or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple v. Samsung proceedings muddled, but experts say Apple had strong day
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple v. Samsung proceedings muddled, but experts say Apple had strong day

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
Legal observers have noted that Samsung appears to have gotten the worst of questioning in Friday's hearings with Apple at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could mean that the Cupertino company may be able to get the better of its rival in the coming months.



Friday saw the two tech giants meeting once more in front of a CAFC panel, which must to decide whether Samsung should have been allowed to continue selling a number of products deemed by a jury to have infringed on multiple Apple patents. Apple is arguing before the court that Samsung's products should have been enjoined from sale following the $1.05 billion infringement verdict handed down last August. Samsung has been pushing against such injunctions and has continually argued for retrials and reexaminations of the process that led to that verdict.

Apple argued that an injunction is necessary due to the infringed features themselves being sufficient cause for consumer demand. The company's attorney called the case a "classic" instance in which a sales ban was necessary due to infringement.

Should Apple prevail in the case, that would likely make it easier for the iPhone maker to name additional Samsung products as infringing in future legal matters. Apple has already attempted to add Samsung's newest flagship handset, the Galaxy S4, to a patent infringement suit, along with a number of other newer products. When that initial motion was rejected, Apple hinted that it could file a new suit to address the Galaxy S4, Galaxy Note II, and other newer Samsung products.

In court, the appeals judges pressed Samsung's attorneys on the issue of whether or not Apple's patent-protected features were sufficient drivers of consumer demand, according to The Wall Street Journal. The jurists also questioned U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's prior findings that Apple didn't lose sales due to Samsung's infringements. Koh's reasoning, one judge suggested, added a "gloss" to the legal standards used in deciding when injunctions are a necessary remedy.

In addition to its continual arguments for prolonging legal action, Samsung has pressed against sales injunctions, arguing that simple monetary compensation should be sufficient. The company has stopped selling all but there of the products in question, according to Samsung's representatives, and Samsung argues that Apple's only purpose in asking for an injunction is to parlay a favorable decision into new litigation.

A sales ban, Samsung further argued, could seriously damage the South Korean conglomerate's relationship with retailers and wireless carriers. Those parties, Samsung claimed, could be more reluctant in the future to carry Samsung and other companies' products for fear that they too could get caught up in litigation for knowingly carrying an infringing product.

Patent law commentator Florian Mueller expressed confidence that the day's proceedings leaned in favor of Apple, saying he was convinced "that Apple will be granted a permanent injunction against Samsung over some if not all of the six patents and the trade dress a California jury found infringed almost a year ago." Continuing, he said that the sales ban would likely apply to newer infringing products, not just the other products that Samsung has already retired.

With regard to those retired handsets, Apple argues that Samsung's claims are somewhat deceptive. Newer models, Apple holds, still rely on the same features their predecessors did. Samsung has just recolored and renamed newer iterations of the same devices, Apple claims.

Not all of the day's proceedings were decidedly in Apple's favor, though. One judge reportedly said that Apple's legal argument was "a little unclear." The court will likely issue a written opinion in the case, though when such an opinion might see release is unknown.

In an associated case heard by the U.S. International Trade Commission on Friday, the trade body issued a final determination banning the import of certain Samsung products due to infringement of two Apple patents. The ban will go into effect after a 60-day Presidential review period.
post #2 of 30
Given Apple have been the ones to have been shafted by Google and Scamsung from day one, I just wonder how any court could have any other attitude other than Apple need their support.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #3 of 30
You stink Samsung! Go Apple!! Samsung, it's what you get for copying all these years. Maybe you'll go back to South Korea and learn how to make something yourself.
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A sales ban, Samsung further argued, could seriously damage the South Korean conglomerate's relationship with retailers and wireless carriers. Those parties, Samsung claimed, could be more reluctant in the future to carry Samsung and other companies' products for fear that they too could get caught up in litigation for knowingly carrying an infringing product.

The Lizzie Borden defense! lol.gif

post #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


With regard to those retired handsets, Apple argues that Samsung's claims are somewhat deceptive. Newer models, Apple holds, still rely on the same features their predecessors did. Samsung has just recolored and renamed newer iterations of the same devices, Apple claims.

 

That's the golden point to notice :) 

Although the devices in question in this case are retired from the market, the win will allow for bans on the newer models.

 

Samesung's CEO is prolly running to there engineers now shouting "Can you rework something around those 2 patents, NOW !!.. I want it soon in like 2 hrs.. We need to have an S4 / Note 2 manufactured that doesn't infringe".

