or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung - Page 2

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

I don't rely on fansites or Mueller.  I always read the source documents myself, and research the cited case law.

 

 

 

Then why didn't you include a link to the source documents for the rest of us to read?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

read ebay and you will know that fed cir would not give injunction against samsung.

if they do just because they are injunction friendly, then it gets very interesting and we might see a supreme court opinion on the patent remedies again.

 

Exactly.  After the eBay case, patent injunctions now require four prongs.   Citing the dissenting judge in the snowplow case:

 

"Prior to eBay, the presumption was that a patentee was entitled to a permanent injunction if he established that his patent was not invalid and infringed.

 
"eBay, however, rejected this approach, making clear that a permanent injunction should issue only if the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief is satisfied.  Under this four-factor test, a litigant is entitled to a permanent injunction only if he establishes that: (1) he has suffered irreparable injury; (2) monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between the parties, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) the public interest would not be “disserved” by the issuance of a permanent injunction."
 
Quote:
itc perhaps but the issue would be economically almost moot by then.

 

Indeed, the ITC has its own rules, and does believes in injunctions (even for FRAND patents) because that's their sole remedial power. (Unlike Federal Courts, they cannot levy fines.)
 
However, the whole thing is already moot.  As I pointed out, the infringing devices no longer are sold.
 
As for Mueller's idea that the snowplow case is similar to the Apple-Samsung case, he ignores the fact that in the snowplow case, two of the three judges determined that all four prongs were satisfied.
 
In the Apple-Samsung case, prong (2) above is totally different from the snowplow case, because in the latter, the patent holder never offered to license.
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Please provide a link to the damages calculation where they took Apple's license offer and multiplied it by the number of devices sold to arrive at the final judgment amount. If money was compensation enough (because Apple offered to license) then the damages have to reflect this. Otherwise you're just making stuff up (again).

 

Not sure why you're being rude, especially since I've been kind in return.  I've let you write dumb stuff all the time without jumping on you personally, such as recently as when you pretended to know something about aircraft compasses.

 

As for the jury's damage calculations, you're wrong (again).  That's not how it was done. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Then why didn't you include a link to the source documents for the rest of us to read?

 

Thanks for letting us know that you commented on this topic without even having read the documents.

 

For everyone else who is interested in real discussion, here are links to the Koh and snowplow injunction rulings:

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/17/judge-denies-apple-motion-for-samsung-injunction-tosses-jury-misconduct-claims

 

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1291.Opinion.5-16-2013.1.PDF

post #44 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

In the Apple-Samsung case, prong (2) above is totally different from the snowplow case, because in the latter, the patent holder never offered to license.

So, could Apple have a case for treble damages, then?

 

Also, which of the four prongs did the dissenting judge in snowplow case say did not apply?

post #45 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Not sure why you're being rude, especially since I've been kind in return.  I've let you write dumb stuff all the time without jumping on you personally, such as recently as when you pretended to know something about aircraft compasses.

 

As for the jury's damage calculations, you're wrong (again).  That's not how it was done. 

 

 

Thanks for letting us know that you commented on this topic without even having read the documents.

 

For everyone else who is interested in real discussion, here are links to the Koh and snowplow injunction rulings:

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/17/judge-denies-apple-motion-for-samsung-injunction-tosses-jury-misconduct-claims

 

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1291.Opinion.5-16-2013.1.PDF

 

LOL. Please show me where I said something about aircraft compasses. Can't you even keep track of who said what?

 

Why am I rude? Because you're a troll trying to be very clever about it and give the illusion you're not biased. Don't like what I have to say then you can block me. To me being rude is trolling a forum and playing dumb when people call you on it. Do you think you're fooling anyone? I hope the pay is good, otherwise I can't understand why you'd waste so much time.

 

I never claimed that's how the jury did its calculations. I was merely commenting on the idea that if offering licensing was a reason for monetary damages (as opposed to injunctions) then it should have been taken into consideration. The fact it wasn't shows there's more to monetary damages than what you stated (for example, the fact Samsung has "deep pockets" and was capable of paying a fine meant that Apple didn't have to worry about getting some form of remedy). Of course, we can always count on you to only print partial details to suit your viewpoint and leave out the rest of the reasons Koh listed.

