It's a fair bet that the $399M was never paid out. Usually damages are not paid out until appeals have been exhausted. There is interest paid out on that amount from the time of the verdict until the appeals are exhausted, but that interest is essentially zero right now in federal court.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Supreme Court Reverses Apple's $399 Million Award in Samsung Phone Design Lawsuit [Updated With Apple Statement]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're quoting Davenport. I think the original poster was quoting Jobs. Who was allegedly quoting Picasso. Which could have been attributed to Elliot or Stravinsky or Faulkner or... Regardless of origin. The poster was quoting Jobs.
I agree with you in some ways but the iPhone does have some good things going for it..the processor for one thing
kicks all of the others asses and I guess the market agrees, the iPhone is taking 91% of all phone profits.
I've already ranted enough today on how I feel the Current Apple management and their product is sub par.
Am I the only one here that thinks Apple much rather had the 2016 they just had than the 2016that samsung just had?
Appears the Supreme Court gifted Apple a "dongle" for Christmas.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of Samsung in its longstanding smartphone design lawsuit with Apple, reversing a $399 million damages judgment awarded to Apple by a lower court. The case will now return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Supreme Court judges unanimously decided they do not have enough info to say whether damages paid to Apple should be based on the total device, or rather individual components like the front bezel or the screen. It urged the U.S. Court of Appeals to reconsider the $399 million penalty Samsung paid in 2012.The lawsuit dates back to 2011, when Apple successfully sued Samsung for infringing upon the iPhone's patented design, including its rectangular front face with rounded edges and grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple's damages were awarded based on Samsung's entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones.
Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and over 100 other top designers backed Apple in August, arguing the iPhone maker is entitled to all profits Samsung has earned from infringing designs. They cited a 1949 study showing more than 99% of Americans could identify a bottle of Coca-Cola by shape alone.
Article Link: Supreme Court Reverses Apple's $399 Million Award in Samsung Phone Design Lawsuit
Courage, Apple, Courage.
Last edited:
You not be blaming Apple. Apple can try to patend anything they want to. It's the patent office's fault in the first place for passing tha patent application. The patent office should be better screen the patent applications as not to pass things like this.
Among other things the SCOTUS said a judgement may be based on only a component of the product infringed and doesn't have to be based on the entire consumer deliverable. Reading the decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf provides a little more information than MR's summary.
Welcome to the forum. I'm sure you will find a growing number of fellow forum members sharing your sentiments and concerns. However, this is an Apple oriented forum and so don't be surprised if your user name gets you repeatedly targeted as a troll.
People here are generally kindly disposed to thoughtful discussion and fair criticism of both Tim Cook specifically and Apple and Apple products in general. But we get so many rants and tirades against Apple with no thoughtfully articulated commentary to explain the author's position, that a lot of members have had their patience worn thin and will dogpile such posts.
At any rate, I hope you're well treated, but if not, a more neutral username might help warm up the reception you receive here.
The right person was elected president. Fact, end of story.
Apple took a risk and started selling rectangular touch screens. Everyone else could've done it, but it wasn't a proven market concept. Apple proved it worked. Everyone followed.
That's not equivalent to stealing a patented idea. It's equivalent to following. There are no legal losses. The same thing happens with toys, clothing, televisions, cars, you name it.
It's called economics people. Come on.
That's not equivalent to stealing a patented idea. It's equivalent to following. There are no legal losses. The same thing happens with toys, clothing, televisions, cars, you name it.
It's called economics people. Come on.
This. Apple, like everyone else, is playing the same game. The patent system is fundamentally broken. Fixing it won't be possible until it's a priority.
The EFF even has a blog called Stupid Patent of the Month just to highlight what get's passed.
I don't get it.
Patents were supposed to be exclusive rights for a limited time that the owner could do with as they pleased.
License it for a reasonable fee, an unreasonable fee, or keep it to themselves. All that as an incentive and reward for putting in the effort and taking the risk of doing it all for nothing because it doesn't work after all.
In practice, with results like this one, all an inventor can expect is some rent that a jury or judge considers reasonable, after years of litigation. Getting a reasonable compensation after lengthy litigation is not much of an incentive.
The state that grants the exclusive right is supposed to enforce it, with measures that will deter trespassing.
Maybe paying a reasonable fee years later is not much of a deterrent.
Patent law, the notion that you can own an idea, is pretty silly.
But as a useful fiction, it could be beneficial.
If it is actually enforced like real property rights.
This way all we have is the silly part.
Patents were supposed to be exclusive rights for a limited time that the owner could do with as they pleased.
License it for a reasonable fee, an unreasonable fee, or keep it to themselves. All that as an incentive and reward for putting in the effort and taking the risk of doing it all for nothing because it doesn't work after all.
In practice, with results like this one, all an inventor can expect is some rent that a jury or judge considers reasonable, after years of litigation. Getting a reasonable compensation after lengthy litigation is not much of an incentive.
The state that grants the exclusive right is supposed to enforce it, with measures that will deter trespassing.
Maybe paying a reasonable fee years later is not much of a deterrent.
Patent law, the notion that you can own an idea, is pretty silly.
But as a useful fiction, it could be beneficial.
If it is actually enforced like real property rights.
This way all we have is the silly part.
So does this open the door to say, auto makers copying the design of others? Or vacuum cleaners copying the design of others? So now I guess Ford can make a car that looks like a Ferrari now?
It's bad that a copy cat samsung is given protection. Nowadays Chinese companies are coping apple design, so at least US should protect Apple
Now let's hear how you manage to blame Tim Cook for the court's decision. Should be interesting.
This always struck me as an absurd case.
Did Samsung take some design cues from Apple? Of course they did. They didn't blatantly copy anything, though. It's easy to tell that the two devices are not the same device. Almost nobody mistakenly bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone.
That's really the only way Apple could prove damages. If they found actual customers who went into the store with a desire to buy, not just any smartphone, but specifically an iPhone, and mistakenly bought a Samsung phone instead. Maybe somewhere under 1% of people did that - maybe Samsung should pay Apple $4M for that. It's absurd to think that all of Samsung's revenue from their phones should go to Apple, though.
Did Samsung take some design cues from Apple? Of course they did. They didn't blatantly copy anything, though. It's easy to tell that the two devices are not the same device. Almost nobody mistakenly bought a Samsung phone thinking it was an iPhone.
That's really the only way Apple could prove damages. If they found actual customers who went into the store with a desire to buy, not just any smartphone, but specifically an iPhone, and mistakenly bought a Samsung phone instead. Maybe somewhere under 1% of people did that - maybe Samsung should pay Apple $4M for that. It's absurd to think that all of Samsung's revenue from their phones should go to Apple, though.
I don't understand this thinking. Events aren't tied to the year.
I had a great year, should I be sad or worried that it's nearly over? Of course not - mental.
If apple doesn't want to pay tax to fund the courts, they get what they sow.
I was ashamed, as a human being, reading "a rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen" in a decision made by the US Supreme Court.
They should have declared this lawsuit a sham, and hold in contempt the persons responsible for submitting and respectively approving such "patents".
They should have declared this lawsuit a sham, and hold in contempt the persons responsible for submitting and respectively approving such "patents".
Well Steve quoted Picasso's saying which is nothing close to what you quoted, it may have roots in the quote you offer, but over time has changed including its meaning...
Check out the link for the horses mouth.
Specifically the video.
https://www.cnet.com/news/what-stev...e-said-good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/