When Apple states that they should not pay for IP that everyone else pays for, have been ruled against in other courts, and make outrageous claims to justify (Samsung deceiving ETSI), how is this not the same as claiming "free for the taking"?
Also, I never said Apple treats ALL Samsung IP the same way. You are putting words in my mouth, exaggerating my comments, and throwing out a straw man.
Fair enough, I would agree that Samsung has more 'scandals' than does Apple, but I think this can be attributed more to a difference in regulation than some 'company moral compass'. In many other countries, these 'shady practices' are common. Walmart realized this when they expanded into Mexico and found multiple instances of bribery as this is commonplace in the country. Same can be said for South Korea as they have a much more 'laissez faire' attitude towards business.
However, Apple is not perfectly clean. They have recently been fined for misleading advertising in Australia and fined in Italy for consumer guarantee issues. Don't forget the looming e-book price fixing DoJ investigation as well.
First, these were 3 seperate cases, not 1 ruling. Samsung must pay Apple for the 2 lost cases, but Apple must pay for the 1 case that they lost as well. The net result of this is not 800k Euros as you suggest. As to how much the penalty will be for patent infringement, this is undecided, so how can you possibly figure the outcome?
Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?
You stated: Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking".
You made a blanket statement (and a fairly strong one at that) and when you get called on it you say I'm "putting words in your mouth." You shouldn't intentionally leave out details to try and make your argument appear stronger. Then you could avoid "mis-understandings" like this in the future.
The Dutch market is very small. The patent is FRAND encumbered, which means the royalty rate will be small and in line with others. This means the payment by Apple will be small. If it was a "worldwide" decision, then I can see Apple paying much more money.
Overall Samsung lost the Dutch case. They had 3 out of 4 patents thrown out. They patent that won is FRAND and not worth much money. They tried to get a ban and failed. They have to pay 800,000 to Apple. When all is said and done Apple ends up paying a license fee they would have already accounted for and likely expected to have to pay. They just wanted a court to decide instead of dealing with Samsung's outrageous demands.
What's also absurd is that a multinational company didn't consider that they have to follow laws in all countries, that they were hit with this once before and didn't change things and they didn't shut off the purge after the court said they had to turn over all emails in the case.
So is why Apple go after the bastard children? I hadn't thought of that.
Google doesn't make any money if folks won't buy. So start with the buyers, who can tweak a lot and create the offending UIs etc. then go for the boss
Also on the design issue it's the combo of hardware and software that might win. Separate them and it gets hazy. So that's another reason to go for the OEMs rather than Google
See, Samsung can't argue that it was their email program's fault. If they cared, they would have pressed "save". They didn't, therefor it was their fault, not the email program's.
There is also the question that they did save it, dumped it when they were told to hand it over and tried to claim 'the system'. That question is likely part of why the judge sided with Apple
What's also absurd is that a multinational company didn't consider that they have to follow laws in all countries, that they were hit with this once before and didn't change things and they didn't shut off the purge after the court said they had to turn over all emails in the case.
Dumb, dumb, dumb
I'm actually surprised that the court wasn't even more strict. They could have ordered the jury to accept Apple's allegations as proven in cases where evidence was destroyed. It's even possible that there could have been contempt charges, as well, although that's a bit more of a stretch.
According to the court statements, Samsung did start keeping all emails that might be applicable shortly before they received notice that Apple was filing suit. What the court is saying, and I agree with, is that Samsung should have anticipated the filing sooner than it did and begun keeping those email records about 6 months earlier. That's why the judge is giving Samsung the benefit of doubt and only noting to the jury that some evidence, perhaps beneficial to Apple's case or perhaps not, may not have been retained. If he felt it was willful destruction of "damning" evidence supporting Apples' case the jury instructions would be much more adverse. Old emails via Outlook, used primarily outside of Samsung's Korea offices, appears to be largely intact and available according to comments in the FOSSPatents blog article. It's the mySingle email system and it's 2-week deletion settings used by the Korean home offices that's at issue.
By not having those additional 6 months of emails there's only about 38 million pages of evidence submitted in the case for the court and the attorneys to rely on. (Perfect place for an "eyeroll")
Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
... yes, and Samsung gets paid handsomely for ALL of these components, even by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly.
... yes, and how come Samsung thinks it can charge Apple so much for use of their FRAND patents when nobody else pays that much for the same licenses? The "ND" in "FRAND" stands for "non-discriminatory".