 

I have read them. Why would me asking to show your sources mean I never read them? I was simply curious what links you would have ended up providing, since googling for those statements comes up with Groklaw at the top of the list. And we know you've brought them up before, though you have done less often recently after everyone called you on them (not just here but also on MacRumors where you've also been copying/pasting your comments).

 

 

 

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to tell me about your vast knowledge of touchscreens. You claimed a long time ago you've been involved in touchscreens for "decades" (which was supposed to mean your opinion on things like Apple touchscreen patents and prior art were somehow more valid than others). I then told you I worked with touchscreens since the 80's and even won a national technology award for my design. At which point you disappeared from the discussion.

 

It seems you're an "expert" on everything. You're a software engineer, hardware engineer, touchscreen specialist, lawyer...have I forgotten anything? Perhaps you're also a brain surgeon? Yet when people press you on things you never answer them. Typical troll behavior.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yikes. That's a confusing mess of a post.

 

Can you explain? Please?

 

Was it really that confusing?  The gist of it is I've been declared a troll.  What else really matters?

post #47 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Anyone can make a paradox up out of thin air, like you have here.

 

Two sticks are on the east bank of the shore. One tree is on the west bank. What a paradox!


See.

 

Sorry, paradox was probably a bad word choice.  Contradiction would be better.  Maybe conflict of ideas?  There are two ideas: 1) Samsung has stolen IP from Apple and effectively caused people to buy their product instead of the iPhone.  This is 'stealing market share', no?  2) The consensus that Samsung makes inferior trash which has poorly implemented functionality, is plagued by terrible software, hardware and an abundance of malware/virii.  

 

1 and 2 conflict, because (2) would indicate that that Samsung has totally failed at ripping off anything in a way that would warrant design copy while (1) implies that Samsung has successfully implemented Apple technology in a way that damages Apple.  

 

Really I just don't understand how someone can simultaneously bash a product, while also declaring it a copy of a vastly superior product.

post #48 of 68
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Really I just don't understand how someone can simultaneously bash a product, while also declaring it a copy of a vastly superior product.

 

Maybe you need to work out your internal logic, because there are very few ways to call something a copy without bashing it.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #49 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Anyone can make a paradox up out of thin air, like you have here.

 

Two sticks are on the east bank of the shore. One tree is on the west bank. What a paradox!


See.

 

Sorry, paradox was probably a bad word choice.  Contradiction would be better.  Maybe conflict of ideas?  There are two ideas: 1) Samsung has stolen IP from Apple and effectively caused people to buy their product instead of the iPhone.  This is 'stealing market share', no?  2) The consensus that Samsung makes inferior trash which has poorly implemented functionality, is plagued by terrible software, hardware and an abundance of malware/virii.  

 

1 and 2 conflict, because (2) would indicate that that Samsung has totally failed at ripping off anything in a way that would warrant design copy while (1) implies that Samsung has successfully implemented Apple technology in a way that damages Apple.  

 

Really I just don't understand how someone can simultaneously bash a product, while also declaring it a copy of a vastly superior product.

 

I'm not sure why it makes any difference to potential or actual loss of sales whether Samsung's offerings are great or terrible, or better or worse than Apple's products. If Samsung's products are worse then one might assume that the loss of sales would be less than if they were great, but it is clear that customers don't just buy the best products. 

 

Either way, if the products' marketability is enhanced by features that infringe Apple patents or trade dress, then it is reasonable that they might expect to pay damages or suffer sales injunctions or both.

 

 

Not only is it not a contradiction - it does not even appear to be relevant.

post #50 of 68
You can steal marketshare/profits while not a "perfect" copy. There I solved your false conflict.

Also have spent time reading comments I see why one person says half in his nick. Half....
post #51 of 68
Edit.

I need sleep.
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Maybe you need to work out your internal logic, because there are very few ways to call something a copy without bashing it.

Tallest, Muppetry & Loptimist are correct...

 

 

Apple created (with plenty of R&D) the Mac and in response Microsoft developed Windows and it was terrible and derivative.

but by the mid 90's Microsoft (using legal loopholes and whatnot) had 'copied' the MacOS close enough that most people thought it was good enough and the best platform for them.

