Samsung to Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in Ongoing Patent Battle With Apple

[Analog Kid]

Apple paid out of court before it got there, which they were being threatened with. Doesn't matter if it didn't interfere with the Swiss Railway Company, Apple stole their trademarked design.

Apple stole their trademarked design and then paid $21million for it without years of court battles. It sounds like you're setting this up as a defense of Samsung, but it's a pretty strong argument against.

Interference with business does matter when calculating damages. SRC had essentially zero lost revenue from their ongoing business-- so if it were a court settlement the $21million, less a reasonable license fee, could be thought of as almost entirely punitive.

 

[brantdevlin]

If they whine enough and they will get their way.

 

[iBlazed]

Yeah, because the civil rights of millions of people compares to a business's copycat case.

Sarcasm detector broken?

 

[mejsric]

Just wonder if Samsung will create Ice Skating rink at the front of the Supreme Court.

 

[apolloa]

Apple stole their trademarked design and then paid $21million for it without years of court battles. It sounds like you're setting this up as a defense of Samsung, but it's a pretty strong argument against.

Interference with business does matter when calculating damages. SRC had essentially zero lost revenue from their ongoing business-- so if it were a court settlement the $21million, less a reasonable license fee, could be thought of as almost entirely punitive.

I am merely pointing out Apple is in NO WAY innocent, it steals just the same.
Ok maybe you can relate to this more then, and as said the Swiss Railway Company threatened to take Apple to court and that's why Apple paid, Apple should have followed the law and asked them if they could use their design first. So don't try and twist it round.

Anyway, I'll use this example then:

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-settles-with-creative-for-100-million-1/

Apple copied creatives patented technology, creative sued them and won, and as the iPod sales were so important to Apple it just paid rather than risk iPod imports being banned.
So Apple stole patented technology, were sued, attempted to counter sue and lost on both accounts.


And Samsung is innocent, the patent Apple won with has been void, it no longer exists, with the case still going on with all these appeals then that needs to be taken into account.
Apple was only using the law to get Samsung products off the shelf to gain market share, it came up with rubbish reasons like they copied the colours black and white, they copied this basic sketch of a rectangle with round corners...

I can think of two devices that copied, the Galaxy 1 and the icon design for the new smart watch they have coming. I'm not talking about all the other patents.
I am just pointing out Apple is in no way innocent.

 

[KPOM]

Something tells me a $500 million patent dispute between 2 companies with a combined value of $1 trillion isn't that high on the Supreme Court's list of priorities.

 

[samcraig]

Apple stole their trademarked design and then paid $21million for it without years of court battles. It sounds like you're setting this up as a defense of Samsung, but it's a pretty strong argument against.

Interference with business does matter when calculating damages. SRC had essentially zero lost revenue from their ongoing business-- so if it were a court settlement the $21million, less a reasonable license fee, could be thought of as almost entirely punitive.

As an aside - I don't think Apple does/did itself any favors to complain about loss of business while at the same time touting their #s, profits, etc.

No one will ever truly know the impact this path in history took. Not really.

 

[ryanasimov]

That "VS." typeface looks Sonyish. What is it?

 

[mejsric]

I am merely pointing out Apple is in NO WAY innocent, it steals just the same.

And Samsung is innocent,

I can think of two devices that copied, the Galaxy 1 and the icon design for the new smart watch they have coming. I'm not talking about all the other patents.

Basically, you wan to tell us the Apple is also a copycat... But no no Samsung... Samsung is innocent... Only Apple is bad copycat using law... Blah blah..

In the end you admit Galaxy is a copy of an iPhone. Even you can't deny it.

Case closed!

 

[apolloa]

Apple stole their trademarked design and then paid $21million for it without years of court battles. It sounds like you're setting this up as a defense of Samsung, but it's a pretty strong argument against.

Interference with business does matter when calculating damages. SRC had essentially zero lost revenue from their ongoing business-- so if it were a court settlement the $21million, less a reasonable license fee, could be thought of as almost entirely punitive.

Or what about the Ericsson dispute, Ericsson are losing money to Apple because Apple refuses to pay them to license their technology that goes into every single cellular equipped iOS device. Everyone else pays them but not Apple, they want to twist the law to get a better deal, and refused to accept the courts to decide a fee which Ericsson offered to Apple.

The are stealing patented technology which is costing money to Ericcson because that's how Apple does business, and this has been going on for several months, so how many iOS devices have been sold in that time? Ericsson have 4 court cases lined up in 4 different countries if Apple doesn't settle by December. Apple has of course attempted to counter sue as it always does, but at the end of the day they are stealing Ericssons patented technology. In effect Apple is performing the very act they accuse Samsung of.
In fact it would be mighty interesting to see Apple in a European court somehow claim it was different to every other manufacturer who uses cellular technology and so should pay less.

