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

[H2SO4]

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.

If you say so. The employees will turn a blind eye, do what it takes by choice or if told, within certain bounds to secure the business of that company. This means hiding sub standard components, knowing about design failures but still going to market without disclosing, using property of other companies, collusion, etc. etc.
If you don’t think this happens everywhere you are shamefully shortsighted. Apple are no different. You cannot seriously tell me you don’t think this happens or do you believe it only when it’s a government employee?

 

[ZubaZ]

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.

Man, I am almost sure Samsung is your company. You are defending it too blindly
There is a huge difference between what you mentioned in this entire discussion and the topic so please stop being that visible fanboy.

The truth is: while Apple or any other company is paying license fees, Samsung must too. Now if they intentionally "stole" some design or the toiled paper from their offices, it is a totally different story.

Not defending nor accusing anyone but just look at Samsung's history of events: this is how they drive their business and it worked so far.

 

[kcirtap00]

If you say so. The employees will turn a blind eye, do what it takes by choice or if told, within certain bounds to secure the business of that company. This means hiding sub standard components, knowing about design failures but still going to market without disclosing, using property of other companies, collusion, etc. etc.
If you don’t think this happens everywhere you are shamefully shortsighted. Apple are no different. You cannot seriously tell me you don’t think this happens or do you believe it only when it’s a government employee?

You REALLY have never worked in corporate have you? Its nothing like what you're describing. Are some companies like this? Sure. But you seem to think that they're all inherently evil.

 

[shamino]

S5 is water resistant

But the S6 isn't. The S6 copied just about every feature from the iPhone, including the ones people don't like - like removing the water resistance, sealing the battery inside and removing the SD card slot.

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.

The SC is not going to rule on the specifics of one patent suit. If they get involved at all, it is going to be in the realm of deciding if the laws used as the basis for the ruling are allowed to stand or not.

Somehow, I don't think either party will be happy if the court decides to invalidate the entire concept of design patents.

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.

"Stole" is a pretty strong word here. It implies that Apple knew in advance that it was protected by trademark, and then deliberately decided to copy it anyway. Do you have any facts to back up this assertion? Links to source material would be greatly appreciated.

The facts that we know could just as easily indicate that Apple copied an iconic clock design, not realizing (because they didn't bother to check) that it was protected by trademark. When they learned the truth (after Swiss Railway contacted them), they made a business decision to pay a license to continue using the image, because they considered it better than the alternative (to stop using that image.)

But that being said, what's your point? Are you saying it's OK for Samsung to infringe on Apple's patent because Apple infringed on Swill Railway's trademark?

All the major phone manufacturers already had touchscreen phones in their roadmap. Apple just sped things up along by showing that the market was ready for a keyboardless phone.

Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that Google/Android did quite a bit of copying. There were touchscreen phones prior to the iPhone. PalmOS is one example of an extremely popular design at the time. It was touchscreen based (only some phones had keyboards) and yet its UI was nothing at all like Apple's.

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).

This case has been bothering me for some time. Do you know what, exactly, Apple has been licensing?

As far as I know, Apple doesn't design or manufacture any of their cellular technology - they purchase chips manufactured by Qualcomm. So shouldn't Qualcomm's license be sufficient to cover any product the chips are ultimately installed in?

I must have something wrong here, but it's been really hard for me to figure out what's really going on here, and you seem to know details about the case.

 

[Sloppy.Joe]

Does Samsung really think Apple doesn't have a case? Come on...

 

[Will do good]

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. In another three to five years when all of those are exhausted they will then drag out actually paying for a decade or more.

That's Samsung's business model: Steal litigate, drag it out, repeat.

What an ass@@@@ company, glad the other cheaper Asian phone companies is eating their lunch.

 

[apolloa]

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

Ah I see, so Apple just so happened to accidentally design a clock face for ios that looked EXACTLY like the world famous and we'll know Swiss Railway Clock. A clock that is considered a national symbol in Switzerland.

No Apple stole it, were threatened with court action and THEN paid for its use.

 

[Plutonius]

Litigate and delay. I still wonder if / when Samsung will finally pay up when they exhaust all their options.