Result: Apple lost the desktop war.

 

This time round….

Apple created the iPhone (with plenty of R&D) and in response the OS (and now the ecosystem) was 'copied' by Google and the hardware was 'copied' by Samsung. Samsung also added layers of software on top to make it an even closer copy of iOS.

Now that Samsung is selling so many of these devices, it rings in the ears of Apple folk that it might just be possible it is all happening again.

People are looking at Samsung's derivative advertisements and looking at their derivative products, but they are totally unaware that they are derivative at all. Just like a lot of popular music these days. For a growing number of the population it is good enough.

 

This is what Apple is mostly afraid of and it's why they are fighting the fight.

post #53 of 68
Quote:

 

Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

So, could Apple have a case for treble damages, then?

 

If you recall from this AI story, that's already been decided as "no" by the Court.

 

Treble damages has its own legal prongs that must be satisfied, which I previously detailed here and here.

 

Basically, it requires wilful infringement, which does not apply if the patent validity would be in doubt by an objective observer.

 

Quote:
Also, which of the four prongs did the dissenting judge in snowplow case say did not apply?

 

Mostly irreparable harm and monetary.  The dissenting judge agreed with why the lower court had denied the injunction:

 

"Here, because [the patent holder] failed to provide any evidence that it was likely to lose profits or market share to [the defendant] or that money damages were inadequate to compensate for the sale of Buyers’ remaining infringing plows, the trial court correctly declined to grant a permanent injunction."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I guess I must misunderstand the meaning of the word 'priceless'.

Can you name an example of a 'priceless patent'?
 

What they mean by "priceless" is that the holder believes there is no fair price possible.

 

By offering to license their IP, Apple proved that they do not believe it to be "priceless".

 

It's like the British story (variously attributed to Churchill or Shaw) of a drunken party conversation: 

 

  • Man: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds? 
  • Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it. 
  • Man: Would you sleep with me for a pound? 
  • Actress: Certainly not!  What kind of woman do you think I am?! 
  • Man: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price. 
 
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

1) If you recall from this AI story, that's already been decided as "no" by the Court.

.........

 

Mostly irreparable harm and monetary.  The dissenting judge agreed with why the lower court had denied the injunction:

.......

It's like the British story (variously attributed to Churchill or Shaw) of a drunken party conversation: 

.....

 

OK. Just when I thought you were beginning to make quasi-sense, your argumentation has now wandered into the territory of incomprehensible, a la loptimist and Neo42.

 

1) Treble damages could be revisited by the Federal court.The fact that Koh ruled at the District level says nothing necessarily about whether a court at the Federal level could say 'yea' or 'nay', does it?

 

2) Leaving aside the issue of whether Apple has suffered 'harm' from Samsung's products, you said that Prong 2 ("monetary") was what distinguished the snowplow case from the Apple case. Yet you're telling us now that the dissenting judge used Prong 2 ("monetary") to dissent in that case! So which is it? Are the snowplow and Apple cases different or similar? Did the judge dissent because his standards for (or interpretations of) Prongs are more stringent than that of the others? If so, they all could end up ruling similarly now as they did in snowplow?

 

3) You're telling me that you can't come up with a single example of a 'priceless patent.' Sounds like a confused mess of an idea from Koh, something she just made up. We'll know soon enough, but it looks to me like Koh's tortured logic could get thrown out on its butt. We'll know next week.

post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


If you recall from this AI story, that's already been decided as "no" by the Court.

Treble damages has its own legal prongs that must be satisfied, which I previously detailed here and here.

Basically, it requires wilful infringement, which does not apply if the patent validity would be in doubt by an objective observer.

The only problem with your 'logic' is that the jury already decided that the infringement was willful. That question is now settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

What they mean by "priceless" is that the holder believes there is no fair price possible.

There's no such legal term as 'priceless patent'. That's something that Koh made up and all the apple-haters have grabbed onto. The actual principle is the question of whether money or anything else the court can do besides injunction is can rectify the wrong. It is correct that injunctions are a last resort, but they are a legitimate action if no other action by the court can rectify the wrong.