 

Samesung Engineers , would be like "But Sir! we copied it to start off, we really dont know how else it can be done. That's why we copied it, and you gave us your approval on this when we did so"

post #6 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Not all of the day's proceedings were decidedly in Apple's favor, though. One judge reportedly said that Apple's legal argument was "a little unclear." The court will likely issue a written opinion in the case, though when such an opinion might see release is unknown.

Unclear how?
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #7 of 30
I'm favoring Apple in these cases (no surprise, wot?), but based on all the semantics of the back and forth highlighted in the article, it clearly isn't Apple doing the talking.

It's all lawyer speak. It's being represented in this article as Apple and Samsung talking (via their lawyers), e.g. "Apple argued that blah blah", but really it's the other way round. It's the lawyers talking, representing Apple and Samsung's interests in a legal context… and man, that is so apparent sometimes.

I don't expect that Apple is generally this cagey or gamey in their everyday dealings. Our legal system pretty much requires this kind of circuitous stupidity, so we can't blame them, really.

That image in the lead in once again drives home the merits of Apple's cases though. Before and after iPhone. It's just that simple.
post #8 of 30
This week could go down as a decisive turning point against copycats Google and Samsung with THREE or FOUR decisive WINS for Apple.

* FIRSTLY they can no longer misuse and abuse SEPs by obtaining ITC injunctions while attempting to extort huge amounts in breach of FRAND terms: not just against Apple, but also Microsoft, Ericsson, Nokia and every other user of 2G/3G. Bluetooth and LET 4G. Google and Samsung are now forced to go through the courts with they SEP claims, where their manifestly ridiculous excessive demands of around 2.5% of the total cost of a device (not the cost of the chip) while be dramatically cut down to size. For example, according to Florian Mueller, one of Google's demands was cut down by a court to one twentieth of one percent of what they they had been demanding i.e. $50 in every $100,000 they were demanding ...LOL

* SECONDLY Apple have obtained an injunction from the ITC relating to two more non-SEP patents infringed by Samsung. Hopefully Obama will understand that unlike with SEP injunctions, he should not ban non-SEP injunctions because Samsung and other infringers have a choice not to use and infringe non-SEP patents, whereas everybody is forced to use SEPs because they form part of a standard such as 2G or 3G etc. (For which reason everybody may use SEPs by paying a FRAND royalty which is a tiny fraction of what Samsung and Google have been demanding. One of these patents is the famous Steve Jobs "Heuristics" patent which goes to the heart of Apple's iOS look and feel

* THIRDLY Apple has won a very significant ruling about "obviousness" (which has been one of Samsung's and Google's main defences against Apple's patents) in an appeal before the Federal Appeals Court who have upheld that Samsung has infringed on two more patents (U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 on a "multipoint touchscreen," which is very important because it goes to the heart of Apple's iOS look and Feel, and U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 on an "ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces") see: tech(DOT)fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/08/whats-going-on-with-apple-and-the-itc/

* FOURTH, the clincher will be if the Federal Appeals Court finds in favour of Apple allowing them to obtain injunctions on some or all of the 6 patent wins that they won in Judge Kol's San Jose Court last summer.
post #9 of 30
Ban these fockers back to the Blackjack days.
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

This week could go down as a decisive turning point against copycats Google and Samsung with THREE or FOUR decisive WINS for Apple.

* FIRSTLY they can no longer misuse and abuse SEPs by obtaining ITC injunctions while attempting to extort huge amounts in breach of FRAND terms: not just against Apple, but also Microsoft, Ericsson, Nokia and every other user of 2G/3G. Bluetooth and LET 4G. Google and Samsung are now forced to go through the courts with they SEP claims, where their manifestly ridiculous excessive demands of around 2.5% of the total cost of a device (not the cost of the chip) while be dramatically cut down to size. For example, according to Florian Mueller, one of Google's demands was cut down by a court to one twentieth of one percent of what they they had been demanding i.e. $50 in every $100,000 they were demanding ...LOL

* SECONDLY Apple have obtained an injunction from the ITC relating to two more non-SEP patents infringed by Samsung. Hopefully Obama will understand that unlike with SEP injunctions, he should not ban non-SEP injunctions because Samsung and other infringers have a choice not to use and infringe non-SEP patents, whereas everybody is forced to use SEPs because they form part of a standard such as 2G or 3G etc. (For which reason everybody may use SEPs by paying a FRAND royalty which is a tiny fraction of what Samsung and Google have been demanding. One of these patents is the famous Steve Jobs "Heuristics" patent which goes to the heart of Apple's iOS look and feel