The totality of Samsung's copying - and I'm not just talking about the rectangular shape of their tablets - is amazing. Right down to the icon design & colors, the placement of UI elements in TouchWiz, and even the packaging of the device. Shameful.
In fact, in many instances, that is exactly what Samsung is claiming. The trial brief presented by Samsung a couple days ago for the US case laid out several pieces of evidence showing 'iPhone-like' candy bar prototype designs and grid UI designs dated prior to the iPhone announcement. Most of the other alleged infringements were countered with prior art.
Of course, you would never see Samsung's trial brief announced on AI...too much damning evidence contrary to Apple's "slavishly copying" propaganda.
However, now there is no way to know how much evidence Samsung has destroyed by allowing their e-mails to auto-delete (against court orders).
It makes me wonder if there is a lot more evidence that has not been produced.
However, now there is no way to know how much evidence Samsung has destroyed by allowing their e-mails to auto-delete (against court orders).
It makes me wonder if there is a lot more evidence that has not been produced.
They started destroying evidence years ago, I imagine. Does the court know (and have it accepted as part of the trial) that such evidence WAS destroyed?
Except "spoilation" is a real word and was used in the correct context and one can't say the same about your use of "nebs."
Your snark is amusing, but not every word is in every dictionary.
"Neb" or "nebb" is a slang word a "loser" or "pedant." I assume it is a shortening of "nebbish," but possibly it is an extended meaning from the old english root.
And now that Law Talkin' Guy has so nicely corrected me on ***spoliation,*** I think I was mistaken. "Neb" applies to you far better than to to lawyers. ;-)
Yep. Apple is establishing wins on the fringe before going up against the head. That way they can use those previous rulings to their advantage instead of "Oop! You lose against Google! Now everyone else has free reign to outright steal everything you've ever done!"
Somewhat surprisingly Google doesn't appear to be afraid of Android IP challenges. They've gone so far as to ask to be included as a co-defendent in Nokia's suit against HTC. That's not an action of someone scared of being found a willful IP infringer.. Nokia on the other hand would prefer they not be allowed as an additional respondent and has filed a motion to disallow it. IMHO that would indicate an apparent intent to avoid taking on Google directly.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
When Apple states that they should not pay for IP that everyone else pays for, have been ruled against in other courts, and make outrageous claims to justify (Samsung deceiving ETSI), how is this not the same as claiming "free for the taking"?
Also, I never said Apple treats ALL Samsung IP the same way. You are putting words in my mouth, exaggerating my comments, and throwing out a straw man.
Fair enough, I would agree that Samsung has more 'scandals' than does Apple, but I think this can be attributed more to a difference in regulation than some 'company moral compass'. In many other countries, these 'shady practices' are common. Walmart realized this when they expanded into Mexico and found multiple instances of bribery as this is commonplace in the country. Same can be said for South Korea as they have a much more 'laissez faire' attitude towards business.
However, Apple is not perfectly clean. They have recently been fined for misleading advertising in Australia and fined in Italy for consumer guarantee issues. Don't forget the looming e-book price fixing DoJ investigation as well.
First, these were 3 seperate cases, not 1 ruling. Samsung must pay Apple for the 2 lost cases, but Apple must pay for the 1 case that they lost as well. The net result of this is not 800k Euros as you suggest. As to how much the penalty will be for patent infringement, this is undecided, so how can you possibly figure the outcome?
Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?
You stated: Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking".
You made a blanket statement (and a fairly strong one at that) and when you get called on it you say I'm "putting words in your mouth." You shouldn't intentionally leave out details to try and make your argument appear stronger. Then you could avoid "mis-understandings" like this in the future.
The Dutch market is very small. The patent is FRAND encumbered, which means the royalty rate will be small and in line with others. This means the payment by Apple will be small. If it was a "worldwide" decision, then I can see Apple paying much more money.
Overall Samsung lost the Dutch case. They had 3 out of 4 patents thrown out. They patent that won is FRAND and not worth much money. They tried to get a ban and failed. They have to pay 800,000 to Apple. When all is said and done Apple ends up paying a license fee they would have already accounted for and likely expected to have to pay. They just wanted a court to decide instead of dealing with Samsung's outrageous demands.
What's also absurd is that a multinational company didn't consider that they have to follow laws in all countries, that they were hit with this once before and didn't change things and they didn't shut off the purge after the court said they had to turn over all emails in the case.
