U.S. Department of Justice Urges Supreme Court to Send Apple vs. Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

[Analog Kid]

Hmmm.... I haven't even posted on this one yet, are you bullying me? That's against site rules you know?

I also do not seem to remember ever claiming it's 'unfairly protected' as an 'American Company'. Because that is almost claiming I am racist.

Perhaps I would advise you to wait for my response on topics before talking about me behind my back, I'm hardly unique on this forum...

I have half a mind to report your post to the Mods actually, you have singled me out from every other member on this site without me commenting on the story, and unless you are blind I am hardly the only one outspoken against courts and Apple cases.

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...

Perhaps the US government and the US Patent Office should apologise about the fact the US Patent Office is so biased and fixed and a shambles and unfair that the rest of the world pretty much ignores it?

hahahahahaha... Apple got served! And they fully deserved it too!

this is good clever advertising, I mean Apple has used the corrupt biased American patent system and courts and to an extent government to gain market share and profit margins because it can..

First, find a place where the rules say you can't be mentioned, and linked to, as an example? I have not sent you threatening messages and I have not insulted you. You have made a reputation for yourself as someone who loudly, brashly and quite aggressively states contrarian opinions so you make a good example of the category of posters I was referring to.

If you're concerned about bullying, please take a moment to compare your tone to mine. I quoted you as a (relevant and accurate) example of one line of thought through the Samsung/Apple threads because I knew I could support it. You came at me with threats but no factual content and no apparent motive other than to intimidate me.

And for the record, "American" isn't a race.

 

[apolloa]

First, find a place where the rules say you can't be mentioned, and linked to, as an example? I have not sent you threatening messages and I have not insulted you. You have made a reputation for yourself as someone who loudly, brashly and quite aggressively states contrarian opinions so you make a good example of the category of posters I was referring to.

If you're concerned about bullying, please take a moment to compare your tone to mine. I quoted you as a (relevant and accurate) example of one line of thought through the Samsung/Apple threads because I knew I could support it. You came at me with threats but no factual content and no apparent motive other than to intimidate me.

And for the record, "American" isn't a race.

Actually you singled me out, and you CAN be racist to another country, racism isn't all about colour. And a reputation eh? Hmm I must be special, I've certainly read PLENTY of others comments that match mine, I believe it's more you just happened to remember my username actually.

I actually just love how you have firstly accused myself of singling Apple out, and then you quote posts where I was calling the American patent system useless and open to abuse from ANY company. Yeah i can see where I was singling 'Apple' out there

But please do continue... I mean I could post all the other members on here that also believe the American patent system is flawed and open to corruption but their are many.

I'm also struggling to see your point of quoting my FACT I posted here:

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...

Now I could post the evidence if it would help you at all?

 

[Analog Kid]

Actually you singled me out, and you CAN be racist to another country, racism isn't all about colour. And a reputation eh? Hmm I must be special, I've certainly read PLENTY of others comments that match mine, I believe it's more you just happened to remember my username actually.

I actually just love how you have firstly accused myself of singling Apple out, and then you quote posts where I was calling the American patent system useless and open to abuse from ANY company. Yeah i can see where I was singling 'Apple' out there

But please do continue... I mean I could post all the other members on here that also believe the American patent system is flawed and open to corruption but their are many.

I'm also struggling to see your point of quoting my FACT I posted here:

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...

Now I could post the evidence if it would help you at all?

Ok, I'm not going to keep answering your ever changing set of arguments, but it sounds like we're in agreement on the basics. I remember you because you've made a reputation for yourself through posts like these last two and used you as the most visible example of a point of view that is sometimes expressed in these threads.

 

[kdarling]

This article, to be good journalism, should discuss why the Department of Justice has a position on this.

Here's some more from another article I ran across while searching for the brief:

"The Department of Justice on Wednesday filed an amicus brief stating that it supported “neither party” but had a “substantial interest” in the Supreme Court’s decision, given the potential impact it could have on the scale of damages in future patent cases.

"In particular, it said the decision might arm so-called patent trolls — companies whose entire business model is based on intellectual property litigation rather than on developing real products — with a “sword” to extract settlements from companies even with “frivolous” claims.'

"While the Patent Act “unambiguously permits a patent holder to recover the infringer’s entire profits from the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design was applied”, the DoJ cautioned that the “‘article of manufacture’ will not always be the finished product that is sold in commerce” and may sometimes merely be a component of that product."

In other words, the DOJ is afraid that the Supreme Court will uphold the concept that design patent awards can be composed of the profits of the entire device... instead of being based on the contributing value of the parts that infringed, as common sense calls for, and how it is usually done for utility patents.

Imagine, for example, that Apple used a nice looking background on a single iOS settings page in the iPhone, and it turned out that design was already patented by someone else. In theory, the design patent holder could demand the ENTIRE PROFITS of Apple's iPhone sales.