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

If the Swiss weren't willing to license, I'm sure Apple would have removed the little red circle on the second hand, paid their fine if it went to court, and just gotten on with life. At least in the US, maximum penalties are reserved for willful infringement which can be hard to prove at times. No picture of the SRC clock I've seen has anything I'd call a trademark indicator.

But we've both taken the bait and started talking about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand... The clock was covered by trademark rather than patent (any patent would have expired on a 1944 invention), this doesn't involve Samsung it involves a rail company, and this doesn't involve US law it involves Swiss law.


Maybe we can find a quiet table in the back... If this is going to the Supreme Court, I think the topic here is: what can the Supremes do that the lower courts haven't and why would they? My hopeful answer would be that they'd find a way to force a change in the system.

You seem to know quite a bit about this-- what changes would you hope to see in how design patent law works? My experience is more in utility patents-- which have at least as many problems but aren't easily remedied. I've seen plenty of examples of "patents that shouldn't have been granted" but I can't really think of a good way of structuring a law to solve it.

One change that does come to mind in utility patents is to either not make them jury trials, or make sure the jury is qualified to understand the discussion. Adversarial legal proceedings, such as the US system, are based on using all the tools at hand to win and tend toward emotional manipulation of the jury. That seems anathema to patent law where most of the facts are known and the guiding principal is novelty in the eyes of "one skilled in the art".

The biggest problems I see, though, don't involve the clashing of titans like this, but when patents are used asymmetrically: the sheer cost of legal fees combined with uncertain outcomes being used for extortion rather than on the merits of the invention. Giants versus startups or trolls versus giants.

Patents serve an important purpose, but like so much else the system has gotten distorted.

 

[Analog Kid]

This case has been bothering me for some time. Do you know what, exactly, Apple has been licensing?

As far as I know, Apple doesn't design or manufacture any of their cellular technology - they purchase chips manufactured by Qualcomm. So shouldn't Qualcomm's license be sufficient to cover any product the chips are ultimately installed in?

I must have something wrong here, but it's been really hard for me to figure out what's really going on here, and you seem to know details about the case.

There aren't many details readily available. In the press release, Ericsson isn't saying what's being licensed, just that people use their technology to talk to doctors from remote parts of the world and Apple ain't paying their share. Apple buys radios from others, but they put in the antennas, and run the software applications. If there's a patent on sending images over 4G, for example, then that's on Apple.

It's interesting though that deals have to be brokered with individual patent holders-- seems there should be one fee paid to an umbrella organization that distributes proceeds proportionately.

That there's a license to be paid doesn't seem in dispute though. Apple paid in the past. My guess is the argument is about what is "fair and nondiscriminatory". Could be that Ericsson thinks Apple will pay more because so much of their business depends on it and they've got the highest margins around, or Apple thinks they can pay less because they deserve a volume discount or something.

Speaking of infringement: I probably owe you a few bucks-- I've quoted your signature line without attribution a few times...

 

[Analog Kid]

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

I don't mean read the FOSS article, I mean the USPTO ruling. The article certainly does not represent the opinion of everyone, or even a legal opinion. It represents the opinion of one person with an agenda: "Florian Mueller is a former award-winning intellectual property activist... He is now developing a game app for smartphones and tablet computers."

I'm not judging the morality of his agenda, simply saying that he has a bone to pick and is not necessarily giving an unbiased legal opinion on whether Apple can defend their patent in the courts under current law.

And that one sentence is as far as you got in forgetting all the other points you were making...

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[...]

Samsung should also not pay because the entire American patent system is flawed and it is only in America where Apple has been winning[...]

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[...]

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[...]

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[...]

Does that clear it up for you and everyone else?

Clear it up? Not really... It's all kind of scatter shot. I tried to extract the key arguments above and if I had to find a common thread it would be, "Samsung is bad, but so is Apple and the US Government, so Samsung shouldn't be accountable." Do I have that right?

Do you think Apple should be refunded the fees and judgements you've listed that they've paid in the past, or were those fair and only the Samsung judgements aren't? Because Apple has been found to have infringed other's IP in the past, is it now just open season on Apple and anyone can do whatever they want to the company? If so, is the same also true about Samsung since they seem to have been found to infringe? Laws don't protect you anymore if you've ever broken one?

I was caught speeding one time, so I'm a little nervous about that line of reasoning...

