possible. Look at how many Android phones are sold by companies that copied Apple, and how many are sold by companies that didn't copy.

----------



Apple certainly should and indeed does work at producing better products.

But why should they allow a competitor to steal their innovation? They do their best to teach Samsung that stealing isn't on, and if they succeeded (in teaching Samsung some moral values), that would stop future lawsuits.

a major rule about forum posts..... you should not comment if you dont know anything about the subject.

----------

And when will apple start "innovating"? Ah, there is nothing to copy right now? I'm sure they have engineers on standby waiting for next SAMSUNG product announcement/leak.

ah, much better (and much truer)

 

[bnnentertainmen]

one photo = to a 1000 words (but I'll add a few more here).

Samsung copied Sony and Panasonic for years, then moved on to copy Apple.

sorry to pop your bubble. say hello to REALITY

samsung had touch devices in the market BEFORE the iphone (they also had some in the pipeline)(oh, and they also had finalized some more touch phones' designs)


this phone came out in 2006 (about a YEAR before the iphone)

 

[bnnentertainmen]

Sony wasn't the first company that Samsung blatantly ripped-off tho. Once upon a time, there were American industrial giants like General Electric, Maytag, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, etc. Korean Samsung not only "learned" from the Americans, they were often accused of actually stealing designs and blueprints outright.... by having planted corporate spies within these American companies. Eventually, Samsung perfected their replicated American-designed appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, washing machines), sold appliances for dirt cheap thanks to dirt cheap Asian labor (especially in the 70s and 80s), and overtook the US companies. Then after Sam was done gutting the American companies, they looked to Japan and began doing the same thing to Japanese electronics industry (televisions, radios, VCRs, etc).

proof?

 

[kdarling]

Although Apple was preliminarily awarded around $1.05 billion in damages due to copyright infringement, this amount was reduced by almost half back in March when Samsung called for a new trial to set revised damage amounts, which will commence in November of this year.

Both Apple and Samsung had entered motions about the awards.

The reason why so much of the award was set aside and required a new trial, was because the first jury had ignored its most basic instructions (which they admitted they didn't take the time to read on their own):

The primary example of this was that they apparently awarded Apple a percentage (~40%) of Samsung's profits for utility patents infringement (e.g. bounceback). Such high awards can be applicable for trade dress infringement, but not for utility patents.

Especially when they're not necessary for the functionality of the device. For instance, Samsung stopped using bounceback before the jury trial even began.

 

[gnasher729]

Then you might find the following interesting - especially since Apple NEVER blatantly copies anyone


I'd like to see how you excuse the above...

No excuse at all. Jony Ive asked a new designer as a challenge: "If you were to design a really nice phone for Sony, what would you it look like?" The challenge was to make it look like a Sony product, not like an Apple product. And that was all documented in court.

----------

a major rule about forum posts..... you should not comment if you dont know anything about the subject.

If you only followed that rule.

 

[Klosefabrinio]

Unlike a core of a CPU, a company can work on more that one task at a time. And I doubt that what the lawyers are using their time for has any impact on Apple's innovation.

it moves the attention of CEO, BoD, etc. form products to these fights and it also requires funds(a BIG amount) both of these things can produce better products.

 

[jav6454]

the kind of thing that several years later everything thinks is 'obvious' but at the time nobody else had thought of it. i guess that's how you lose patents..when something becomes too good for nobody else to have

That's where things need to be set. Besides the patent, there should be some kind of report explaining why, at the tine, the patent was allowed. For instance, the bounce-back effect was a first in the mobile industry.

I remember viewing a YouTube video in which a presenter/lawyer said that the feature was very unique and Apple had an easy patent on it.

Stuff like that should be presented.

 

[Sadsam]

No excuse at all. Jony Ive asked a new designer as a challenge: "If you were to design a really nice phone for Sony, what would you it look like?" The challenge was to make it look like a Sony product, not like an Apple product. And that was all documented in court.

Seriously?
Did you even bother to read the article I linked to before making up fanciful stories?
Also - did you not notice the resemblance to the iPhone 4? ie an Apple product that was "inspired" by a Sony product?

 

[clibinarius]

Of course Samsung learned. Copy as much as you like, reap the benefits, drag out any court case as long as possible. Look at how many Android phones are sold by companies that copied Apple, and how many are sold by companies that didn't copy.

----------



There are exceptions. Like if you are a reporter in South Korea and say something bad about Samsung, you are not going to be banned from some forum, but you are going to lose your job.

So let me get this straight:

America has freedom of speech in the press and South Korea doesn't (Uh...yeah. About that. My dad's in the press and I grew up around it. He's been fired from a few jobs over content not being good for business).

And Bounce-Back isn't a frivolous lawsuit, but Apple's not paying royalties is (FRAND...it isn't just Samsung they don't pay).

Apple's hardware portfolio isn't "superb" and as evidenced, sue-happy companies can give them a black eye. They copy too.

 

[inscrewtable]

... This was a judge denying them another bite at the jury apple (no pun intended).

If no pun was intended then why didn't you simply use the correct form of the expression which is 'another bite of the cherry', ergo jury cherry rather than jury apple.

