Susan Kare, Greg Joswiak to Testify in Upcoming Apple v. Samsung Damages Retrial

[Mirice99]

Once again a patent t

This is why I stopped buying ANY SamSung products years ago. Just like I stopped going to Starbucks years ago. Both slimey but for different reasons. Apple 2018!!!

I am sure you have no problem with all the patents Apple has been found guilt of stealing though. I am also sure you don't think it's slimy how Apple stole VerneTx and was found guilty of stealing those patents refuses to pays the damages the courts ordered.
[doublepost=1524654075][/doublepost]

The court system needs a limit on the number of appeals and retrials. This is just clogging up the courts and costing tax payers money. At some point a court should be able to make a final decision. They shouldn't be able to keep appealing and retrying a case forever.

Does that include appleals by Apple like in the VertneTx case or the other cases Apple has lost and dragged on for years or should it only apply when a company is sued by Apple?
[doublepost=1524654289][/doublepost]

Samsung could have just paid the fine. Instead, they keep appealing. Why does Samsung keep pushing the case?

Apple should have just paid the 502 million to VirneTx instead of continuing to appeal over and over and fight the case for years right? Why does Apple keep pushing that case?

 

[cmaier]

Once again a patent t


I am sure you have no problem with all the patents Apple has been found guilt of stealing though. I am also sure you don't think it's slimy how Apple stole VerneTx and was found guilty of stealing those patents refuses to pays the damages the courts ordered.

Apple has never been found guilty of stealing any patent.

Apple has paid all court-ordered damages for patent infringement in every litigation after all appeals are resolved. In America, district courts initially hear patent infringement disputes, and then they are quite often appealed and overturned at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which is a special court that exists mostly for that purpose. There is nothing unusual about that, and it would be improper to “pays the damages the courts ordered” while the court of appeals is dealing with the matters.

 

[gnasher729]

And, they both evolved from products long before like the 2003 Compaq iPaq h2210 Pocket PC rectangle with rounded corners, circular home button, WIFI and even calling capability. Noticed how Apple even borrowed similarity in the name.

That's beyond stupid. Samsung actually has design patents for their Galaxy phones. Rectangle with rounded corners. Looking completely different from the iPhone ones. And the question is not whether you can distinguish between two phones if you see them side by side (except that Samsung actually had a lawyer who in court couldn't distinguish between an iPad and a Samsung tablet, side by side, so your comment about having to be stupid surely applied to that guy), the question is whether someone wanting to buy one product could see the other in a shop, think they are the same, and buy it. Like grandma who got told to buy an iPhone for her grandson, she would think this is an iPhone made by Samsung and buy it.
[doublepost=1524661445][/doublepost]

The court system needs a limit on the number of appeals and retrials. This is just clogging up the courts and costing tax payers money. At some point a court should be able to make a final decision. They shouldn't be able to keep appealing and retrying a case forever.

The one point where I agree with you is "costing tax payers money". In Germany, if you go to a civil court, the loser will pay for the court cost. I assume they are arguing about 400 million dollar or so, so someone (or both of them together) would pay a few million in cost to the court.

 

[cmaier]

The court system needs a limit on the number of appeals and retrials. This is just clogging up the courts and costing tax payers money. At some point a court should be able to make a final decision. They shouldn't be able to keep appealing and retrying a case forever.

There is a limit. You can appeal to the federal circuit court of appeals. Certain issues can automatically be appealed and others require that the courts allow you. If the appeals court can resolve the issue as a matter of law, then it’s over (unless you can appeal to the Supreme Court). If the appeals court resolves the legal issue but there are factual issues that remain, it is remanded to the lower court. Remember that the appeals court does not hear witnesses, etc. because it consists of a panel of judges, and our constitution requires that issues of fact be determined by a jury (unless you waive that right).

Sometimes after remand, a new question of law arises and in rare cases the new issue gets appealed. This is very rare. It is more common in very complex cases where, for example, the damages trial is separate from the infringement trial.

 

[jamezr]

Like grandma who got told to buy an iPhone for her grandson, she would think this is an iPhone made by Samsung and buy it.

That is flawed logic and very bad example. People can be fooled into buying anything. That is why there are so many scam artists out there.
I'm sure anyone could sell things to grandmas around the world that were not legit....that doesn't mean there was patent infringement. If a grandma or grandpa for that matter bought a Corvette from a salesman that told them it was made by Ferrari......should Ferrari sure Chevrolet? I mean they both have wheels and doors and an engine and are sports cars and basically the same shape.

