phones are nothing alike. Samsung will stretch this out into the next lifetime. They will never pay
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 Ordered to Pay Apple $539 Million in iPhone Design Patent Retrial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Different altogether. After the fact damages are different than granting a license in the first place. If Samsung had a license from Apple for the design, then it may or may not be related to the value of the whole Samsung phone.
It's also different in that design is an outward quality, and it only applies to certain higher-end Samsung models, or just one model. Therefore, the damages sought can be based on value of whole of Samsung's phone, because the higher-end Samsung phones in question are actually designed to look like the iPhone -- and they would be purchased by those that like the idea of purchasing an iPhone, but can't for whatever reason. So, the idea there is that certain non-Apple phones are designed to sell on the basis of how much like an iPhone they look and function.
Qualcomm, on the other hand, is selling the same part for use in any phone: whether the phone costs 50 bucks or 750 bucks, the part is the same and does the same thing. A $100 Samsung phone isn't trying to look like an iPhone and achieve a sale on that basis, so Apple isn't suing over any and every phone.
The Qualcomm suit encompasses all phones, across the board -- and not just Apple ones: loads of companies and govts are investigating and suing Qualcomm for it's across-the-board value-based licensing practices. Here, Apple asked for damages related to the cost of one phone that was intended to sell based on its resemblance to the iPhone; the request was tried over a long time in court, and Apple got half of what they asked. Done.
It boggles the mind how people love to jump on something like this and say it is hypocritical of Apple or something. Good grief, context and details make all the difference, every time. You'd be happy if people jumped all over you because you said one thing in one case or context, but something else in a completely different context and situation that was purportedly at odds with the other thing if the words were completely isolated and removed from their context?
Last edited:
Qualcomm is a utility patent, not a design patent. The difference is, when Samsung made phones that copied the iPhone design, it was similar to counterfeiting. The phone looked like a iPhone, so in the eyes of the consumer they could buy an "iPhone" at a lower price. It was no different than someone selling a counterfeit Gucci bag at a lower price. Copying the look of a device like this has a big affect on brand value, and that has to be reflected in this settlement.
As far as Qualcomm, I believe their patents are Standard Essentials Patents (SEP). If so, one of the things a company gives up to have its invention become a Standard is the right to request exorbitant license fees. In fact, the requirement is that owners of SEPs must treat all licensees equally in terms of fees. Apple's argument is that Qualcomm has not been doing that, and what they have been doing is more like extortion.
ACTUALLY the truth is that Apple bought the tech from the company that created it. Then they improved it.
It was for a rectangle with rounded corners. It was the full design shown in the design patent. Anyone who looked at that patent and at Samsung's original phones would clearly see that Samsung copied. It's no different than someone copying the design of a Rolex watch...an inferior product using the look of a branded product to exploit consumers into thinking he's getting the real branded product.
Oh come on as if Apple has never copied Samsung.Samsung likes to copy Apple... however, they are still smart enough not to copy Siri...
Making use of technologies in real life which can useful to people is more important than making use technologies just to demos in events
[doublepost=1527244710][/doublepost]
If it 80's technology....why no one made iphone like successful device during two decades of 80s to 2007 ???
Last edited:
Very true....if this suit were brought today....it would have been thrown out and the patents invalidated
Multi-million dollar patent disputes between multi-national companies should not be settled in a local California court. They should be heard by a panel of expert judges in a neutral location at an international court, maybe at the UN or WTO.
Because Apple didn’t copy Qualcomm’s very successful phone design in order to be able to compete with them because their previous attempts failed to do so. Two different things.
Good grief Samsung. Just pay up. You know darn good and well you completely copied Apple and still do.
Very true. I had a PalmPilot & Comapq iPaq long before the iPhone was “invented”. Apple copied their design and UI, they even copied the idea of an app store where you could download apps.
Didn't they purchase the company who created the tech? That would make it theirs.
[doublepost=1527251105][/doublepost]
I feel like today it's fair game as smartphones are well established and things are much more differentiated between Samsung and Apple. At the time though, it was a pretty blatant ripoff. The continuation of all this is on Samsung as they appealed, but still - it's time for the case to die and we all just move on. Ideas will continue to be traded as it benefits all of us as customers.
Without this copy, Samsung is not even a phone manufacturer. $500m is significant, but I thought it should have been triple that. Either way, Samsung is a horrible company. PS Samsung... Jurys don't care what the Supreme Court said. You wanted another appeal, you got it, you lost.... pay up.
Just pay the damn money Samsung! We're sick of this crap. You did it!
The latest Samsung v. Apple trial wrapped up this afternoon after the jury decided that Samsung must pay Apple a total of $539 million for violating Apple's design patents with five android devices sold between 2010 and 2011, reports CNET.
A total of $533,316,606 was awarded to Apple for Samsung's violation of three design patents, while the remaining $5,325,050 million was for Samsung's infringement on two of Apple's utility patents.