/just sayin'

 

[Bob Sanders]

No excuse at all. Jony Ive asked a new designer as a challenge: "If you were to design a really nice phone for Sony, what would you it look like?" The challenge was to make it look like a Sony product, not like an Apple product. And that was all documented in court.

Seriously?
Did you even bother to read the article I linked to before making up fanciful stories?
Also - did you not notice the resemblance to the iPhone 4? ie an Apple product that was "inspired" by a Sony product?

Sony product? Sony never designed or produced the product in the screenshot you posted, it was made by an Apple designer/engineer.

 

[DeathChill]

Seriously?
Did you even bother to read the article I linked to before making up fanciful stories?
Also - did you not notice the resemblance to the iPhone 4? ie an Apple product that was "inspired" by a Sony product?

I'm not sure if you read the article because the idea was to create an iPhone design inspired by Sony's design principles, not copying an existing product. That is in no way similar to Samsung copying an Apple product.

 

[kdarling]

That's where things need to be set. Besides the patent, there should be some kind of report explaining why, at the tine, the patent was allowed.

There was an interesting analysis by M-CAM (a group that specializes in this) of how Apple finally got the slide-to-unlock patent, after refiling multiple times until the examiner finally gave in... and how they also added more claims (after other makers used alternative unlock methods to get around the original claims), but still wanted to use the earlier filing date.

Intellectual Property Analysis of Apple Inc’s “Slide‐to‐Unlock” Patents (pdf)

 

[rdlink]

If no pun was intended then why didn't you simply use the correct form of the expression which is 'another bite of the cherry', ergo jury cherry rather than jury apple.

/just sayin'

Because the saying is actually apple?

 

[BC2009]

http://www.voanews.com/content/samsung-wins-patent-ruling-over-apple-electronic-devices/1675608.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577479273522982932.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/technology/in-japan-a-setback-for-apples-patent-fight.html?_r=0

...and their $1.05B fine has been reduced to about $590M

Seriously? That is your response? A bunch of article links to stories on Samsung and Apple's patent battles that do nothing to contradict what I said and then a misleading comment about the reduction in damages (not a "fine") in a trial I did not mention?

1) The damage reduction just set a minimum a amount of damages with the remaining infringements needing a new damages trial to recalculate because the jury failed in calculating on some of those points on which Samsung was found guilty. Samsung was found guilty on multiple counts. On some counts the jury calculated correctly (totaling over $500M) while on other counts the judge wants to recalculate.

2) You can read about the anti-trust case against Samsung for abusing patent system with injunction attempts for FRAND patents here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-samsung-talks-settle-eu-094559516.html

Samsung is now trying to settle that case (after dropping all litigation in Europe after the anti-trust charges were filed against them).

 

[bnnentertainmen]

Seriously? That is your response? A bunch of article links to stories on Samsung and Apple's patent battles that do nothing to contradict what I said and then a misleading comment about the reduction in damages (not a "fine") in a trial I did not mention?

1) The damage reduction just set a minimum a amount of damages with the remaining infringements needing a new damages trial to recalculate because the jury failed in calculating on some of those points on which Samsung was found guilty. Samsung was found guilty on multiple counts. On some counts the jury calculated correctly (totaling over $500M) while on other counts the judge wants to recalculate.

2) You can read about the anti-trust case against Samsung for abusing patent system with injunction attempts for FRAND patents here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-samsung-talks-settle-eu-094559516.html

Samsung is now trying to settle that case (after dropping all litigation in Europe after the anti-trust charges were filed against them).

1) it took the court a year to recalculate, seriously? the fine was reduced because samsung succeeded in convincing the judge that they infringed apple's patents unintentionally, they "thought" that the patents were invalid (and they were able to prove this)

 

[bnnentertainmen]

Just pay the f$&@?!g money, remove the functionality and move on Samsung (I mean Google... they are the ones who copied it.)

----------



Innovation for Fandroids:
- Make the screen twice the size (iPad-sized for a phone... why didn't Apple think about that.)
- Add an 8-core CPU and boast about how it's twice as fast as Apple's dual-core CPU, and sucks the battery down to < half a day of idle usage. (Maybe a reason why Apple opted for dual-core... performance/power consumption ratio... naaaah!)
- Double the battery size (as required to power the big screen + 8-core CPU.)
- Add brand-labelling/lagware to Google's copy of iOS and install it.

Apple's struggling to keep up with the innovation. I don't think they'll EVER be able to implement the above features. */SARCASM*

innovation for apple fanboys:

 

[subsonix]

It's amazing how people with a one sided view of Samsung always show up with new and fresh user accounts to defend Samsung in threads like these.

 

[bnnentertainmen]

No excuse at all. Jony Ive asked a new designer as a challenge: "If you were to design a really nice phone for Sony, what would you it look like?" The challenge was to make it look like a Sony product, not like an Apple product. And that was all documented in court.

----------



If you only followed that rule.

we know who's following and who's not

 

[gnasher729]

innovation for apple fanboys:
View attachment 429863

You mean it was Apple who invented stupidly small attachments where you can't see anything? Or was that you?