 

[sss4r]

Sarcasm detector broken?

*more sarcasm detected* Nope, see! It needed interpretation, sarcasm was ambiguous without further context. But now I know, thanks.

 

[apolloa]

Basically, you wan to tell us the Apple is also a copycat... But no no Samsung... Samsung is innocent... Only Apple is bad copycat using law... Blah blah..

In the end you admit Galaxy is a copy of an iPhone. Even you can't deny it.

Case closed!

I never said Samsung didn't copy, I said it is innocent as the main patent used by Apple has been void, I should perhaps say innocent by law if it goes to appeal court.
But in my opinion ONE Galaxy model copied, not every single Samsung tablet and phone Apple stated in it's case! That's why it's clearly Apple's way of doing business, remove the competition from sale to enhance your own position.
When it got to a point when Apple was just automatically adding any new Samsung device to it's case, and likewise with Samsung for Apple's devices, or so it seemed, it's all just business tactics. All driven by an utterly broken patent system.

 

[iansilv]

lawyer fees probably cost a billion dollars now.

Hopefully!

 

[iansilv]

Good luck Samsung.

I still avoid your ****** copycat products.

 

[demodave]

This is almost as important as gay marriage!

Not even remotely similar, actually. Your "sarcasm" defense notwithstanding, not even remotely similar.

 

[macs4nw]

Anything to drag this out. In another year when they've exhausted the SC avenue and the judgement stands they will find some other idea for appeal.....

If Scotus declines to rule on this case, it is the end of the road for this particular case.
Apple collecting anything anytime soon is another matter though.

 

[Analog Kid]

Sorry in advance for the length on this-- it's a response to two long posts that probably belong together...

I am merely pointing out Apple is in NO WAY innocent, it steals just the same.
Ok maybe you can relate to this more then, and as said the Swiss Railway Company threatened to take Apple to court and that's why Apple paid, Apple should have followed the law and asked them if they could use their design first. So don't try and twist it round.

Anyway, I'll use this example then: Apple copied creatives patented technology, creative sued them and won, and as the iPod sales were so important to Apple it just paid rather than risk iPod imports being banned.
So Apple stole patented technology, were sued, attempted to counter sue and lost on both accounts.

And Samsung is innocent, the patent Apple won with has been void, it no longer exists, with the case still going on with all these appeals then that needs to be taken into account.
Apple was only using the law to get Samsung products off the shelf to gain market share, it came up with rubbish reasons like they copied the colours black and white, they copied this basic sketch of a rectangle with round corners...

I can think of two devices that copied, the Galaxy 1 and the icon design for the new smart watch they have coming. I'm not talking about all the other patents.
I am just pointing out Apple is in no way innocent.

Or what about the Ericsson dispute, Ericsson are losing money to Apple because Apple refuses to pay them to license their technology that goes into every single cellular equipped iOS device. Everyone else pays them but not Apple, they want to twist the law to get a better deal, and refused to accept a fee decided by the courts which Ericsson offered to Apple.

The are stealing patented technology which is costing money to Ericcson because that's how Apple does business, and this has been going on for several months, so how many iOS devices have been sold in that time? Ericsson have 4 court cases lined up in 4 different countries if Apple doesn't settle by December. Apple has of course attempted to counter sue as it always does, but at the end of the day they are stealing Ericssons patented technology. In effect Apple is performing the very act they accuse Samsung of.

First, the lead story is about Samsung taking their case to the Supreme Court because they don't think they should have to pay their court ordered fine. Most of your arguments are either just noise and smoke to avoid discussing the subject, or essentially making the argument that "two wrongs make a right, neener, neener". I can't really tell which.

As far as my twisting things around, you'll have to explain how I'm doing that. You said Apple infringed and then paid fines. I'm agreeing. My point is simply that by giving a long list of times that Apple infringed, and paid their fines, is not helping your (implied) argument that Samsung should be let off the hook.

The one point you've made that may be relevant (almost by accident, it seems) is that the USPTO just issued a non-final ruling that D6'77 may not hold the priority date that they'd said it does. That's a reversal on the PTO's part, and possibly, but not necessarily, relevant. I suspect, by your characterization, that you haven't actually read the ruling. The patent has not been invalidated-- you can tell because the little check box "b[] This action is made FINAL" (sic) is not checked. It is merely a communication from USPTO saying that barring further arguments from Apple (and you know there will be some) they're moving towards invalidating the patent.

If you read the ruling, you will also see that USPTO indicates what remedies Apple may follow to retain their patent. Search for phrases in the ruling like, "the examiner suggests overcoming this rejection in one of the following ways", and "the rejection may be overcome by showing". PTO phrases their communication like an email that says "Let us know what you think. If we don't hear back, we'll assume you're ok with this and we'll just go ahead and gut your business. Have a good weekend." Lawyers, and geek lawyers in particular, aren't big on the warm fuzzies.

