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

[Macronym]

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.

That is precisely why I said that you are missing the point.
There is a topic here, which is Samsung's theft and whether they should pay - it simply follows form the article. Whether Apple steal or not is irrelevant to that topic, as Analog kid already very nicely pointed out.

Also, I'd suggest that you don't go into the usual fallacy of "this one is a criminal and that one is a criminal, so they are just the same". Simply put, some are worse than others and if you look at who Samsung are, what they do and where they come from, there is simply no comparison with Apple.

The point is that Apple steal too and that the vast majority of people here seem to deny that.

By all means, feel free to quote that vast majority, because it seems that you are just creating some opposing party out of thin air. There is no denying that Apple stole. And that changes nothing to the current topic; that is what people are saying.

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.

And? Ok, agreed, now what? Where does that argument lead?

they do not get some special dispensation because you are in love with their products and their late founder

What are you even on about? What dispensation? Or, are you just talking nonsense in general?

You simply do not have a point pertaining to the topic.

 

[Alenore]

Buddy bought an S5 recently and the water resistant trapdoor on the bottom of the charging port fell off after two days of use. I asked him did he get it fixed, he said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said it was a cosmetic issue, and they were not responsible. Junk company.

While we're making up lies, my sister bought an iPhone 6 yesterday, and the battery caught on fire when it was still in the box.
Apple said it wasn't their fault and wouldn't change it, because it clearly was because of my sister.

 

[Mercifull]

While we're making up lies, my sister bought an iPhone 6 yesterday, and the battery caught on fire when it was still in the box.
Apple said it wasn't their fault and wouldn't change it, because it clearly was because of my sister.

Your sister is just the worst.

 

[apolloa]

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).

So what excuse do you personally have for Apple refusing to let a court decide a license fee Apple must pay Ericsson then? When Ericsson told Apple it would have a court decide the fee.

 

[apolloa]

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.

So lets just for you, conveniently forget all the other points I was making that others understood on here..

So the UPTSO ruling, I know it's not yet final, I read the report on FOSS patents, not an Apple fan site, perhaps you should read the whole report and how no one expects Apple to be able to defend the decision,

http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-office-considers-apples-d677.html

Do I think Samsung should pay? No, not if it goes to appeals court as I already stated. And I didn't post anything 'by accident' either thank you very much. So step of that high horse.
Samsung also should not pay in my opinion because Apple are just as bad, as I have pointed out and others have Apple steal, as many posters here claim Samsung do, just as much. Doesn't matter if it's a trade marked clock face, they still stole it and committed the crime. They only paid after because their was a high risk of iPods and iPhone and iPads being banned from import.

Samsung should also not pay because the entire American patent system is flawed and it is only in America where Apple has been winning, it has lost miserably in Europe as in Europe they don't consider rectangles with rounded corners to be valid arguments, unsurprisingly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16704461

It explains that the Hague-based judges noted that the backs and sides of Samsung's tablet differed from the iPad's, and that the two firm's models differed in thickness - allowing informed users to distinguish between the companies' devices.

It said Apple had sought a wide definition of its design rights, based in part on the idea that its model looked like a "mirror-smooth lake" onto which an image appeared.

However, the Dutch court ruled that Apple could only claim a narrower definition since the "characteristic elements" of its design had previously appeared other works including a1994 concept videoproduced by the Knight Ridder newspaper group and a2004 US patentfiled in the name of inventor Helmers Ozolins.


So again, no Samsung should not pay, IMO Apple and Samsung are just as bad as each other, and the American government should be sorting the patents system out but it seems they aren't interested, yet if it isn't I suspect Apple will be a victim of the Samsung ruling as others sue them endlessly. Especially over it's physical designs.

I find it disgusting how normal business for giant corporations like Apple and Samsung is to request import bans on competitors products for breach of ridiculous patents, just so they can gain more market share. I also find it disgraceful how Apple believes it has a right to use patented technology and not pay for that, regardless of your beliefs in that it is theft. It all adds credence to why I believe Samsung should not pay, the basis for arguments were laughable in some instances and it is very obvious it was all business tactics to gain sales.
Innovating to gain more sales isn't normal business practice when their is a way to abuse courts instead.

Another reason Samsung should not pay is the obvious bias by the US government, overturning a ban on APPLE products won by Samsung, but refusing to overturn a ban on SAMSUNG products won by Apple, that speaks very loud words as to why this entire Samsung V Apple is a joke:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/09/obama_man_apple_import_ban_bad_samsung_import_ban_good/

Does that clear it up for you and everyone else?

 

[ConnYoungy]

Stop trying to make appeals happen. It is not going to happen.

 

[samcraig]

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

Clever but still very wrong.

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

And when they die, whose going to make the we quality components in those Apple products you love?

Also, why such hatred?

 

[Popeye206]

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....

