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.
First, I agree with the shortfalls of royalty assessment. But what I am trying to say is that granting a preliminary injunction was too harsh for the matter at issue. The matter at issue is infringing on trade dress. For a gadget, since when this became a crucial factor for sales? It has always been the overall user experience with gadget, and while the Samsung's and Apple's gadget may look similar, the experiences are startlingly different due to their OS and hardware. Also, it will be the same, if not harder, to make Samsung whole when the final verdict comes out, though unlikely, against the preliminary injunction.
Second, I can't buy the argument that Apple defines itself by the overall design means anything. It is not just Apple but many other, if not all, companies try to do. It is just that Apple does it very well. And, I think I probably can't distinguish between SONY TV and SAMSUNG TV unless I come close and read the brand name on the TVs.
Finally, like I said, Apple should've registered its design as a trademark. But rather, they registered their UI and overall designs as patents. It is precisely because they know that arguing these cases through trademark, they have much slimmer chance of winning a verdict against Samsung.
Preliminary injunction is a very strong legal remedy especially for gadgets that have very short life span. It practically meant complete ban on Samsung's products without having a full trial at issue.
I don't think it was the right remedy because people know. People already love Apple more and criticize Samsung for copying out of moral reasons not legal reasons. Does Apple really need to be protected here? Maybe through damages... later...
If you want to make a caricature out of, you can argue any point you like, knock yourself out .
The point I was trying to make is not that Apple invented iOS notifications, or that it didn't copy the basic idea of the millions of notification tray implementations found in other OS's, but that it's pretty pitiful how obsessed Android trolls are over the iOS notification system. As if Android 'invented' the notification tray, or as if the notification tray is a huge innovation that requires considerable investment and skill to implement. It's not, it's a triviality, which is why you see it everywhere.
If you read carefully, you'll see me acknowledging Apple didn't introduce anything new with the iOS 5 notification system, and that a better implementation of iOS notifications were long overdue, in fact, I think it the old system was the biggest usability problem iOS has had up until now. I think almost every iOS user agrees with that.
Well, you never gave a reason why or how to distinguish between the two situations:
one about finally improving the notification system that's been successfully implemented by others,
and the other about finally improving the tablet design that's been successfully redefined by Apple.
Both Tablets and Notification Systems were out there for long.
Apple did not innovate or invent, they simply improved.
Again, my point was that Apple utilizes legal systems to get what they want (registering designs as patents rather than copyrights/trademarks because they know they are harder to obtain injunctions and damages), without giving up a shit. What a selfish bastard mindset?
IP Law is to protect creators and to protect fair market competition; but at the moment, Apple is using this tool way beyond well (rather sickly) and it is rather ATTACKING and BURYING their potential rivals and raising barriers to enter the market, by saying "oh dude, that one is just like ours, so stop selling it and make it look like a shit."