The problem with the royalty assessment is it doesn't make Apple whole or redress the injury. First, when somebody buys an Android device over an iOS device, Apple views this as a customer that potentially is lost to Apple for life because the customer is buying into the Android Eco-systems (e.g. applications). So, paying Apple a royalty on its patent doesn't address Apple's over all injury, which would also include lost sales from the purchase of applications, accessories, and possibly future hardware.
Second, unlike other companies, Apple defines itself by the overall design of its product. It doesn't create generic looking cases for its products. It wants customers to be able to walk into a store and say that is an Apple product based on the appearance of the product. This is no different then what companies like Coke did with the classic coke bottle, or GM did with the Corvette. Try bottling a beverage in a bottle that looks like a Classic Coke bottle and see what happens. Coke has a Trademark in the Design of the Bottle. You would be paying damages, and facing an injunction. Hersey recently successfully obtained an injunction against Art Van for dressing a couch up in a commercial to look like a Hersey Kiss. Coke wins injunctions all the time.
Apple's beef with Samsung is Samsung has designed its products to look like Apple's products. Among other things, this a classic trade dress complaint. At a Best buy recently, I have witnessed customer confusion first hand. I saw two different people walk by a Samsung display, and say something like hey look at the iPhone.
Samsung's actions are both confusing consumers, and infringing Apple's trade dress. Giving Apple a royalty payment only satisfies Apple's patent damages, not the infringement of its Trade dress claims, which would be ongoing.
So, I say yes, Samsung should be enjoined especially since it has intentionally and blatantly designed its products to mimic Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Loptimist 
I am whole heartedly with your reasoning if the issue was more of an underlying technological innovation that needs to be protected. e.g., trackpad algorithm for Macs, or Google's search algorithm.
Nonetheless, you've got to be very careful when you grant a preliminary injunction.
First, you need to distinguish between following a trend and copying another.
I concede that there are elements in Samsung's products that seem to be blatantly copying Apple's. But really, are those copying worth a preliminary injunction during Christmas season?
Similarly, do you think that because Samsung infringed the touch screen patents, the sales of Apple's products will be severely reduced as to result in injustice?
Meh, that's way too harsh. the rulings in both courts should have been resulted in more of a royalty assessment than an injunction.
tinfringe  
.