Other than that, Creative and Swiss Rail are arguments in favor of Samsung ponying up. Apple infringed and paid. The threat of court is meaningless in this context-- it's standard boilerplate in a legal letter.

Ericsson is fresh litigation. Contrary to your statements, Apple had been paying license fees until their agreement expired in January. They were unable to come to agreement on the next fee schedule. Ericsson took them to court rather than continuing negotiations (or as a way of continuing negotiations). If you have a patent in a pool required to implement an industry standard technology you are permitted a "fair and non-discriminitory" license fee. The fact that this went to court in no way says that Apple is in the wrong, nor does it say that Ericsson is. When the kids can't get along, they appeal to the parents to settle the dispute. When it is resolved, if Apple refuses to pay their license fees for the period between January and the final ruling, you'll have a point. Until then you're just slinging mud.

 

[AngerDanger]

That "VS." typeface looks Sonyish. What is it?

My guess is that it's a variant of Linex Standard.

 

[mk_in_mke]

Sorry in advance for the length on this-- it's a response to two long posts that probably belong

[...]

, they appeal to the parents to settle the dispute. When it is resolved, if Apple refuses to pay their license fees for the period between January and the final ruling, you'll have a point. Until then you're just slinging mud.

I have to command you for the quality of your reply. Interesting, to the point and documented... More than I would have expected from anyone replying to this troll. You pointed, rightfully so, the vacuity of his posts... I gave up before you did. Again thank you.

 

[dampfnudel]

lawyer fees probably cost a billion dollars now.

So much money that could've been used more productively by both companies. It's really a shame.

 

[CFreymarc]

I am sure it is a ******** but according to an patent attorney I have patroned, he says the court fee and law firm fees are probably around $100 million by now.

 

[MikePLP]

Samsung can't afford to pay up now that their profits are tanking. Nobody is surprised by this.

 

[kdarling]

What a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars by non-taxpayers! This is sadly wrong.

Samsung Electronics USA pays US taxes. They also contribute to The United Way, and all sorts of US educational and community projects. They're a pretty good US corporate citizen.

Nothing unusual with Samsung doing this. This is their primary MO when ripping off IP.

It's every company's MO when sued. For example, Apple has dragged out paying for patents from Motorola for what, nine years now? That's IP without which the iPhone couldn't exist. Ditto for any time they're sued and they lose.

At least Samsung is using the courts. When Apple's products were banned by the US ITC, the White House overturned the decision instead of allowing an appeals court to hear the case.

If I follow: Without a court battle, Apple paid $21M to a railway company for stealing the design of a clock that the railway doesn't sell and that served as the look for one small utility app and in no way competed, or otherwise interfered, with the business of Swiss Railway Company.

That's because the Swiss were willing to give a license, and Apple knew the danger of infringing design patents.

You see, because of the same old design patent law that Samsung is fighting in this case, the Swiss could've demanded Apple's ENTIRE IOS DEVICE PROFITS for infringing their design... even though the contribution of their clock face was quite tiny overall to the iPhone.

Do you guys get it yet?

The peculiar ability of a design patent holder to demand awards far, far beyond their contribution to a product, is the reason why Samsung, many major and minor corporations, and a ton of IP professionals, all are hoping for SCOTUS to look at that out of date law.

WE THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY PATENT TROLLS NOW? We haven't seen diddly squat compared to the riches that someone could get using this law, from a single design patent, if SCOTUS or Congress doesn't do something about it. Experts predict a flood of efforts to claim all or some of the profits of large and small companies for the tiniest of design infringements, if this case's award is upheld as is. Ironically, Apple will likely be a prime target.

 

[Keirasplace]

Apple just made the iPhone 6s housing over 2 times stronger. Does that make the iPhone 6 bendable junk? If there were no issues the same material and strength would have been used. This new material cost up to 5 times the amount compared to what was used. Tells me that the bending issues were real.
So loose/missing usb port cover vs the entire body being suspect?

Right... Correlation= Causation. Or not.... You do know they first used the 7000 aluminum for the watch THIS YEAR.. Something that's been in development for a hell of a long time. That they redesigned the circuit board and hugely changed the screen (so says rumors),meaning they'd have to redesign the case anyway. Why not make that link instead of the other one hmmm?.... The 5/5s also bended... So, I guess they responded to that by making it bend more in the 6 according to you; sort of paints of wonky narrative doesn't it?

Or AL 7000 manufacturing capacity came online this year and they decide to use it for the phone for that reason since they already needed to redesign the case for force touch. As plausible don't you think. That this tougher case was planned a while back as a way to stand out from the competition when it would finally get deployed.

 

[tito2020]

With all this money they should send it to africa where kids are starving