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

[Keirasplace]

Buddy of mine bought an iPhone 4 and would drop calls when he held it in a very common way. I asked him if he got it fixed and said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said that he was just holding it wrong. Junk company.

Right... They said no such thing, that's a certainty. You're simply repeating a Jobs meme. Try something better/fresher next time.

 

[tito2020]

Sounds like a phantom case to me

 

[Solomani]

I actually hope that the Supreme Court will spend 10 minutes looking into this appeal (but no more than 10 minutes) and then decide to throw it back to the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals with the SCOTUS Recommendation: "Federal Circuit Court, please double the fine for Samsung, as they deserve it for obstruction of justice and wasting the Courts' resources. Add extra fines and double the interest if they don't start paying by the end of the year."

 

[tomnavratil]

Go home Samsung, you're drunk!

 

[Slippery Gimp]

Samsung:

"The questions present issues of enormous importance to patent litigation and the scope of innovation, especially in high-technology industries," Samsung's legal team wrote


Judge:

 

[The Mad Hatter]

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.

Now you are comparing Apples (pun intended) and oranges. The above is licensing issue. Yes, Apple will dispute it, because "usually" the patent company wants to charge Apple above the "Fair & Reasonable" licensing fee that they charge other companies (because they are ... err ... Apple). So they counter-sue.

The Samsung case is a patent infringement case. Licensing fees do not apply in this matter. Samsung just keeps hopping from court to court, hoping for a different verdict (as usual).

 

[Analog Kid]

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

How freaking awesome would it be if both companies held a joint press conference and said just that: "we're both dropping litigation without final judgement and sending the expected legal fees and fines to Africa where money still means something."

 

[Macronym]

Umm, considering that one of the patents that Apple says was violated was that the device is rectangular with rounded corners, I would say that this is exactly the type of case the Supreme Court should be hearing.

Then they can finally rule that the idea of patenting a rectangular device with rounded corners is not legal.

It is legal though. That is the whole point, whether you like the patent system or not.
This is simply a design patent, not a utility one. Every company gets those and there is absolutely nothing strange about Apple having one. As usual, they are simply in the spotlight. Also, a design patent is a very narrow one and the one we are talking about is certainly not just about any rectangle with rounded corners.
Of course, most will not read anything or try to think for themselves. They will oversimplify the issue, i.e. "any rectangle with rounded corners", blame Apple for simply using available legal tools and explain the design paradigm which unavoidably leads to devices looking like Apple's. Design patents are something normal, Apple was allowed to patent the design and they hardly sue anyone making a device with rounded corners. Samsung simply went overboard copying everything from the device, down to accessories and marketing materials.

 

[Norbs12]

No - they wouldn't. Not even remotely.



Ok- the collusion case. Should Apple have just paid up instead of appealing?

Are you suggesting that Samsung would never have developed or implemented touch screen technology if not for Apple?

That would be quite a silly, Apple-butt-kissy position to take.

It's quite likely that, had Apple not gotten into the smartphone game, others would have filled the void, used touchscreens, and Samsung would have copied them.

Or they could have eventually gotten there on their own.

The world doesn't revolve around Cupertino; likely to your dismay.

My bad guys, you're right they'd all be cloning blackberries instead.

 

[jayisblessed]

Die Sadsung, just die! Most despicable scumbag company ever!

Well considering the main patent that the huge fine was based on has now been classed as void by the US Patent Office:

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/17/uspto-invalidates-patent/

Because Apple messed up, or tried it on, and they have void it on technicality, then Apple should be paying Samsung and the American Tax payer for money wasted just to gain market share. So I would fully expect the courts to accept this appeal and cancel the fines.

Perhaps Apple can go running to Obama crying again and have him overturn US court decisions for them again?

http://news.sky.com/story/1124254/apple-ban-overturned-by-obama-administration

queue endless post on how nasty Samsung are and how they endlessly copy Apple, meanwhile conveniently ignoring Apple apparently claims to have invented rectangles with rounded corners and had its front iPhone facia patent void by the US patent office....

 

[H2SO4]

They can't quit. It's Cultural.

Don’t take it there. You're beginning to stink of xenophobia already. Keep it to the point at hand if you can.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

I hadn't been terribly partisan on this issue, but now that you point it out it sounds like a strong argument in favor of Samsung just sucking it up and taking this honey of a deal they've got now!

Before you even got as far as the first letter in your post you should have acknowledged the T. H. E. F. T. of property by A. P. P. L. E.
I think Apple products are great but as a company they stink. Just like most other large corporations, they are always involved in shenanigans regarding politics and patents and money going unaccounted for.
Understandably they are only interested in you if you are paying them, will be paying them or have been paying them.

 

[H2SO4]

...But unlike Samsung, Apple paid up. They didn't keep taking the SRC to court repeatedly to get the fine down (or removed).