In this case, Samsung went from a minor player to #1 in the industry after obviously infringing Apple's patents and stealing Apple's trade dress. It was so obvious that even Samsung's attorney's couldn't tell the difference. So even an enormous fine wouldn't put things back to the way they were - with Apple leading and Samsung being a minor player. In a case like that, an injunction is probably the only way to rectify the damage that has already been done.

And the fact that Apple offered to license it doesn't mean that the theft can be fixed by payment of money. Apple's license may have had other terms that restrict its use. Or Samsung's infringement may have been for things that fall outside of Apple's proposed license. An offer to license does not mean that a future infringer is free to use it without concern.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #56 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The only problem with your 'logic' is that the jury already decided that the infringement was willful. That question is now settled.

Juries don't make the determination of willful infringement anymore. They only opine whether the evidence as presented would support such a finding. The actual determination is in the hands of the judge not the jury.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/29/13 at 8:25am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Juries don't make the determination of willful infringement anymore. They only opine whether the evidence as presented would support such a finding. The actual determination is in the hands of the judge not the jury.

You know this how? Any cite? Evidence? Case law?

post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Edit.

I need sleep.

Yes. You do.

post #59 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You know this how? Any cite? Evidence? Case law?

I searched for the answer myself. You could do the same since you apparently have doubts what I've said. That way we avoid the typical back and forth.

Try "Does a jury or a judge determine willful infringement".

The roots of it go back about 6 years to a Federal case involving Seagate. The actual official change in Federal Court rules dates to mid-2012, putting findings of willful infringement in the hands of the judge.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/29/13 at 9:15am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I don't rely on fansites or Mueller.  

Speaking of which his views on the strength of Nokia's IP have certainly mellowed over the past year. Just last May he was saying that Android vendors were rightly afraid of Nokia's patent claims:

"By settling with Apple less than a year ago on terms that make the iPhone and iPad maker the net payer, Nokia already proved that its patent portfolio is exceptionally strong. . . Nokia demonstrated that it means business when it starts patent lawsuits. Compared to Apple, the defendants in the latest action are not only financially much weaker but they also lack Apple's retaliatory power -- if any of the three brings any somewhat useful wireless-related patents to the table, it's RIM, but the focus of these assertions is on HTC and ViewSonic anyway. I think these disputes won't take as long as the Nokia-Apple battle -- and on a per-device basis, HTC and ViewSonic will likely end up paying significantly higher royalties than Apple, which brought more IP of its own to the negotiating table."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/nokias-patent-assertions-against-htc.html

Then today, after a whole lot more patent claim losses by Nokia than Motorola has seen in the past year he says this:

"At the same time I wish to point out that in all of the Nokia v. HTC cases I watched I haven't seen any indication of HTC deliberately infringing Nokia's intellectual property in terms of clear and reckless copying. Nokia was an industry leader at a time when hardly anybody knew about HTC (and those who did viewed it as more of a manufacturing company). As a result, Nokia owns patents that cover technologies today's devices implement, though in some cases this depends on claim construction. . . Given the breadth and depth of Nokia's patent portfolio it's unlikely that there's nothing in it that HTC needs to license -- but for the time being HTC believes it's a better choice to litigate than to sign a deal. In my opinion, both companies' actions appear legitimate."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/german-court-unconvinced-that-htc.html

Quite a change over the past 12 months.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I searched for the answer myself. You could do the same since you apparently have doubts what I've said. That way we avoid the typical back and forth.

Try "Does a jury or a judge determine willful infringement".

The roots of it go back about 6 years to a Federal case involving Seagate. The actual official change in Federal Court rules dates to mid-2012, putting findings of willful infringement in the hands of the judge.

 

Will do.

 

On the topic of finding an answer oneself, did you ever hear back from Samsung regarding your question on sales v. shipments? What did they say? (They never responded to me, but perhaps you had more luck).

post #62 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Will do.

On the topic of finding an answer oneself, did you ever hear back from Samsung regarding your question on sales v. shipments? What did they say? (They never responded to me, but perhaps you had more luck).

Nope, not a peep out of them.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nope, not a peep out of them.