Samsung and Apple were back in court to redetermined damages after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, which was set at $399 million after several appeals, was a "disproportionate" sum for the design violation.
The Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals to redetermine the damages amount, leading to today's victory for Apple.
The core issue of the retrial was whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's fee should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied.
Apple argued that its payment should be based on the full value of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a lesser amount. They're seeking profits on the entire phone," argued Samsung lawyer John Quinn. "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone. They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone."
Apple asked the jury to award $1 billion in damages, while Samsung asked jurors to limit the damages to $28 million. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury sided with Apple, and the new award is more than Samsung would have had to pay had the retrial not happened.
In a statement, Apple had this to say: "It is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design. We're grateful to the jury for their service and pleased they agree that Samsung should pay for copying our products.
Update: Samsung also gave a statement on the verdict: "Today's decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages. We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity."
Article Link: Samsung Ordered to Pay Apple $539 Million in iPhone Design Patent Retrial
Cut off their biggest customer? They'll be needing to sell all the screens they can to make up for that 500 million dollar loss. lol
[doublepost=1527253206][/doublepost]
I remember them. I had one. The devices were nothing like an iPhone in terms of how they worked or looked.
You forgot S-Voice (which also was initiated by holding the home button).Samsung likes to copy Apple... however, they are still smart enough not to copy Siri...
No thanks from me. Much prefer the LCD display in my 6+, being fussy about color.
I can see inspiration from early pocket computers, but the iPhone was definitely not a copy of those things. They aren't even the same device category.
Here are the three design patents in question:
As you can see, the first one was for a rounded rectangle with a rectangular screen and rounded speaker hole. You can see why it was later invalidated by the USPTO, but until that decision is made final, the jury isn't clued in, and Apple gets money for it anyway.
The second one was for a flat rounded rectangle with bezel and round home button. (The lack of a round home button on the Samsungs should've been enough to dismiss this one, but apparently not with California juries.)
Now let's look at some Korean smartphone prior art that Apple made sure the jury never saw:
In case you forgot, the iPhone came out in 2007. Hmm. Flat, rounded rectangle with bezel and rounded speaker hole. Even round home buttons and an icon grid. Yet, Apple claims it invented these shapes?
-----
But that's just one problem with this whole mess. The more important one with this retrial was the idea of whether or not such Design Patents should be worth the ENTIRE profits... which gives design patents (which are visual only) awards power waaaay above regular utility patents (which implement something and usually award per their contribution to the whole).
Naturally, liberal arts designers think their work should be worth everything; far more than engineering patents. The problem with that is, it means even the designer of a single icon could sue Apple for ALL its iPhone profits. Worse, it means in theory that EACH AND EVERY icon owner could sue Apple for all its iPhone profits. Yep, multiple awards of the entire profits.
How on earth does that make any sense? Answer: it doesn't. Congress needs to rethink this hundred year old law, which was created back when products used a single design patent.
As you can see, the first one was for a rounded rectangle with a rectangular screen and rounded speaker hole. You can see why it was later invalidated by the USPTO, but until that decision is made final, the jury isn't clued in, and Apple gets money for it anyway.
The second one was for a flat rounded rectangle with bezel and round home button. (The lack of a round home button on the Samsungs should've been enough to dismiss this one, but apparently not with California juries.)
Now let's look at some Korean smartphone prior art that Apple made sure the jury never saw:
In case you forgot, the iPhone came out in 2007. Hmm. Flat, rounded rectangle with bezel and rounded speaker hole. Even round home buttons and an icon grid. Yet, Apple claims it invented these shapes?
-----
But that's just one problem with this whole mess. The more important one with this retrial was the idea of whether or not such Design Patents should be worth the ENTIRE profits... which gives design patents (which are visual only) awards power waaaay above regular utility patents (which implement something and usually award per their contribution to the whole).
Naturally, liberal arts designers think their work should be worth everything; far more than engineering patents. The problem with that is, it means even the designer of a single icon could sue Apple for ALL its iPhone profits. Worse, it means in theory that EACH AND EVERY icon owner could sue Apple for all its iPhone profits. Yep, multiple awards of the entire profits.
How on earth does that make any sense? Answer: it doesn't. Congress needs to rethink this hundred year old law, which was created back when products used a single design patent.
Last edited:
Current OLEDs are regularly getting awarded most accurate displays these days.
The problem is that leads to comment like yours was that up until about Samsung's S6, previous OLEDS did have insanely oversaturated colours and could get burn in extremely easily.
After the S6, Samsung started calibrating the screens far better and are considered very accurate. However, Samsung via software turns saturation UP to the ridiculous popping colours. They believe overall that users are more attracted to the bright popping colour profile than the more "subtle" accurate colours. However, since the S6 onwards, Samsung's has provided via their options the ability to turn off the saturation and use the more accurate colour profile.
for example the S9 display
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S9_ShootOut_1s.htm
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S9_ShootOut_1s.htm#Table