FWIW, the difference between the import ban that was overturned and the Samsung ban is that one was for utility patents covered under FRAND (as the Ericsson patents are) and are necessary for implementing a standard, while the other isn't. The reason the government doesn't permit import bans for FRAND cases is that it would give one side of the negotiation undue leverage. That's the compromise Samsung made in exchange for their patent being made part of an international standard. A design patent is ornamental, not functional.



If you want to bring this back to relevance, maybe you can elaborate on how you think the patent system should be changed to make these problems less prevalent-- I'm not interested in "a pox on both their houses" arguments, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what could be different.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Why even have lower courts at all? Everything just gets appealed to the Supreme Court sooner or later (usually much much much later as it takes FOREVER to move through the court system...so much for a speedy trial). Courts just equal someone's OPINION anyway as the Supreme Court has demonstrated over and over again lately. Or should I say their AGENDA? Corporations are people? Bullcrap. They're owned by multitudes of shareholders, many from foreign countries. How the hell does someone from Russia get a say in our government? Oh yeah, because they bribe them with money.

 

[apolloa]

I don't mean read the FOSS article, I mean the USPTO ruling.

So because you don't trust the person on FOSSPatents then you have somehow linked that to my comment being scatter shot? Well I'm sorry if you can't trust a blogger, I could post many more links but they are all going to say the same thing or worst.
It is very clear if this goes to appeal that Samsung have a very strong argument to remove all fines. And it is clear Apple should never have been awarded the patent in the first place.
Again they abused a system to gain market share, an opinion reflected over and over in this thread by different posters.

As for Ericsson, they offered to Apple to have a fee set in court and Apple flat out refused and that is a strong reason to accuse Apple of profiteering of these inventions they are required to pay for. So just because Apple want to be different be everyone else and use Ericssons inventions for free whilst making billions from them, then that's fine? No, it is not. It is theft and if this was Apples inventions people would be declaring war on Ericsson for stealing them.
People can argue as much as they want that Ericsson want to charge Apple too much but at the end of the day, they were offered to have an independent party set the fee and flat out refused, that just shows they are again abusing a system to maximise their market position and make bigger profits.
As I said, they will have to fight the case in Europe where common sense prevails in these cases, like a court telling Apple, no the back and sides of the Samsung Galaxy tab does not look like an iPad.

 

[apolloa]

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.

Oh dear oh dear, if you can stop acting like a child using words like 'Samesung', and yo back it up you make a comment of I should contact the judge...
Perhaps you would like me to post a reply with iCrapple in it to appease you?

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?

Go and read my posts. Unless you are going to chose to ignore facts of events that have happened and post Samesung again?

 

[MH01]

But the S6 isn't. The S6 copied just about every feature from the iPhone, including the ones people don't like - like removing the water resistance, sealing the battery inside and removing the SD card slot.

Have not looked at the S6 or note 5, consider them a step backwards compared to the predecessors. Though I am a geek that likes to tinker. So like the features they removed.

Hardly would accuse Samsung of copying apple there, as that is the industry standard . Samsung got smart and worked out they can rip off people for capacity jumps in storage...... Though I doubt they offer a 16gb base model?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

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.

First off, that wasn't the point I was making. He was comparing two different types of cases. The Ericsson/Apple case was over licensing fees being charged to Apple for using their tech/patents. Ericsson was charging more than they do to other phone companies. When you licenses tech, you (usually) aren't allowed to gouge a company just because they are bigger, and more popular (<cough> Apple). So Apple counter sued to get to the Fair & Reasonable price Ericsson charges everyone else for thier tech. Not stealing, just business.

On the other hand, Samsung was copying Apple's Fit & Finish (right down to the d@mn phone charger). Which Apple does not license to other companies. So Samsung was sued for stealing Apple's patented look and design.

I hope this clears up my comment, as my thumbs are getting tired of typing on this iPad. ;-)

 

[MH01]

Man, I am almost sure Samsung is your company. You are defending it too blindly
There is a huge difference between what you mentioned in this entire discussion and the topic so please stop being that visible fanboy.

The truth is: while Apple or any other company is paying license fees, Samsung must too. Now if they intentionally "stole" some design or the toiled paper from their offices, it is a totally different story.