* THIRDLY Apple has won a very significant ruling about "obviousness" (which has been one of Samsung's and Google's main defences against Apple's patents) in an appeal before the Federal Appeals Court who have upheld that Samsung has infringed on two more patents (U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 on a "multipoint touchscreen," which is very important because it goes to the heart of Apple's iOS look and Feel, and U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 on an "ellipse fitting for multi-touch surfaces") see: tech(DOT)fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/08/whats-going-on-with-apple-and-the-itc/

* FOURTH, the clincher will be if the Federal Appeals Court finds in favour of Apple allowing them to obtain injunctions on some or all of the 6 patent wins that they won in Judge Kol's San Jose Court last summer.

I expect one more very shortly. Judge Cole refused to stay implementation of her order pending appeal. That's such a standard thing in proceedings like this that Apple will be able to obtain an emergency stay of her order - and probably get her order vacated entirely.
"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 #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

I'm favoring Apple in these cases (no surprise, wot?), but based on all the semantics of the back and forth highlighted in the article, it clearly isn't Apple doing the talking.

It's all lawyer speak. It's being represented in this article as Apple and Samsung talking (via their lawyers), e.g. "Apple argued that blah blah", but really it's the other way round. It's the lawyers talking, representing Apple and Samsung's interests in a legal context… and man, that is so apparent sometimes.

I don't expect that Apple is generally this cagey or gamey in their everyday dealings. Our legal system pretty much requires this kind of circuitous stupidity, so we can't blame them, really.

That image in the lead in once again drives home the merits of Apple's cases though. Before and after iPhone. It's just that simple.

Do you have examples of Apple being cagey or gamey here? Or of them using circuitous stupidity?
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post


Do you have examples of Apple being cagey or gamey here? Or of them using circuitous stupidity?

I believe they were talking about the lawyers, not Apple specifically. And if that is the case, I am certain it is the tactics used or verbage used, not the intent of message.

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply

-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Fanatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027

Reply
post #13 of 30
Well now maybe Samsung can invest in new innovation and not just use a photocopier...probably not.
post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post

I believe they were talking about the lawyers, not Apple specifically. And if that is the case, I am certain it is the tactics used or verbage used, not the intent of message.

Apples lawyers, Apple how ever you (or the op) want to define them. Where there any instances you can point to as an example? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he was just lazily throwing out adjectives when he read the word lawyer.
post #15 of 30

Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

Sorry dont get the joke. So what if the headset jack is on the top or bottom, so long as it works. 

Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey View Post

Well now maybe Samsung can invest in new innovation and not just use a photocopier...probably not.

I may regret asking this...but here I go.

 

Looking at the picture at the top, what did people expect Samsung or any other mobile phone manufacturer to do after the iPhone came out? Do nothing different, keep making phones with keys that cant install new applications, and potentially loose money and market share which they already had? Or adapt and compete. If your going to make a rival touchscreen phone and you want a large square screen, it could be argued that the phone itself is unlikely to be any other shape but rectangular.

Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

I may regret asking this...but here I go.

Looking at the picture at the top, what did people expect Samsung or any other mobile phone manufacturer to do after the iPhone came out? Do nothing different, keep making phones with keys that cant install new applications, and potentially loose money and market share which they already had? Or adapt and compete. If your going to make a rival touchscreen phone and you want a large square screen, it could be argued that the phone itself is unlikely to be any other shape but rectangular.

There's a difference between "adapt and change your designs to meet market dynamics" and "Make such an exact copy that even your attorneys can't tell the difference between Apple's tablet and yours".
"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 #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


There's a difference between "adapt and change your designs to meet market dynamics" and "Make such an exact copy that even your attorneys can't tell the difference between Apple's tablet and yours".

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad, in my view, do not look identical and I can tell them apart at a good distance.

Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad, in my view, do not look identical and I can tell them apart at a good distance.

Sammy's lawyers couldn't.
post #21 of 30
Don't care about their lawyer's.
Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
post #22 of 30

Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post
Don't care about their lawyer's.

 

Then why should we care about your argument?

post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Then why should we care about your argument?

You mistake argument for a stated fact, I couldnt mistake a Samsung Tablet for an iPad. 

Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
Always happy to debate an issue with anyone. Once it turns into name calling, I am out of there. 
Reply
post #24 of 30

Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post
You mistake argument for a stated fact, I couldnt mistake a Samsung Tablet for an iPad. 

