Well, it was a little obvious to many following this trial that Apple wouldn't get the injunction & won't get anything close to the 1billion initial award. I guess all we can do know is wait for the likes of a certain admin to start berating the judge for not complying to the 'facts' that many posters seem to know - and know better than the people involved in the case.
To me, this is a case of 'finally, common sense has been applied'. The above analogy of a car sale is spot on; why would you ban it unless people were buying it only for the infringing features? If you think that it should still be banned then we all need to hope that you don't get into any positions of power in society. I actually believe Samsung stood more chance of getting a new trial than Apple did with getting these phones banned.
Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...
I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging. It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...
By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.
I'm a tad confused about the injunction thing. If the items are in violation shouldn't they be banned from sales.
Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.
So perhaps its not that odd a move.
The Supreme Court came out with a case a while ago that a lot of Courts are interpreting to mean injunctions aren't proper when money will compensate for the use. So while Samsung was found to violate the patents, the Judge thinks money will make Apple whole. Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use.
As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again. Glad they have Internet in the waiting room. Anyway...
In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.
Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.
No, but you're on the right track. It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product. For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent? No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.
Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone. To quote Judge Koh's denial:
Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):
“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.
The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.
Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."
It did come down to her sense of the 'infringement sum', and that Apple did not 'prove' that the infringing devices were selected over the Apple devices. From what I read, this will is a tricky ruling that will be studied closely as this will affect future IP rulings. Would it have been better if this was not a trial by jury for the precedence aspects?
Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.
The issue was each side got to ask the potential jurors questions to figure out who to disqualify. Supposedly, one of the questions had to do with whether the jurors had ever been involved in any civil litigation (or something similar). The Hogan guy allegedly said he hadn't been involved in any litigation. He later claimed he thought the questions asked if he had been in any litigation in the last 10 years. I am not sure we really know who was right or wrong there. Anyway, turns out he had been sued by Seagate, which caused him to file bankruptcy. Seagate later became owned by Samsung. So, Samsung's claim is that because Samsung owns Seagate and Seagate sued Hogan, Hogan likely feels distain towards Samsung. He than allegedly used that distain to get the other jurors to rule in Apple's favor.
As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again. Glad they have Internet in the waiting room. Anyway...
In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.
Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.
No, but you're on the right track. It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product. For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent? No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.
Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone. To quote Judge Koh's denial:
Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):
“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.
The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.
Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."
Good explanation. Part of the problem though with Judge Koh's conclusion is that she forced both parties to whittle their patent claims way down to just a handful of patents. This was to make it easier for the jury to understand the issues. Consequently, this was just the first of what likely will be several trials. For instance, Judge Koh is presiding over a second trial as well.
So, on one hand it may be true that the patents at issue in this case only make up a small part of the product, but on the other hand Judge Koh forced the parties to narrow the number or patents at issue. Had Apple been allowed to keep all its initial patents as part of this trial and had Samsung been found to violate those patents, the scope of Apple's patents at issue would have ben much greater.
The Supreme Court came out with a case a while ago that a lot of Courts are interpreting to mean injunctions aren't proper when money will compensate for the use. So while Samsung was found to violate the patents, the Judge thinks money will make Apple whole. Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use.
That appears to be the key issue.
Issuing a permanent injunction is reasonable (and allowed by a recent Supreme Court decision) if, and only if, a cash payment will not make the patent holder whole. It would be up to Apple to prove that they would never license those patents under any terms to anyone in order to justify an injunction. Since they were willing to license the patents to HTC, it is difficult, if not impossible to make that claim. This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
Originally Posted by TBell Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use.
They also licensed those same patents to Nokia and IBM according to a "prominent patent blogger".
Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...
I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging. It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...
By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.
Get real.
Whenever there's a ruling, the click through links provide quotes indicating some amount of explanation behind a given ruling. Most of the time the rants on here are simply bias without any kind of reason. The two aren't comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You do know that she is of Korean background.
It has been mentioned enough times. She is of Korean descent. It really shouldn't anger people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
Such as test would have only applied to a portion of those tested.
If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?
That's a good point. If all the products are basically off the shelves anyway there's no point to an injunction. If Samsung tries to revive them without any changes then slap them down cause they know that's a huge no no.
Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.
