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 arguing points that have nothing to do with the case. This case is about calculating damages. Full device vs component. This case is not about whether Samsung violated Apple's patents. That has been resolved. I've said it plenty of times before, Apple does not want to win this case. It's bad for them and bad for the tech industry as a whole.
No. The click wheel was 50% of what the iPod was. It was something unique that Apple made and only Apple used.
A touch screen isn't like the click wheel. It's something common and obvious. Plenty of devices before the iPhone had touch screens. Apple isn't arguing that the touch screen is what was copied.
Apple argued that having a grid of colorful icons on a black background is what was copied. I don't think that's specific enough to patent or trademark... plus it's kind of obvious. Grids of icons have existed since the dawn of the GUI. I wouldn't be too surprised if you can find an analog from before GUIs even existed - Arthur C Clark was able to describe the iPad in his book 2001 which he wrote in 1968.
Samsung took SOME "Design Cues"?!?!? Hahahahahahaaaa!
SOME Design Cues?!?!?
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/technology/apple-samsung/
For those too lazy to link the above. You tell ME exactly WHICH "Design Cues" Samsung DIDN'T Take:
And it continues to this day:
Look at the images in this Review:
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s7-vs-apple-iphone-7-719775/
Actually early on Samsung took a lot more than just cues for the iPhone. By using the same dimensions, icon shapes, icon colors,icon design, external hardware materials and more they essentially made an iPhone clone. This was proven in court so much so that they 1) did a test with the screens off and most people couldn't tell the difference between the phones and 2) during a survey most people picked the Samsung phone because it looked like the iPhone. So you can't say it's easy to tell difference unless you are less than 3ft away and are very familiar with what each phone looks like on or off.
A few years ago, Samsung, who is one of the few actual OEMs of LCDs and OLED Displays, put a TON of money into OLED (and AMOLED) research, and somewhat solved some longevity and yield problems that the industry was having with OLEDs. For that, they deserve a lot of credit.
However, they effectively withheld that technology from people like Apple (actually, they priced it out-of-the-running in comparison with their, and others' LCD panels). So Samsung phones (which could purchase Samsung's AMOLED Displays at whatever rate Samsung wanted to charge Samsung for them), enjoyed AMOLED Displays, while basically everyone else, including Apple, had to keep purchasing LCDs (or try to find an alternate source. Good luck with that!).
This was not a case of "Apple failed to deliver". Samsung just had a multi-year R&D jump on everyone else in the AMOLED world, and took full advantage of that.
I'm going to assume 3 things. 1. You didn't read the article. 2. You're clueless as to what this case is about. 3. You never let facts get in the way of a good story.
They HAVE worked REALLY hard to get out from under Samsung's component-thumb. That's why, for example, TSMC started sharing the SoC "fab" duties.
It's just that, manufacturing makes strange bedfellows. No one is immune from that.
The good thing about that? There are competing companies like LG make OLED screens. Not that I agree with your assessment, but based on it's premise, Samsung shot themselves in the foot. They had to burn all the R&D money to improve OLED and other companies got to come along after the product improved and add further improvements.
No, it means of the Court. It can be a unanimous decision, a 5-4 decision, or a 3-2 decision where only some Justices participate. It just means the opinion is written by the court and who actually authored the decision is not published.
Hahahahahaha... I knew this would happen, I'm glad it went to the Supreme Court not least to shut up all the people on here that slam Samsung at every given opportunity and never ever complain about Apple, and then went on the state this case would NEVER be heard by the Supreme court.
People seem to fail to see this how business is done, you come up with a complete bogus reason to sue the competition out of existence because it's cheaper then competing with them.
I hope Apple gets even more egg on its face now!
People seem to fail to see this how business is done, you come up with a complete bogus reason to sue the competition out of existence because it's cheaper then competing with them.
I hope Apple gets even more egg on its face now!
Lots of comments seem to be off base here (not going to read them all though). Here's a summary of this decision...
The supreme court has held that infringing a design patent does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the party infringing is liable to the extent of all profits on the infringing item, there may be a partial profit solution based upon specific infringing components. This means that Apple MAY or MAY NOT still be entitled to the full judgement. SCOTUS did not speak to whether the potential for partial profit solution applies to this specific case but instead referred it back to the lower court.
So, Samsung gets a chance to further litigate with the POSSIBILITY of lowering the judgement, there is no guarantee that will happen. The lower court will need to construct some form of test for component based infringement as opposed to full device. Regardless of what the lower court decides that test should be I'd expect the part who comes out on the losing end of that will then attempt to further litigate the methodology of the test.
The supreme court has held that infringing a design patent does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the party infringing is liable to the extent of all profits on the infringing item, there may be a partial profit solution based upon specific infringing components. This means that Apple MAY or MAY NOT still be entitled to the full judgement. SCOTUS did not speak to whether the potential for partial profit solution applies to this specific case but instead referred it back to the lower court.
So, Samsung gets a chance to further litigate with the POSSIBILITY of lowering the judgement, there is no guarantee that will happen. The lower court will need to construct some form of test for component based infringement as opposed to full device. Regardless of what the lower court decides that test should be I'd expect the part who comes out on the losing end of that will then attempt to further litigate the methodology of the test.
Sorry, but You are completely wrong. Not even close. Nearly half of ALL Supreme Court decisions are 9-0 (8 now because Scalia has not been replaced). Approximately 20% are 5-4 splits.
Try to do a little research before spouting stats.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SB_votesplit_OT15.pdf
You misunderstand the point of law here. This is not a trademark dispute, it is a design patent. Design patent infringement doesn't have any requirement that consumers be confused. I think you've conflated the two concepts.
Actually a unanimous opinion (i.e. 9-0 or 8-0 on the current Court) is the most common result. In some years, the majority (i.e. more than 50%) of all SC decisions are unanimous.
See:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...014_why_are_most_cases_either_9_0_or_5_4.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SB_unanimity_OT15.pdf
lol oops. nevertheless an unanimous decision clearly shows what the court stand is on this whole issue.