 

[cmaier]

That is flawed logic and very bad example. People can be fooled into buying anything. That is why there are so many scam artists out there.
I'm sure anyone could sell things to grandmas around the world that were not legit....that doesn't mean there was patent infringement. If a grandma or grandpa for that matter bought a Corvette from a salesman that told them it was made by Ferrari......should Ferrari sure Chevrolet? I mean they both have wheels and doors and an engine and are sports cars and basically the same shape.

This is a flawed argument. And I think you are confusing utility patents with design patents.

 

[jamezr]

This is a flawed argument. And I think you are confusing utility patents with design patents.

not so..... The quote from the person i replied to made an exact correlation and followed the exact logic example.

 

[mi7chy]

the question is whether someone wanting to buy one product could see the other in a shop, think they are the same, and buy it. Like grandma who got told to buy an iPhone for her grandson, she would think this is an iPhone made by Samsung and buy it.

People aren't that naive. You're just making it up to fit your argument but in any other industry you'd get laughed out of court if you walked into In-n-Out and thought you were buying Burger King burger, mistakenly bought Toyota car at a Honda dealership, LG instead of Samsung TV, Whirlpool instead of Kenmoore washer, etc.

 

[cmaier]

not so..... The quote from the person i replied to made an exact correlation and followed the exact logic example.

What did he say that's wrong? The test for design patents is "two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other."

 

[jamezr]

What did he say that's wrong? The test for design patents is "two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other."

Please go back and read the quote in my reply. Just because you can fool someone's old grandma does not make it design or patent infringement. If I remember right the part about look and feel and rectangular shape was found to be invalid in the original suit or a subsequent appeal.

If someone can be fooled into buying a phone labeled Samsung as an Apple iPhone....that says alot about them. Not infringement.

If you mistaken the phone on the right for an Apple iPhone then you have other problems.
Look at all the phones today....they all basically have the same shape.

If the original suit was brought today it would have been thrown out.

 

[cmaier]

Please go back and read the quote in my reply. Just because you can fool someone's old grandma does not make it design or patent infringement. If I remember right the part about look and feel and rectangular shape was found to be invalid in the original suit or a subsequent appeal.

If someone can be fooled into buying a phone labeled Samsung as an Apple iPhone....that says alot about them. Not infringement.

If you mistaken the phone on the right for an Apple iPhone then you have other problems.
Look at all the phones today....they all basically have the same shape.

If the original suit was brought today it would have been thrown out.

First, the test isn't what an ordinary person today would think. It's what an ordinary person at the time would have thought. And the person has to be ordinary, not a techy. And the label doesn't matter. You can't copy a design, stick a different label on it, and not infringe.

Also, you are conflating invalidity and infringement. These are separate questions. A patent may be infringed but not valid, or vice versa.

 

[jamezr]

First, the test isn't what an ordinary person today would think. It's what an ordinary person at the time would have thought. And the person has to be ordinary, not a techy. And the label doesn't matter. You can't copy a design, stick a different label on it, and not infringe.

Also, you are conflating invalidity and infringement. These are separate questions. A patent may be infringed but not valid, or vice versa.

you missed the whole point in my post and just seem to want to argue. I quoted a person and included the quote...then you ran with it and turned it around. Go back to what I quoted. It is still valid.

Like I said...today or 10 years ago....If you want an Apple iPhone.....buy one...... Not one that says Samsung on it. That holds true past and present for all ordinary people that can read.

 

[SoGood]

After all these years and it's still going. That's why the patent/legal system is so stuffed up. At this rate, no startup company that has been hurt could survive this long to recover the damages done.

 

[shanos]

Here is an interesting article from 2007 regarding the LG Prada phone,

http://macdailynews.com/2007/01/16/lg_undecided_about_lawsuit_against_iphone_over_similarities/

I was at the time a manager at phones4u and I also felt that apple had been heavily influenced by the LG handset, guess what it already had a phone with rounded corners and a large display! If apple want to play the copyright on that one surely all the damages awarded for the patent patent should go to LG who made the phone with no access to what apple were making (as is the usual dig at samsSam as they may have been privey to early design from Apple), perhaps Lg can wait and find out the outcome then go after apple and sue them for all the damages done? Or is it not ok for someone to sue apple for infringement of someone else that had a phone on the market with the most stupid patent ever '' phone with rounded corners'

 

[Tozovac]

Not to bash android, but it was never as good as iOS because it’s a copy and had to change things to at least pretend be slightly different to Apple’s then world-class UI around or before 2013, resulting in a much less-than-optimized UI full of compromises in Android to this day.

Awaiting Samsung to sue Apple for ios 7-11’s copying Samsung’s much less-than-optimized and full-of-compromises just to be different UI strategy.