Samsung's argument was that they didn't know it. Because he didn't properly answer the question. So they could have gotten some traction. Of course if they are allowed to search public record on the potential jurists and the guy's name would have popped up easy peasy and they didn't take that action then it is rather on them. So long as the guy answered the questions properly and didn't perjure himself or such. If the record shows that they asked the question he claimed and there was no doubt as to the question and he didn't answer as asked then he would have been in trouble. So my guess is that they didn't ask a firmly clear question in the view of the Judge.
OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.
Not at all. A ban can be based on one feature. But Judges tend to limit such bans based on the nature of the feature and other factors. Especially if they know the banned party is going to turn around and appeal and drag out the case.
In this particular case the factors were
1. Apple was awarded a huge cash payment for damages
2. Apple couldn't prove that they would truly be wounded by the 3 items still being on sale in terms of lost sales for their products
3. Apple couldn't prove that anyone was buying Samsung's stuff strictly because of this patent's product
4. Apple had been willing to license said patent to Samsung so they aren't opposed to it being in said phones (just that it wasn't paid for)
5. Samsung claims they are working around the issue to remove it. If they don't in a timely fashion Apple can always kick it back to the courts that they are in contempt and dragging their heads etc. At which point an injunction might be granted at least until Samsung can show a ready for market device that isn't infringing.
This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
Even though it might make them look like school kids there is always the argument that the patent isn't FRAND and thus they have every right to license and deny to whomever they want and it shouldn't matter that they said yes to this group and not to this other since that is within their legal rights regarding a non SEP. The HTC argument has the odor of saying that in fact all patents must be licensed to everyone that wants it if you license to one group even if they aren't a SEP and thus under FRAND.
re: your aside, the reason for the lack of injunctions on FRAND items is that they are generally things that are vital to making said products which is why FRAND exists at all on those patents. Asking for an injunction on something you refused to license to someone to block them out of the market or you are trying to squeeze them is a total douche bag type move and the courts are saying no way to it. You are required to license and do so fairly so you will take the money (per the courts decision on fairness etc) and be happy.
Issuing a permanent injunction is reasonable (and allowed by a recent Supreme Court decision) if, and only if, a cash payment will not make the patent holder whole. It would be up to Apple to prove that they would never license those patents under any terms to anyone in order to justify an injunction. Since they were willing to license the patents to HTC, it is difficult, if not impossible to make that claim. This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
I agree that it is strange Apple couldn't find evidence to show market confusion. I for one was standing at Best Buy at the front of the store waiting for somebody last year. There was a Samsung display with a phone that looked remarkably like the iPhone. While I stood there for about five minutes, at least two people referred to the phone as an iPhone.
Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.
That's exactly what I'm saying: theft is being rewarded, doing the right thing is being punished. Something illegal would have resolved the dishonorable actions of Samsung faster and with more certainty than something legal.
They also licensed those same patents to Nokia and IBM according to a "prominent patent blogger".
Not sure how the blogger would have access to confidential settlements that weren't made public, like the HTC settlement. Nonetheless, I am not sure Apple could be considered to willingly (at least in the true sense of the word) license anything to Nokia since they were both going toe to toe in a big patent fight. Nokia had a lot of guns. The way Apple described the settlement, is that it licensed some lessor important patents to Nokia. On the other hand, HTC was getting its butt kicked by Apple in the Courts.
Even though it might make them look like school kids there is always the argument that the patent isn't FRAND and thus they have every right to license and deny to whomever they want and it shouldn't matter that they said yes to this group and not to this other since that is within their legal rights regarding a non SEP. The HTC argument has the odor of saying that in fact all patents must be licensed to everyone that wants it if you license to one group even if they aren't a SEP and thus under FRAND.
It goes to the Supreme Court ruling. An injunction can only be issued in cases where cash won't recompense the patent owner. There is a presumption that willingness to license SOME companies is evidence that cash does make up for use of the patent.
Apple certainly had the option to try to prove why licensing it to Samsung was different (and, as I indicated in the post you were responding to, there is even a decent argument for that). They apparently failed to do so convincingly, so the court accepted that "money is sufficient remedy".
I agree that it is strange Apple couldn't find evidence to show market confusion. I for one was standing at Best Buy at the front of the store waiting for somebody last year. There was a Samsung display with a phone that looked remarkably like the iPhone. While I stood there for about five minutes, at least two people referred to the phone as an iPhone.
