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

[MH01]

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.

Apple mangers or you, exactly the same approach , a decision is made when something is fit for purpose, on-time means hitting an imposed deadline while removing critical showstoppers .

Apple software ships with lots of bugs these days, they are not special , they are just like you and me who work in the software industry . If anything, they are very slow to react to critical issues that are identified, they still believe in big drop maintaince patches to resolve issues, which is very old school thinking.... 2015 they finally got a responsive website...

 

[MH01]

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

So what , Apple still stole the design! Maybe the clock in Belgium is the same brand.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

So what , Apple still stole the design! Maybe the clock in Belgium is the same brand.

You know, I think I'll go out on a limb here. Maybe one of Apple's designers (probably Ive) saw that clock face in a railway station, and thought, "Hey, we should use that on the iPhone". So they did. Then they find out it's copy-written (the law suit was probably their first clue). So they go to court, lose the case, and pay 21 million (or whatever the price was). So now they have paid for the right to use that clock face.

So, did they steal the design for the clock face? Yes, initially, but then they made good on it. Samsung? Not so much.

There you go, problem solved.

BTW, since you are throwing the whole "stole the design" claim around ... Who designed the artwork for the avatar you are using? Did you ask them for the right to use it? Hmmm? </s>

 

[Analog Kid]

Ok, I've entertained you for a couple rounds now, and I'm tired of discussing everything but the topic at hand. I'd very much like you to contribute something substantive by replying to the parts of my post you decided not to reply to in your answer below:

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.

Get some sleep, and give it another read... That's not what I said. I said you and an activist blogger sharing an opinion doesn't mean "no one expects" Apple will retain their patent. I'll return to the scatter-shot comment at the end.

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.

I think there's an argument, which is why I pointed to this line of reasoning as the one out of the however many you've been trying as possibly being relevant. I don't think it's clear that the patent shouldn't have been issued, but then nothing in this battle is really clear. To my eyes, it's looks like Samsung made a concerted effort to change up their phone line to look very close to Apples-- as close as they thought they could get. Did it cross the line into infringement of IP? That's what the courts are trying to sort out-- in the end it's their judgement that counts. If you look at the early Samsung phones and the iPhone-- I don't think it was abusing the system to test them on it.

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.

Ericsson offered to let the courts decide after Apple sued to have some of Ericsson's patents declared non-essential to LTE. Apple sued after Ericsson refused to license based on the value of the LTE technology and insisted on a percentage of the value of the entire product (phone, tablet, etc). Now that you've made me look into it, I'm convinced Ericsson was not negotiating in good faith, and Apple filed suit when it was clear that no agreement would be reached before the expiration of their prior agreement. (If you get stopped at the paywall, Google the article title and click the link, it should get you around).

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?

This is what I called scatter-shot. I'm trying to find the philosophy that runs through all the arguments, but you're avoiding my questions...

 

[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.

Found this, which sheds a little light on it:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-ericsson-in-legal-scrap-over-patents-1421229290

Still doesn't say which patents, but Apple thinks the license fee should be a percentage of the cost of the wireless subsystem and Ericsson thinks it should be a percentage of the entire product (the price of the entire phone).

 

[MH01]

You know, I think I'll go out on a limb here. Maybe one of Apple's designers (probably Ive) saw that clock face in a railway station, and thought, "Hey, we should use that on the iPhone". So they did. Then they find out it's copy-written (the law suit was probably their first clue). So they go to court, lose the case, and pay 21 million (or whatever the price was). So now they have paid for the right to use that clock face.

So, did they steal the design for the clock face? Yes, initially, but then they made good on it. Samsung? Not so much.

There you go, problem solved.

BTW, since you are throwing the whole "stole the design" claim around ... Who designed the artwork for the avatar you are using? Did you ask them for the right to use it? Hmmm? </s>

Feel free to quote me, where I stated that Samsung is innocent! Blame your legal system mate,
It's allowing this to be dragged out . Apple stole the clock design, Samsung copied apple, and I stole the avatar.

And how is your rant related to the fact that the railway clocks in Belgium are no doubt the same brand as in swifterland that Apple copied ? And settled.

 

[Popeye206]

So what , Apple still stole the design! Maybe the clock in Belgium is the same brand.

And if I remember right, when they told of their error, they paid up and corrected the situation. I would guess no one ever thought it was a protected design when they added it. Simple human mistake that cost the company a lot of money.

 

[Popeye206]

Apple mangers or you, exactly the same approach , a decision is made when something is fit for purpose, on-time means hitting an imposed deadline while removing critical showstoppers .

Apple software ships with lots of bugs these days, they are not special , they are just like you and me who work in the software industry . If anything, they are very slow to react to critical issues that are identified, they still believe in big drop maintaince patches to resolve issues, which is very old school thinking.... 2015 they finally got a responsive website...

Honestly, I don't think people give consideration to the complexity of iOS and OSX. Sure, it's always easy after shipping to say "how could they miss that bug" but when you have millions of test cases to work through, it's not all that hard. Automated testing only does so much. Automated testing makes sure features work as expected. Human testing adds the element of variation, but even then, it's a flawed testing approach as someone always going to do something that was just not tried during testing.

Deadlines are a fact of development and they do come at a price. One thing that Apple and others have been doing that should help reduce bugs is the public beta programs. They are a way to increase the variation testing and be able to fix hard to catch problems early. But again... not flawless and no mater what, with todays approaches and technology, these complex programs are going to have bugs. A fact of life.