 

And you mistake anecdotes for selectively admissible data.

post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Originally Posted by Bondm16 View Post

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the iPad, in my view, do not look identical and I can tell them apart at a good distance.

Sammy's lawyers couldn't.

 

No need to exaggerate.

 

One lawyer couldn't.   An older woman.   For all we know, she wasn't wearing her long distance glasses and didn't want to admit it.  Or she just did not notice the other cues that the male lawyers behind her did when they immediately identified the difference.  Like the existence of a Home button.

 

Warning: sexist but often true remarks ahead.

 

Heck, my wife can't tell our remote controls apart while in her hands... and they're totally different shapes!   She's just not mentally tuned like that.

 

Now if one tablet had been maroon, and the other one crimson, I betcha both the female judge and the lawyer would've been able to tell the difference instantly.


Edited by KDarling - 8/11/13 at 8:57pm
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

No need to exaggerate.

One lawyer couldn't.   An older woman.   For all we know, she wasn't wearing her long distance glasses and didn't want to admit it.  Or she just did not notice the other cues that the male lawyers behind her did when they immediately identified the difference.  Like the existence of a Home button.

Warning: sexist but often true remarks ahead.

Heck, my wife can't tell our remote controls apart while in her hands... and they're totally different shapes!   She's just not mentally tuned like that.

Now if one tablet had been maroon, and the other one crimson, I betcha both the female judge and the lawyer would've been able to tell the difference instantly.

So Sammy hired a lawyer who in her job should know the difference between the products, should do everything to not to embarrass her client, and should be knowledgable to defend her client? That says a lot.
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

So Sammy hired a lawyer who in her job should know the difference between the products, should do everything to not to embarrass her client, and should be knowledgable to defend her client? That says a lot.

 

 

Yeah, it says that lawyers are human.  It sure doesn't say anything about Samsung's ability to hire lawyers, if that's what you're trying to imply. 

 

First off, she is a high profile lawyer who was known for winning trade dress cases.  She would be a top choice by anyone.

 

Who knows.  Perhaps she even did it on purpose, because she felt that Judge Koh wanted that admission at that moment.  Women know what other women want.

 

More importantly, it didn't matter.  She WON with her other arguments.  The injunction that Apple wanted on the Tab was denied by the judge.

post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Who knows.  Perhaps she even did it on purpose, because she felt that Judge Koh wanted that admission at that moment.  Women know what other women want.

What?

You really will spew any old nonsense to attempt to justify your bias.

You seem to be struggling with this one, Darling.
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #29 of 30
Even if Apple does not win every part of its case and comes away without an outright ban, it has a moral victory at the very least, and additionally what it has done is made Samsung think twice and spend significant resources designing around and at least attempting to avoid copying. This institutionalized theft has to stop. As an Apple shareholder, I have invested over $100K of my hard earned money over the last 7 years in Apple and I congratulate Apple on going after a blatant thief and I hope they get a favorable ruling and compensation for the theft of their inventions, R&D investments and so on. Also competitors are and will think twice before copying the whole enchalada right down to the box and packaging too. C'mon - anyone who tries to argue that it is not a copy based on rectangles and all the usual simplistic diversionary tactics are just muddying the waters - that's not the real issue here. Samsung got caught with its hands in the cookie jar and just like an 8 year old child, pulled his hand away claiming "I didn't steal it" while we all can see the cookie in the child's hand. Also reminds me of those footballers playing soccer when they deliberately hack a guy down to stop them scoring a goal, the sight of the offender claiming innocence is commical. Hey I don't blame Samsung too much - they were just trying to stop Apple scoring a certain goal, so they did what they could and commited a blatant foul. Now Apple gets it's penalty - thats called "enforcing the rules of the game" and the other player gets a red card. Crying about not being able to have your cookie is not the point
Edited by Paul94544 - 8/12/13 at 4:30pm

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.


History reduce Apple Watch.... to a footnote in the annals of technology - Benjamin Frost Dec 2014



Reply

Originally by Rickers - 2014 : Cook & will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost so long.


History reduce Apple Watch.... to a footnote in the annals of technology - Benjamin Frost Dec 2014



Reply
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Heck, my wife can't tell our remote controls apart while in her hands... and they're totally different shapes!   She's just not mentally tuned like that.

 

Your wife is blonde, yes?

Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple v. Samsung proceedings muddled, but experts say Apple had strong day