I agree completely. There were public comments from people who bought Samsung products thinking they were Apple products. In fact, I think Samsung even presented evidence that a significant percentage of their customers were confused and thought they were buying an iPad. That aside, Apple failed to prove it to the judge's satisfaction in both cases where it came up, so either Apple was unable to prove the point or the standards set by the judges were too high.
Comments
Well, it was a little obvious to many following this trial that Apple wouldn't get the injunction & won't get anything close to the 1billion initial award. I guess all we can do know is wait for the likes of a certain admin to start berating the judge for not complying to the 'facts' that many posters seem to know - and know better than the people involved in the case.
To me, this is a case of 'finally, common sense has been applied'. The above analogy of a car sale is spot on; why would you ban it unless people were buying it only for the infringing features? If you think that it should still be banned then we all need to hope that you don't get into any positions of power in society. I actually believe Samsung stood more chance of getting a new trial than Apple did with getting these phones banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...
I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging. It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...
By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.
Get real.
Over the top rant warning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I'm a tad confused about the injunction thing. If the items are in violation shouldn't they be banned from sales.
Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.
So perhaps its not that odd a move.
The Supreme Court came out with a case a while ago that a lot of Courts are interpreting to mean injunctions aren't proper when money will compensate for the use. So while Samsung was found to violate the patents, the Judge thinks money will make Apple whole. Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again. Glad they have Internet in the waiting room. Anyway...
In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.
Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.
No, but you're on the right track. It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product. For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent? No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.
Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone. To quote Judge Koh's denial:
Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):
“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.
The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.
Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."
It did come down to her sense of the 'infringement sum', and that Apple did not 'prove' that the infringing devices were selected over the Apple devices. From what I read, this will is a tricky ruling that will be studied closely as this will affect future IP rulings. Would it have been better if this was not a trial by jury for the precedence aspects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.
The issue was each side got to ask the potential jurors questions to figure out who to disqualify. Supposedly, one of the questions had to do with whether the jurors had ever been involved in any civil litigation (or something similar). The Hogan guy allegedly said he hadn't been involved in any litigation. He later claimed he thought the questions asked if he had been in any litigation in the last 10 years. I am not sure we really know who was right or wrong there. Anyway, turns out he had been sued by Seagate, which caused him to file bankruptcy. Seagate later became owned by Samsung. So, Samsung's claim is that because Samsung owns Seagate and Seagate sued Hogan, Hogan likely feels distain towards Samsung. He than allegedly used that distain to get the other jurors to rule in Apple's favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again. Glad they have Internet in the waiting room. Anyway...
In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.
Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.
No, but you're on the right track. It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product. For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent? No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.
Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone. To quote Judge Koh's denial:
Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):
“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.
The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.
Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."
Good explanation. Part of the problem though with Judge Koh's conclusion is that she forced both parties to whittle their patent claims way down to just a handful of patents. This was to make it easier for the jury to understand the issues. Consequently, this was just the first of what likely will be several trials. For instance, Judge Koh is presiding over a second trial as well.
So, on one hand it may be true that the patents at issue in this case only make up a small part of the product, but on the other hand Judge Koh forced the parties to narrow the number or patents at issue. Had Apple been allowed to keep all its initial patents as part of this trial and had Samsung been found to violate those patents, the scope of Apple's patents at issue would have ben much greater.
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/17986/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/17985/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Samsung SGH-F700, introduced at the 3GSM World Congress in February 2007 and demoed at the Cebit 2006... Mentioning facts surely deserve a ban...
That appears to be the key issue.
Issuing a permanent injunction is reasonable (and allowed by a recent Supreme Court decision) if, and only if, a cash payment will not make the patent holder whole. It would be up to Apple to prove that they would never license those patents under any terms to anyone in order to justify an injunction. Since they were willing to license the patents to HTC, it is difficult, if not impossible to make that claim. This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
They also licensed those same patents to Nokia and IBM according to a "prominent patent blogger".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
Samsung smartphones before iPhone, as always "ignored" on purpose by AI -dishonest and misleading- "illustration"...
Samsung SGH-F700, introduced at the 3GSM World Congress in February 2007 and demoed at the Cebit 2006... Mentioning facts surely deserve a ban...