Surprised? I wasn't. (Off-topic: Hence adding some additional basis for my claim that they are embarrassed to admit the truth regarding actual sales; and the fact that they don't report volumes tells me they are embarrassed to admit to the pathetic ASP for their devices).

 

Back on topic. I searched using the terms you suggested, and you are correct. The most recent case law would indeed suggest that judges are responsible for finding 'willfulness' of infringement, not juries.

 

However, I wonder if Apple has also appealed that in this specific case, and if so, how the Federal court will rule. (A Foss Patents article that comes up in the search implies that Koh may have been stretching some criteria to come up an assessment that there was no 'objective' willfulness on Samsung's part). Do you know?

post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

However, I wonder if Apple has also appealed that in this specific case, and if so, how the Federal court will rule. (A Foss Patents article that comes up in the search implies that Koh may have been stretching some criteria to come up an assessment that there was no 'objective' willfulness on Samsung's part). Do you know?

I searched for any mention of Apple appealing Judge Koh's rejection of willful infringement and didn't find one.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The only problem with your 'logic' is that the jury already decided that the infringement was willful. That question is now settled.

 

Yes, but as I wrote about in this post with the reasoning involved, willful infringement for damages requires both the jury and the judge.  To repeat the main precept:

 

Quote:
The Federal Circuit has laid out the relevant standard for the willfulness inquiry for patent infringement:
 
  • “A patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this  objective inquiry. 
  • If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk.was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”
 
Thus, the willfulness inquiry is a two-prong analysis,requiring an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry. The objective inquiry is a question for the Court, and the subjective inquiry is a question for the jury.
 
- Judge Koh (and all other courts due to precedents)

 

 
post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Not sure why ......etc etc........

 

It seems you're an "expert" on everything. You're a software engineer, hardware engineer, touchscreen specialist, lawyer...have I forgotten anything? Perhaps you're also a brain surgeon? Yet when people press you on things you never answer them. Typical troll behavior.

You're spot on. He seems to claim a lot expertise, takes pain to present links and cites (which he often does not seem to read himself), makes grandiose points, but when pressed, just quietly disappears. Does not respond.

 

This has happened to me numerous times with him. Which is why I pay attention, and follow up with him, when he posts in a forum in which I too have posted. 

 

I am glad someone else has noticed this behavior of his.

post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You're spot on. He seems to claim a lot expertise, takes pain to present links and cites (which he often does not seem to read himself), makes grandiose points, but when pressed, just quietly disappears. Does not respond.

 

 

1) I have a job and a life. Obviously I cannot spend my entire time responding to every question.  Often I'm too busy to even notice responses, especially if the thread has gotten longer. (Is there some way on this forum to search for just responses to you?)

 

2) If someone is rude, I have no incentive to continue a discussion with them.  If they express a genuine interest, I'll try.

 

3) I date back to the early internet days, when everyone online was fairly intelligent.  So I (shocker!) expect others to do some of their own research.  Unfortunately, a lot of people here are too lazy to do that.  They would rather sit around and snipe at other people's posts, which is so much easier than doing any work themselves.

 

4) Like other older members here, of course I have much experience and knowledge on many topics, some of which I detailed in this post.  ,It's understandable that this would irritate some people, as now they realize that they might not get away with the shallow myths they used to repeat.

 

5) I have no ill will toward anyone.  As a cancer survivor, I have no time for that.  Nor do I love or hate any company.  Also no time for that.  Things are just things.

post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

1) I have a job and a life. 

 

5) I have no ill will toward anyone.  As a cancer survivor, I have no time for that.  Nor do I love or hate any company.  Also no time for that.  Things are just things.

1) We all have jobs and lives. But the decision to wade into a debate should presumably take that into account. There have been at least three or four instances in just our posting interactions in the past few months when you jump in, post, but do not have either the patience or time or perhaps the logic to see your arguments through. (I have neither the time or interest to go back and cite what those instances were).

 

5) I did not remotely suggest you have/had ill will toward anyone. So that's a bit pointless. Congratulations on beating cancer. I know how hard that can be.

 

That said, you still have not answered the questions I posed here. I'll repeat: if you can't see it through, don't start an argument (at least, don't whine about how you have a job and a life).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › US Federal Circuit sets the stage for Apple to win injunction against Samsung