If you know of a better, not "old school" approach, please let me know. I'd love to ship 100% bug free software the first time.

 

[shamino]

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

That's OK. I didn't invent it either. It's been attributed to many famous people.

Why even have lower courts at all? Everything just gets appealed to the Supreme Court sooner or later...

Well, lots of people appeal to the USSC. Most of the cases are never heard.

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. ...

Well, that's your opinion. Apple says that they were getting shafted by unreasonable requests and they took Ericsson to court over it.

And why is hard negotiation evidence of "profiteering"? And why, in a dispute that you know nothing about (because all the relevant documents are between the two parties and have not been released to the public) are you automatically assuming that one side must be guilty of something and the other isn't?

No, don't bother answering. I already know. You despise Apple and will spin everything you say to justify your feelings.

Found this, which sheds a little light on it:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-ericsson-in-legal-scrap-over-patents-1421229290

Thanks. Still doesn't say what tech is in dispute, but at least there's a bit more information here.

 

[MH01]

Honestly, I don't think people give consideration to the complexity of iOS and OSX. Sure, it's always easy after shipping to say "how could they miss that bug" but when you have millions of test cases to work through, it's not all that hard. Automated testing only does so much. Automated testing makes sure features work as expected. Human testing adds the element of variation, but even then, it's a flawed testing approach as someone always going to do something that was just not tried during testing.

Deadlines are a fact of development and they do come at a price. One thing that Apple and others have been doing that should help reduce bugs is the public beta programs. They are a way to increase the variation testing and be able to fix hard to catch problems early. But again... not flawless and no mater what, with todays approaches and technology, these complex programs are going to have bugs. A fact of life.

If you know of a better, not "old school" approach, please let me know. I'd love to ship 100% bug free software the first time.

My reference to old school relates to waterfall, and big bang software releases.

Look, you are not going to achieve 100% bug free software, so don't even take the high ground there, silly stance. It does not mean that it cannot be improved. Big bang software drops is very old school, waterfall thinking.

Stakeholder management and scope are the biggest killers in IT. Blame the people signing up to these deadlines!

and The Below is a great comical way to explain why we have bugs in software and we rush to get things out to deadlines....

 

[Popeye206]

My reference to old school relates to waterfall, and big bang software releases.

Look, you are not going to achieve 100% bug free software, so don't even take the high ground there, silly stance. It does not mean that it cannot be improved. Big bang software drops is very old school, waterfall thinking.

Stakeholder management and scope are the biggest killers in IT. Blame the people signing up to these deadlines!

and The Below is a great comical way to explain why we have bugs in software and we rush to get things out to deadlines....

Good cartoon... very true in many cases.

 

[MH01]

Good cartoon... very true in many cases.

I know, quite sad for our industry Though we have all been in projects that we can relate to that cartoon....

 

[D-Dave]

It would depend on the case. If it's a corporation trying to weasel out of a fine over something they're clearly guilty of, then even if it were Apple, I'd disapprove. I can't say I know the specifics, only that I've seen the comparison shots over the years and it really does appear to me that Samsung has been copying Apple's designs--from hardware down to icons.

You do realise that the invalidation of said patent realy means that it does not matter if samsung copied apple because (in this specific case) it wasn't apple who invented it anyway. Maybe you should look up some prior art...
Let's face it, the major strength of Apple under Steve Jobs was envisioning a product and combining (existing) tech to accomplish things in a new way. While that is clearly admireable, it is not patentable.

 

[Gasu E.]

$1B -> $548M -> $148M?

I'd make that bet.

The Supreme Court will only rule to clarify a point of law. They would not reduce a judgment. They COULD send it back to a lower court for reconsideration.

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

You just contradicted your own assertion within the scope of these consecutive sentences. The US International Trade Commission is not a court, and is not part of the Federal court system; therefore Samsung was not using the courts, at least in this case. Appealing to the President was the most appropriate recourse to dispute an administrative decision by this Presidential-appointed Commission.

 

[CFreymarc]

The Supreme Court will only rule to clarify a point of law. They would not reduce a judgment. They COULD send it back to a lower court for reconsideration.

Honestly, this is one of those cases where global politics can have more effect than Rule of Law. I have seen foreign companies dissolve their American holding company, exit the American market with their home country refusing to extradite any settlement on the ground of "global trade balance." Meaning, a foreign sovereign covers the butt of their socialist, state sponsored entity to keep their economy as a whole from compromise. Typically, they shuffle around executives, pantomime some sort of discipline to the State Department and reenter the US market under a totally new domestic incorporation without any liability of past American domestic representation.

 

[kdarling]

You just contradicted your own assertion within the scope of these consecutive sentences.

Context is everything. The title of the thread is about appeals.

Therefore when I said "At least Samsung is using the courts", it was in reference to appeals. (Everyone, including Apple, uses ITC.)

Apple could've let an appeals court decide the ITC ban, but they turned to the White House instead. Of course, that smartly avoids taking the chance that an appeal won't work. Somewhere on this or another forum I posted research on how many ITC cases are overturned by court appeals. I'll look for it.

As an amusing side note, ITC can only ban imports. If a company built their phones IN the US instead of importing them, then they could avoid most attacks via the ITC.