It gets worse. Imagine if a dozen tiny design patent holders each sued Apple, and each was awarded an amount equal to Apple's profits. How long could any company withstand such awards?!

Does anyone think that makes sense? That each design patent should be worth the entire product?? No, of course not. The design patent law in question was originally written a hundred years ago, back when an product usually only contained one or two patented items. Today's devices can contain literally thousands. Intuitively, any award should be based on the contribution of a patent to the whole... no matter if it's a utility patent or a design patent.

That is what the debate is about: should design patents be worth far more than utility patents? E.g. should the shape of a button be worth orders of magnitude more than, say, a radio chip.

--

If SCOTUS did uphold the Koh jury awards that were based on awarding full or almost full profits, then companies both small and large would be in danger of literally being sued to death by trolls holding tiny design patents. (You think it's bad now with Apple owing over a half billion because of Facetime? That's nothing compared to what a design patent troll could get over a single icon, much less when hundreds of such lawsuits get filed.)

That's why everyone from supporters of minority neighborhood businesses, to giant corporations, have weighed in on Samsung's side. (It's quite likely that Apple itself silently supports the DOJ brief... or is even secretly behind it. )

TL;DR - From the bits we know, apparently the DOJ would prefer that SCOTUS not confirm any global rules that could possibly cause great harm to small and large businesses alike. That's why it wants a lower court to rule JUST on the Apple v. Samsung case.

 

[apolloa]

Ok, I'm not going to keep answering your ever changing set of arguments, but it sounds like we're in agreement on the basics. I remember you because you've made a reputation for yourself through posts like these last two and used you as the most visible example of a point of view that is sometimes expressed in these threads.

It is you who thinks I have an ever changing set of arguments. I have been consistent in my views of Americas Brocken patent system, it's why Apple has lost the majority of patent cases outside America, now either the majority of courts in the world outside America are wrong, or American courts support the broken and open to abuse patent system they have.

Personally I really want the Apple VS Samsung case be taken to the Supreme Court and not pushed back down, it will put a lid on the matter, especially considering one of the main patents for the case is being revoked by the patent office.

 

[AFEPPL]

Does anyone else just want this case to be done and over with already? It's been dragging for years.

Yep. But I'm wanting Samsung to win it, this would be a good verdict for consumers and common sense and hopefully put a stop to all this silly court cases.

 

[kdarling]

I am not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me. Why would the DOJ say that they think Samsung did not produce enough evidence and therefore the case should be sent back down.

I finally found and read the DOJ brief (along with briefs from other agencies and groups that also filed last week).

Basically, the DOJ (and everyone else) is saying that the District and Appeals Courts totally misinterpreted the design patent statute that allows awarding all the profits of "an article of manufacture", by telling the jury that the "article" always meant the entire device.

• So everyone is telling the Supreme Court that it should rule that the interpretation was a mistake, EXCEPT the DOJ.
• The DOJ is instead outright stating that it was so clearly a huge mistake, that SCOTUS does not even need to get involved.
• The DOJ therefore recommends that SCOTUS need only remand the case back to the lower courts with the admonition that they were mistaken, need to rethink their rulings, and perhaps start another trial with better instructions to the jury.

Along with tons of case law stating that the "article of manufacture" does not have to be the entire device, which everyone referred to, the DOJ had one extra argument that was pretty neat: they pointed out that design patents have never had to be about an entire object, but indeed are often about just a part. E.g. Apple's design patents in question were about bezels and icon arrangements, not about the entire device. Therefore it's already proven that they don't have to apply to everything.

--

As for your particular question about "not enough evidence", that was only a minor part of the brief, and was in relation to the DOJ's assertion that if there was a retrial, the jury should be the ones to decide what is the actual "article of manufacture" (a piece or the whole device) for each particular design patent.

Treating the identification of the relevant “article of manufacture” as a jury question is consistent with the jury’s role in determining design patent infringement, and with this Court’s longstanding recognition “across a variety of doctrinal contexts that, when the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make an assessment, the jury is generally the decision maker that ought to provide the fact-intensive answer.” - DOJ brief

So, since the jury would have to make that decision, it would be the burden of Samsung's lawyers to present relevant evidence for the jury to accept or not. (Something that was not allowed previously.)

In other words, lack of evidence was not a reason to send the case back, but a probable result to be rectified if it was. At least, that's how I interpret it. Others think it means that Samsung didn't provide enough evidence to show that the award should be apportioned, which would mean Samsung owes full profits after all.

--

For anyone interested, here are some Friends-of-the-Court briefs from:

Computer & Communications Industry Association (Sribd firewall. Join.)

Association of the Bar of New York

Electronic Frontier Foundation, The R Street Institute, The American Antitrust Institute, and IP Justice

Department of Justice and USPTO (this is the one the article is about)