LOL... you obviously have no appreciation for industrial design and are unwilling to admit how blatantly obvious it was that Samsung was very much copying Apple as quickly as they could. Everyone back in 2009, 2010, etc, was trying to copy the concept of the iPhone, but Samsung just pulled out a copy machine and they earned the right to be sued. That's the whole point of patents and it's actually too bad Apple wasn't given more support by our patent system quicker and help them protect their innovations in this category.

 

[Popeye206]

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.

Yaaaawwwwwwn.... you're points are very weak and you have no idea how business is conducted.

Samesung lost. Appealed and still lost... appealed and denied. They lost. Otherwise, you should personally consult the judge that dismissed their appeal and explain to him/her that they are morons and it's obvious that Samsung is innocent for the reasons above. I'm sure they must have missed your point.

 

[639051]

Buddy bought an S5 recently and the water resistant trapdoor on the bottom of the charging port fell off after two days of use. I asked him did he get it fixed, he said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said it was a cosmetic issue, and they were not responsible. Junk company.

Reminds me of the time I sent my "Fascinate" to them to be fixed. It had a shorted USB port and would only work a little when wiggling the connector. They re-flashed the software and told me it was fixed. It was not. Samsung, you suck.

 

[samcraig]

LOL... you obviously have no appreciation for industrial design and are unwilling to admit how blatantly obvious it was that Samsung was very much copying Apple as quickly as they could. Everyone back in 2009, 2010, etc, was trying to copy the concept of the iPhone, but Samsung just pulled out a copy machine and they earned the right to be sued. That's the whole point of patents and it's actually too bad Apple wasn't given more support by our patent system quicker and help them protect their innovations in this category.

Others were sued, they settled. Because their pockets weren't as deep as Samsung's. Samsung was also a big target (justifiably or not) because they were/are Apple's biggest competition.

Your last point is laughable. The patent system is broken. There are many patents which should never have been granted. And the true test of a patent is, actually, a lawsuit like this. To see if it's worthy of holding up - or should be invalidated.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier in this thread. It doesn't seem like Apple has really REALLY struggled given that they keep announcing record sales and profit.

 

[kcirtap00]

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.

There's a huge difference here. Apple likely wasn't aware that this clock design was trademarked and it wasn't an integral part of iOS, it could easily have been switched out for any other design and iOS would have behaved the same. When the time came, Apple paid up. Samsung WILLFULLY STOLE everything from Apple from the device design all the way to packaging and marketing. Everything that Samsung's phones are was stolen from Apple.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

This is a waste of lawyer time and I suspect Samsung will exploit a statute each parties costs are borne on their own, when in this case they should be issued sanctions for lost interest and lawyer fees. That doesn't happen in our system. Unless the supreme court wants to set a precedent!

Yeah... like we haven't seen that lately...

 

[Popeye206]

Others were sued, they settled. Because their pockets weren't as deep as Samsung's. Samsung was also a big target (justifiably or not) because they were/are Apple's biggest competition.

Your last point is laughable. The patent system is broken. There are many patents which should never have been granted. And the true test of a patent is, actually, a lawsuit like this. To see if it's worthy of holding up - or should be invalidated.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier in this thread. It doesn't seem like Apple has really REALLY struggled given that they keep announcing record sales and profit.

Your point is well taken... I do realize our patent system is broken. Many patents issued for silly things, many valid patents challenged for years, and of course, my favorite pet-peeve is the support of patent trolls who buy up unenforced patents, then wait while products they know (or think) are breaking their patents grow in popularity so they can increase the damages. There is much to fix.

IMHO, Samsung became a huge target because they we're so blatant about their infringements as they began their practice of monkey see, monkey do. Quite honestly, before all this, I had no issue with Samsung, but with their cell phone strategy, they have proven to me that it's not about just adopting new features or responding to customer needs, for them, it's about trying to copy as quickly as they can.

Also, I had several other Samsung products over the years — Blue Ray Player, Refrigerator... and both I had trouble with and both I was abandoned by Samsung. The most laughable was the freezer door... I bought the fridge, had an issue within a month of owning it. Contacted my reseller... they went to Samsung and got a replacement door... they sent the door, but no seal on the door and the old one was not removable from the original... their resolution was I had to buy a $150 seal and they would not back down on this. So, eventually retailer ate the cost. As for the Blu Ray player... they supported it for about a year after introduction and then stopped making firmware updates for it... which eventually made is a DVD player only in about 13 months. Sad.

 

[LordVic]

Your point is well taken... I do realize our patent system is broken. Many patents issued for silly things, many valid patents challenged for years, and of course, my favorite pet-peeve is the support of patent trolls who buy up unenforced patents, then wait while products they know (or think) are breaking their patents grow in popularity so they can increase the damages. There is much to fix.

IMHO, Samsung became a huge target because they we're so blatant about their infringements as they began their practice of monkey see, monkey do. Quite honestly, before all this, I had no issue with Samsung, but with their cell phone strategy, they have proven to me that it's not about just adopting new features or responding to customer needs, for them, it's about trying to copy as quickly as they can.