Not defending nor accusing anyone but just look at Samsung's history of events: this is how they drive their business and it worked so far.

I hope you appreciate the cheap quality appliances that you have around the house from Japanese makers, cause they copied American and European designs and make they more efficient and cheaper via competition. Every product we have is based on a "design" and the companies out do each other to make it better and cheaper, with the consumer winning.

patents are fine, not the shape though. A patent should never be allowed for a rectangular device with rounded corners, that is absurd. Thank good apple were not making TV from the start, I like my cheap 4k unit.... Let them compete and as the consumer I will decide with my wallet. I do not want higher prices case everyone has to pay royalties for the shape.

 

[Glideslope]

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

Sorry, it's the truth. Have a glass of reality after you exit your Glass House.

 

[Analog Kid]

If you are not going to read any links to facts to my posts, then it's pointless discussing this further with you as you will constantly believe you are correct no matter what.

Had I not followed the link (and read it in depth when it was first posted to MacRumors) I wouldn't be able to quote the author's biography.

But then, I think you probably knew that, which is why you cut that part of my post from your reply...

 

[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).

Missed this, well as I said the Samsung case should got to the high court, fix the broken patent system, and I'm sure Apple took the case around the globe as much as Samsung did but won big in it's home state?
I've said before Samsung should have just paid up to the point where the patent the majority of the fine was based on is being removed from Apple. But only if they get an appeal.

I can appreciate that Ericsson may want to charge more, but as said it did offer to let the courts decide the fee which Apple refused.
They did the same with Motorola, in a European court they agreed to pay for the license, agreed a price, then lost the case because:

Apple had offered to pay a Frand-set fee in the future and was willing to pay a similar rate for past infringements. But it lost the case because it tried to retain the right to contest the validity of the patent with a view to past damages.

It tried to do this because Motorola had defended its right to charge an above-Frand rate for Apple's use of its technology over the past four years. This could have been many times higher than the rate Apple was willing to pay and potentially very expensive.

I've no idea what price Apple wanted for 4 years, and Motorola wanted to charge more, however Apple lost the case, and Motorola then got an import an on iPads into Germany. I guess they are sold there now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16112259
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16871075

Now weather it's the same with Ericsson I won't say is true, until facts are out in court if it gets that far.

 

[apolloa]

Had I not followed the link (and read it in depth when it was first posted to MacRumors) I wouldn't be able to quote the author's biography.

But then, I think you probably knew that, which is why you cut that part of my post from your reply...

Yes, I know that hence my edit...... it's midnight here.....

 

[Popeye206]

If you say so. The employees will turn a blind eye, do what it takes by choice or if told, within certain bounds to secure the business of that company. This means hiding sub standard components, knowing about design failures but still going to market without disclosing, using property of other companies, collusion, etc. etc.
If you don’t think this happens everywhere you are shamefully shortsighted. Apple are no different. You cannot seriously tell me you don’t think this happens or do you believe it only when it’s a government employee?

I've been a software product manager for 20+ years. I know products are shipped with known and unknown defects. There's always a trade-off and you ship the best possible product you can. It does not mean I'm trying to screw my customers or do something evil or bad, it just means that you get to a point you have to call it done and ship the best product possible. I'm sure Apple product managers are even under greater pressure than I am to not only make sure it's right, but ship on-time.

 

[Popeye206]

Oh dear oh dear, if you can stop acting like a child using words like 'Samesung', and yo back it up you make a comment of I should contact the judge...
Perhaps you would like me to post a reply with iCrapple in it to appease you?

Go and read my posts. Unless you are going to chose to ignore facts of events that have happened and post Samesung again?

Oh dear oh dear, you totally ignored my question and focused in on something you could rant on about. Figures.

 

[Popeye206]

Ah I see, so Apple just so happened to accidentally design a clock face for ios that looked EXACTLY like the world famous and we'll know Swiss Railway Clock. A clock that is considered a national symbol in Switzerland.

No Apple stole it, were threatened with court action and THEN paid for its use.

Better not tell the people in Belgium... they have the same style clock in their train stations too!

 

[apolloa]

Oh dear oh dear, you totally ignored my question and focused in on something you could rant on about. Figures.

Perhaps you should post the question in a sensible manor then?