Dumb, dumb, dumb
Google doesn't make any money if folks won't buy. So start with the buyers, who can tweak a lot and create the offending UIs etc. then go for the boss
Also on the design issue it's the combo of hardware and software that might win. Separate them and it gets hazy. So that's another reason to go for the OEMs rather than Google
There is also the question that they did save it, dumped it when they were told to hand it over and tried to claim 'the system'. That question is likely part of why the judge sided with Apple
I'm actually surprised that the court wasn't even more strict. They could have ordered the jury to accept Apple's allegations as proven in cases where evidence was destroyed. It's even possible that there could have been contempt charges, as well, although that's a bit more of a stretch.
(Repost from another thread)
According to the court statements, Samsung did start keeping all emails that might be applicable shortly before they received notice that Apple was filing suit. What the court is saying, and I agree with, is that Samsung should have anticipated the filing sooner than it did and begun keeping those email records about 6 months earlier. That's why the judge is giving Samsung the benefit of doubt and only noting to the jury that some evidence, perhaps beneficial to Apple's case or perhaps not, may not have been retained. If he felt it was willful destruction of "damning" evidence supporting Apples' case the jury instructions would be much more adverse. Old emails via Outlook, used primarily outside of Samsung's Korea offices, appears to be largely intact and available according to comments in the FOSSPatents blog article. It's the mySingle email system and it's 2-week deletion settings used by the Korean home offices that's at issue.
By not having those additional 6 months of emails there's only about 38 million pages of evidence submitted in the case for the court and the attorneys to rely on. (Perfect place for an "eyeroll")
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
... yes, and Samsung gets paid handsomely for ALL of these components, even by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly.
... yes, and how come Samsung thinks it can charge Apple so much for use of their FRAND patents when nobody else pays that much for the same licenses? The "ND" in "FRAND" stands for "non-discriminatory".
The totality of Samsung's copying - and I'm not just talking about the rectangular shape of their tablets - is amazing. Right down to the icon design & colors, the placement of UI elements in TouchWiz, and even the packaging of the device. Shameful.
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
In fact, in many instances, that is exactly what Samsung is claiming. The trial brief presented by Samsung a couple days ago for the US case laid out several pieces of evidence showing 'iPhone-like' candy bar prototype designs and grid UI designs dated prior to the iPhone announcement. Most of the other alleged infringements were countered with prior art.
Of course, you would never see Samsung's trial brief announced on AI...too much damning evidence contrary to Apple's "slavishly copying" propaganda.
However, now there is no way to know how much evidence Samsung has destroyed by allowing their e-mails to auto-delete (against court orders).
It makes me wonder if there is a lot more evidence that has not been produced.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
However, now there is no way to know how much evidence Samsung has destroyed by allowing their e-mails to auto-delete (against court orders).
It makes me wonder if there is a lot more evidence that has not been produced.
They started destroying evidence years ago, I imagine. Does the court know (and have it accepted as part of the trial) that such evidence WAS destroyed?
Isn't that worth a few billion in fines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I bought several 6 figure blocks at 30 and 75, I said I was counting back to 600 simply because I am. Any more snide comments?
LOL
I think your comment is more than snide enough for all the rest of us, "Mr. Multimillions!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarcoot
I think you misunderstood his point.
I think he probably understood it well.
More likely he's just an ass so full of himself that he seeks to toot his horn at any opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Talkin' Guy
It’s “spoliation.”Nice! I didn't notice the subtle difference in spelling and assumed it was a typical needless noun to noun transformation.
Learn something new every day. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Except "spoilation" is a real word and was used in the correct context and one can't say the same about your use of "nebs."
Your snark is amusing, but not every word is in every dictionary.
"Neb" or "nebb" is a slang word a "loser" or "pedant." I assume it is a shortening of "nebbish," but possibly it is an extended meaning from the old english root.
And now that Law Talkin' Guy has so nicely corrected me on ***spoliation,*** I think I was mistaken. "Neb" applies to you far better than to to lawyers. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yep. Apple is establishing wins on the fringe before going up against the head. That way they can use those previous rulings to their advantage instead of "Oop! You lose against Google! Now everyone else has free reign to outright steal everything you've ever done!"
Somewhat surprisingly Google doesn't appear to be afraid of Android IP challenges. They've gone so far as to ask to be included as a co-defendent in Nokia's suit against HTC. That's not an action of someone scared of being found a willful IP infringer.. Nokia on the other hand would prefer they not be allowed as an additional respondent and has filed a motion to disallow it. IMHO that would indicate an apparent intent to avoid taking on Google directly.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/google-picks-up-nokias-gauntlet-asks.html