U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Samsung's Appeal in Years-Old 'Slide to Unlock' Lawsuit With Apple

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday rejected Samsung's request to appeal a $119.6 million verdict awarded to Apple in an over six year old "Slide to Unlock" patent infringement lawsuit, according to Reuters.

    [​IMG]

    In October 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated Apple's award after a lower court found Samsung to have infringed upon several popular iPhone features, including slide-to-unlock and autocorrect.

    The lawsuit, from 2011, is so old that slide-to-unlock isn't even used on iPhones anymore. Unlocking an iPhone on iOS 10 or later requires using Face ID on iPhone X, and Touch ID or pressing the Home button on older iPhone models.

    This case is not to be confused with another 2011 lawsuit in which Apple accused Samsung of copying the iPhone's design with its Galaxy-branded smartphones. A damages retrial in that lawsuit is scheduled for next May.

    Article Link: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Samsung's Appeal in Years-Old 'Slide to Unlock' Lawsuit With Apple
     
  2. dwaltwhit macrumors 6502

    dwaltwhit

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee
  3. thelookingglass macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    #3
    I shudder to think of the amount of money wasted on this sort of legal bickering.
     
  4. Kabeyun macrumors 65816

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    #4
    Color me unsurprised that Samsung couldn’t convince the SCOTUS that there’s a compelling constitutional issue at play here.
     
  5. djeeyore25 macrumors 6502

    djeeyore25

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Location:
    New York City
    #5
    No part of the US government has had a good history with locked iPhones.
     
  6. djcerla macrumors 65816

    djcerla

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
    #6
    Samsung is way too obsessed with Apple. And that's bad Karma.
     
  7. cmaier macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #7
    Of course that’s not the test.
     
  8. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #8
    SCOTUS should fine Samsung another $100 million for wasting its time.
     
  9. 69Mustang macrumors 603

    69Mustang

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    In between a rock and a hard place
    #9
    I was unaware that there was even a constitutional question here. :rolleyes:
    Funnily enough, the SCOTUS did rule in favor of Samsung in that other 2011 case mentioned in the article.
     
  10. MasterMac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    #10
    Rather, we’ve come full circle and are now back to “slide to unlock”, but now we slide a new direction!
     
  11. usarioclave macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    #11
    Actually, they didn't really rule in Samsung's favor. They ruled that the amount of damages is not automatic. That isn't necessarily a good thing for Samsung, and it's not a bad thing for Samsung. It may be that the damage award is determined to be all the profits, or not.
     
  12. flszen macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    #12
    The linked article has nothing to do with this topic. Maybe you wanted to link to this one.
     
  13. M.PaulCezanne macrumors 6502a

    M.PaulCezanne

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    #13
    The arrogance of silicon valley attorneys never ceases to amaze. How much did they charge to convince Samsung it was worth a shot at the supreme court level where it probably had a less than 1% chance of being heard?

    Good grief.
     
  14. 69Mustang macrumors 603

    69Mustang

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    In between a rock and a hard place
    #14
    Not sure how you can say the court didn't rule in Sammy's favor. That ruling (unanimous btw) essentially said damages don't have to be calculated on the entire device. That was Samsung's argument all along. That's exactly what Samsung and most of the tech industry wanted. The only thing that didn't go Sammy's way in that ruling was the SCOTUS declining to determine the damages.

    True, the damages retrial could go Apple's way. The fact that you know that probably also means that you know it's highly unlikely to happen given the judge has already said the onus will be on Apple to prove they deserve full device damages. If Apple gets to keep half of that $400 million, they'll probably consider that a win.
     
  15. jayducharme macrumors 68040

    jayducharme

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    The thick of it
    #15
    I wonder if the SCOTUS decision will have any bearing on the decision that will be made for the design retrial.
     
  16. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #16
    Thanks SCOTUS this has been going on far to long.
     
  17. 69Mustang, Nov 6, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017

    69Mustang macrumors 603

    69Mustang

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    In between a rock and a hard place
    #17
    This makes no sense at all. They just had the other case heard by the Supreme Court.
    https://www.macrumors.com/2017/10/26/apple-vs-samsung-retrial-may-2018/
    --- Post Merged, Nov 6, 2017 ---
    The SCOTUS is the reason for the new damages trial. They already ruled full device damages are not necessary on multi-component products. They sent the case back to the lower court to have damages calculated based on their ruling.
     
  18. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #18
    The Supreme Court only grants around 1% of cert petitions. But that rate goes up dramatically when it issues a CVSG (Call for the Views of the Solicitor General), which it did in this case. So it seems this case might have been a closer call.
     
  19. swm macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    #19
    i do miss slide to unlock. do i have to wait until all my face-id attempts fail on iphone x before i get to the pinpad?
     
  20. CEmajr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2012
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #20
    Samsung already made tons of money from copying Apple, way more than any legal costs so at this point just let it go. It’s done.
     
  21. cmaier macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #21
    Believe it or not, more often than not the attorneys say "you're probably not going to win this" and the client demands the attempt anyway.
     
  22. groovyd macrumors 65816

    groovyd

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #22
    a testament to how bad our system of law is that the feature is no longer even used they are still fighting over.
     
  23. btrach144 macrumors 65816

    btrach144

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    #23
    120 million USD seems weak for damages. Look at the empire that Samsung has created.
     
  24. convergent macrumors 68030

    convergent

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #24
    You think Samsung built an empire off of "slide to unlock"? I don't think so. I question how that is even a patent-able thing.

    I do sports photography and there is a company that has a patent for organizing photos of sports participants based on a tag number (like runners, bikers, etc..). They go after any photographer that creates a gallery of sports photos organized by tag number.

    When patents are awarded for very simplistic common sense things, it really creates the environment for these ongoing patent cases that benefit no one but the lawyers.
     
  25. kdarling, Nov 6, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017

    kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 46 years ago
    #25
    What's even dumber is that a court had thrown out this award, declaring that the patent was invalid.

    An appeals court later reinstated the award, saying that the other court used information that wasn't available to the jury in the original trial. (Prior art etc.) Therefore the ignorant jury's decision should stand.

    So instead of justice based on more knowledge, you get a decision based solely on blindly following rules.

    It might be legally correct, but it fails the common sense test.
     

Share This Page