Also, I had several other Samsung products over the years — Blue Ray Player, Refrigerator... and both I had trouble with and both I was abandoned by Samsung. The most laughable was the freezer door... I bought the fridge, had an issue within a month of owning it. Contacted my reseller... they went to Samsung and got a replacement door... they sent the door, but no seal on the door and the old one was not removable from the original... their resolution was I had to buy a $150 seal and they would not back down on this. So, eventually retailer ate the cost. As for the Blu Ray player... they supported it for about a year after introduction and then stopped making firmware updates for it... which eventually made is a DVD player only in about 13 months. Sad.

but anecdotal evidence of your experience with samsung appliances really doesn't have bearing in the discussion at all does it? (I've owned a few, in fact, my Microwave is currently a samsung and has been fantastic).

I just have issues with the idea that "samsung only copies and never innovates on their own".

I will admit, Samsung's "look", especially early on was heavily borrowed from Apple. And they needed a swift kick in the pants to start trying to differentiate themselves. But this blanket "They stole everything" mantra (maybe not what you say, but it is popular opinion) is wrong.

if you look historically at Samsung's devices over the years, you will see that they regularly try new technologies and things that nobody else has. Their devices are often extremely feature filled, to the point where many of them are useless to 99% of users (people like to call them gimmicks). Just because the feature isn't insanely useful or popular, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and innovation didn't go into developing that feature. If you look historically at the Smart phone game, outside of the initial look and feel of the early galaxies, Samsung has probably been one of the leaders in trying new things.

it is also important to know, that this particular lawsuit wasn't strictly over the "look and feel", but many technology aspects that go into the smartphone. one of the problems is, many of these patents Apple has been suing for, needed to be brought to court to validate. Once a Patent is issued by the USPO, its my understanding that unless someone challenges them in court, or their involved in a court case, they stand. if you look at the broad patents that Apple was using to sue Samsung with, you will understand why, since the initial 1billion verdict, many patents have been invalidated and brought down to 500m. And likely will continue to drop. Apple tried to play a game, and overall, they are losing it because one by one, these patents are being invalidated. Some due to prior art (you can't patent something that someone else already designed, even if they didn't patent it), or because of overly broad application.

Apple and Samsung are pees in a pod. They both play the game with the courts and they both are trying to manipulate things to give themselves better market positions.

 

[apolloa]

There's a huge difference here. Apple likely wasn't aware that this clock design was trademarked and it wasn't an integral part of iOS, it could easily have been switched out for any other design and iOS would have behaved the same. When the time came, Apple paid up. Samsung WILLFULLY STOLE everything from Apple from the device design all the way to packaging and marketing. Everything that Samsung's phones are was stolen from Apple.

So what you are saying then is when Apple WILLFULLY STEALS something it is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to when Samsung apparently dose it. Glad you cleared that up.

 

[frostiex]

Samsung also has the backing of technology companies like Facebook, Google, eBay, HP, and Dell, who have claimed the ruling against Samsung would "lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies."

I just want to know....is Samsung found guilty in the face of the court or no? if no, then why do they have to pay?
If they did...then why is is an excuse above ok? Are we allow to infringe on patents if we can make it a large impact to "companies"? Maybe what this means is, if we have deep enough pockets....we can infringe on patents...because we can keep dragging it on... and on and on and...........?

 

[H2SO4]

And? Ok, agreed, now what? Where does that argument lead?

Oh pipe down, if that was what you really thought you’d not have answered.

 

[kcirtap00]

So what you are saying then us when Apple WILLFULLY STEALS something it is TOTALLY DUFFERENT to when Samsung apparently dose it. Glad you cleared that up.

Apple didn't willfully steal anything. And certainly didn't wholesale steal anything like Samsung did.

 

[H2SO4]

Apple didn't willfully steal anything. And certainly didn't wholesale steal anything like Samsung did.

Sure? Oh, and by the way if you think Apple didn’t look at the offerings of other major companies before getting releasing their product, in this you are dreaming.

 

[Popeye206]

So what you are saying then us when Apple WILLFULLY STEALS something it is TOTALLY DUFFERENT to when Samsung apparently dose it. Glad you cleared that up.

If you think Apple is so evil, why do you both hanging out on an Apple forum? So, go ahead and amuse us... what has Apple stolen?

 

[Speedman100]

United States company vs. South Korean company in the U.S. Supreme Court. I think Apple would win. And rightfully so.

 

[Popeye206]

Does that clear it up for you and everyone else?

Nope.

 

[H2SO4]

United States company vs. South Korean company in the U.S. Supreme Court. I think Apple would win. And rightfully so.

I do hope you aren’t going where I think you’re going with that. You are surely saying that Apple should win as it is the just decision and not because they are American right?

 

[Popeye206]

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.

Okay... this is or has gotten stupid.

You know, most companies and people working at them are not criminals, involved in some industrial espionage or trying to play "shenanigans". These sort of statements are immature or the result of watching too many movies and TV.