That makes it Ok then doesn’t it? I can tell you they paid up because the Swiss Railways company had the balls and wherewithal to take it there, but lots of smaller companies and individuals will not. Don’t be so bloody blinded.
If they were really ethical they would never have let it get as far as it did. You’re arguing that one car is doing 50 in a 30 whilst the other is doing 70 in a 30 so that makes the slower driver absolved of all crimes.

 

[H2SO4]

Good luck Samsung.

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

You still buy them. They are just designed into your Apple products.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

That’s a crock and you know it.
Bendgate had a bearing on 7000 being used. We’ll see at the iPhone event if Apple harp on about how space aged it is.

 

[diegogaja]

Which current Samsung products are not on the shelves because of this case...spoiler alert: ZERO.

Yeah but when it comes to having a go at Samsung for copying all logic and reason goes riiigghhhtttt out of the window..

Apple use the patent system purely to gain market share, people can't see that though. Having a competitor's product off the shelfs is fantastic for your directly competing products sales after all.

 

[H2SO4]

Now you are comparing Apples (pun intended) and oranges. The above is licensing issue. Yes, Apple will dispute it, because "usually" the patent company wants to charge Apple above the "Fair & Reasonable" licensing fee that they charge other companies (because they are ... err ... Apple). So they counter-sue.

The Samsung case is a patent infringement case. Licensing fees do not apply in this matter. Samsung just keeps hopping from court to court, hoping for a different verdict (as usual).

You’ve completely missed the point, (deliberately no doubt).
The point is that Apple steal too and that the vast majority of people here seem to deny that. If you have to pay for something to be able to use it, the minute that you stop paying for it but continue to use it without intention to resume payment you are very likely stealing and know about it.
The ones arguing against Apple here are not saying that Samsung haven’t copied. They are pointing out the fact that Apple are thieves too, (also, in addition, as well if you aren’t sure), they do not get some special dispensation because you are in love with their products and their late founder.

 

[Analog Kid]

Before you even got as far as the first letter in your post you should have acknowledged the T. H. E. F. T. of property by A. P. P. L. E.
I think Apple products are great but as a company they stink. Just like most other large corporations, they are always involved in shenanigans regarding politics and patents and money going unaccounted for.
Understandably they are only interested in you if you are paying them, will be paying them or have been paying them.

When I was in chemistry class in school we used to sing this little song: "Snoopy was a little dog but snoopy is no more, for what he thought was H20 was H2SO4".

Not really relevant to anything in this thread, but then the post I'm replying to wasn't either...

 

[setherroni]

One quick example, before people go all 'nuclear' on Samsung on here, perhaps I should remind you of this:

The trademarked clock owned by the Swiss Railway company that Apple STOLE and put into iOS, it then released said iOS update with the trademarked clock to the public and that was the first time the Swiss Railway Company knew Apple had stolen it.
The Swiss Railway Company then approached Apple who then paid 21 million $ for it's use, most likely to save embarrassment of removing the trademarked clock design they stole and because Apple was threatened with legal action.

Just showing that Apple steals too.

nobody cares about your stupid clock

 

[H2SO4]

When I was in chemistry class in school we used to sing this little song: "Snoopy was a little dog but snoopy is no more, for what he thought was H20 was H2SO4".

Not really relevant to anything in this thread, but then the post I'm replying to wasn't either...

Yep, remember that one.

 

[H2SO4]

nobody cares about your stupid clock

Thank you for showing your position on things.

 

[Macronym]

You’ve completely missed the point, (deliberately no doubt).
The point is that Apple steal too and that the vast majority of people here seem to deny that. If you have to pay for something to be able to use it, the minute that you stop paying for it but continue to use it without intention to resume payment you are very likely stealing and know about it.
The ones arguing against Apple here are not saying that Samsung haven’t copied. They are pointing out the fact that Apple are thieves too, (also, in addition, as well if you aren’t sure), they do not get some special dispensation because you are in love with their products and their late founder.

Actually, it is you who is missing the point. And badly. You are recreating the topic and arguing something that isn't argued (same as some others). It is some sort of an off-topic straw man, based around your assumptions of others' opinions, which aren't discussed here.

 

[H2SO4]

Actually, it is you who is missing the point. And badly. You are actually recreating the topic and arguing something that isn't argued (same as some others). It is some sort of an off-topic straw man, based around your assumptions of others' opinions, which aren't discussed here.

Tell you what then, let’s wait until the guy who posted makes it clear.
My money is still on him saying that Apple are also theives. I am recreating nothing - this makes your post even more short sighted than that of the Mad Hatter. The point, I’ll repeat as the text has obviously come out on a black background at your end, is that you cannot say that Samsung are bad for stealing but Apple are not. Comprendez?

I’ll put it out there so that we are clear;
Apple steal also, they have stolen before and will continue to steal, just like most of them.

 

[thasan]

My bad guys, you're right they'd all be cloning blackberries instead.

ha ha ha.... funniest post i ever read against STrolls

 

[kagharaht]

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.

lol That's absolutely funny trying to paint Samsung as an good standing Corporate Entity. Samsung is the most despicable conglomerate existing today.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war