 

[cmaier]

you missed the whole point in my post and just seem to want to argue. I quoted a person and included the quote...then you ran with it and turned it around. Go back to what I quoted. It is still valid.

Like I said...today or 10 years ago....If you want an Apple iPhone.....buy one...... Not one that says Samsung on it. That holds true past and present for all ordinary people that can read.

Whether you can read isn’t the point. There is a legal test for determining whether a design patent is infringed. You don’t get to invent your own. And the person you were rebutting stated the correct test, while your responses are inventing some alternate test that has no basis in the law.

 

[jamezr]

Whether you can read isn’t the point. There is a legal test for determining whether a design patent is infringed. You don’t get to invent your own. And the person you were rebutting stated the correct test, while your responses are inventing some alternate test that has no basis in the law.

I think it is you that has the reading problem. Maybe glasses are in order. Because if you would mistaken the phone on the right for an iPhone then you are the problem....

 

[kdarling]

Not to bash android, but it was never as good as iOS because it’s a copy and had to change things to at least pretend be slightly different to Apple’s then world-class UI around or before 2013, resulting in a much less-than-optimized UI full of compromises in Android to this day.

Android started out with a much fuller OS, such as the ability for an app to securely display a window in a window (e.g. widgets), true multitasking, longer scrolling lists, etc... which is greatly why it was slower at first, but then caught up as devices got faster.

iOS started out the other way, with limited OS abilities that allowed smoother animations on limited devices. As it began to fill up with more features and capabilities, we've naturally seen more bugs and slowdowns.

At this point, both OSes have kind of met in the middle

 

[kdarling]

If you can argue that you only copied 1% so you should be charged 1% then the whole idea of a patent or copyright is ridiculous.

Not if it's just one piece out of a complicated device. A popular example is if a carmaker copied someone else's cupholder design. Should they have to give up all their profit on the entire vehicle?

If you needed that 1% so your product would sell then you should be penalized for the price of the entire product.

Yes, that's the idea (except profit, not price!). But as you said, only if the product wouldn't have sold at all without it.

---

In any case, this retrial isn't about infringement. Right or wrong, depending on which judges you talked to, that part has already been decided. Now only the amount is at question. These are the three design patents involved:

To determine the award, the Supreme Court came up with two steps:

1. Identify the "article of manufacture" to which the infringed design has been applied. (i.e. The phone face? The home screen? The entire device?)
2. Calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture. (could be very difficult to do)

Unfortunately the Supreme Court declined to actually come up with a test for what constitutes the "article of manufacture". So Judge Koh has decided to go with a DOJ recommendation of using four factors:

• The scope of the design claimed in the plaintiff’s patent, including the drawing and written description.
• The relative prominence of the design within the product as a whole.
• Whether the design is conceptually distinct from the product as a whole.
• The physical relationship between the patented design and the rest of the product, including whether the design pertains to a component that a user or seller can physically separate from the product as a whole, and whether the design is embodied in a component that is manufactured separately from the rest of the product, or if the component can be sold separately.

Apple gets to do the initial determinations, so it's a good guess they'll go for "whole device" and "all profits".

 

[Applemaniac7]

You can say all the tech inside doesn't mean the entire device was copied but search what Samsung phones looked like before the iPhone was released and then after... They blatantly copied everything they could. They knew the tech Apple put inside (weren't they suppliers back then as well?)

The difference in a full touch screen device and the old candybar phones would be huge. Android changed all the software too. Samsung deliberately chose the look and feel to be as similar as possible with their UI skin. And if that wasn't enough, they could have chosen any number of screen layouts but they even went as far as the rounded app buttons in the same grid. If you stood a few feet back, it would be hard for regular people to tell the difference.

The only ones getting rich out of this are the lawyers. It should have been settled years ago.

Samsung is probably worried if they lose (again) other companies they have copied are finally going to have a shot at them too for white goods they were "inspired" by.

Maybe patent law needs to be simplified. So much relies on previous work now it must be hard not to infringe and patent trolls think they can make money without ever building a product. What defines a product is the whole hardware, software, UI, OS, app store and overall feel. Breaking down what percentage each bit contributes is difficult. The sum of the parts...

Jobs famously said they'd patented the hell out of this. They maybe should have tested those patents earlier.

I agree with -BigMac-: even Apple probably doesn't care for this lawsuit now. When you see how much of the market profit Apple captures does it really matter any more?

Erm.. the iPhone wasnt the first full screen touchscreen phone or the first phone to have a grid of icons.. shall we preted these facts dont exist..