It's ignored because it's a myth. It wasn't Cebit 2006 it was actually Cebit 2007. This is just a rumour spread around to rouse the easily lead.
Even the Androidcommunity.com website debunks your attempts to claim that this phone came before the iPhone.
http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/
OK, facts restored. Find a new angle to whinge about Fandroid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...
I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging. It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...
By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.
Get real.
Whenever there's a ruling, the click through links provide quotes indicating some amount of explanation behind a given ruling. Most of the time the rants on here are simply bias without any kind of reason. The two aren't comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You do know that she is of Korean background.
It has been mentioned enough times. She is of Korean descent. It really shouldn't anger people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
Such as test would have only applied to a portion of those tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?
That's a good point. If all the products are basically off the shelves anyway there's no point to an injunction. If Samsung tries to revive them without any changes then slap them down cause they know that's a huge no no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.
Samsung's argument was that they didn't know it. Because he didn't properly answer the question. So they could have gotten some traction. Of course if they are allowed to search public record on the potential jurists and the guy's name would have popped up easy peasy and they didn't take that action then it is rather on them. So long as the guy answered the questions properly and didn't perjure himself or such. If the record shows that they asked the question he claimed and there was no doubt as to the question and he didn't answer as asked then he would have been in trouble. So my guess is that they didn't ask a firmly clear question in the view of the Judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.
Not at all. A ban can be based on one feature. But Judges tend to limit such bans based on the nature of the feature and other factors. Especially if they know the banned party is going to turn around and appeal and drag out the case.
In this particular case the factors were
1. Apple was awarded a huge cash payment for damages
2. Apple couldn't prove that they would truly be wounded by the 3 items still being on sale in terms of lost sales for their products
3. Apple couldn't prove that anyone was buying Samsung's stuff strictly because of this patent's product
4. Apple had been willing to license said patent to Samsung so they aren't opposed to it being in said phones (just that it wasn't paid for)
5. Samsung claims they are working around the issue to remove it. If they don't in a timely fashion Apple can always kick it back to the courts that they are in contempt and dragging their heads etc. At which point an injunction might be granted at least until Samsung can show a ready for market device that isn't infringing.
and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
Even though it might make them look like school kids there is always the argument that the patent isn't FRAND and thus they have every right to license and deny to whomever they want and it shouldn't matter that they said yes to this group and not to this other since that is within their legal rights regarding a non SEP. The HTC argument has the odor of saying that in fact all patents must be licensed to everyone that wants it if you license to one group even if they aren't a SEP and thus under FRAND.
re: your aside, the reason for the lack of injunctions on FRAND items is that they are generally things that are vital to making said products which is why FRAND exists at all on those patents. Asking for an injunction on something you refused to license to someone to block them out of the market or you are trying to squeeze them is a total douche bag type move and the courts are saying no way to it. You are required to license and do so fairly so you will take the money (per the courts decision on fairness etc) and be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That appears to be the key issue.
Issuing a permanent injunction is reasonable (and allowed by a recent Supreme Court decision) if, and only if, a cash payment will not make the patent holder whole. It would be up to Apple to prove that they would never license those patents under any terms to anyone in order to justify an injunction. Since they were willing to license the patents to HTC, it is difficult, if not impossible to make that claim. This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
I agree that it is strange Apple couldn't find evidence to show market confusion. I for one was standing at Best Buy at the front of the store waiting for somebody last year. There was a Samsung display with a phone that looked remarkably like the iPhone. While I stood there for about five minutes, at least two people referred to the phone as an iPhone.
Originally Posted by lightknight
Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.
That's exactly what I'm saying: theft is being rewarded, doing the right thing is being punished. Something illegal would have resolved the dishonorable actions of Samsung faster and with more certainty than something legal.
Irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They also licensed those same patents to Nokia and IBM according to a "prominent patent blogger".
Not sure how the blogger would have access to confidential settlements that weren't made public, like the HTC settlement. Nonetheless, I am not sure Apple could be considered to willingly (at least in the true sense of the word) license anything to Nokia since they were both going toe to toe in a big patent fight. Nokia had a lot of guns. The way Apple described the settlement, is that it licensed some lessor important patents to Nokia. On the other hand, HTC was getting its butt kicked by Apple in the Courts.
It goes to the Supreme Court ruling. An injunction can only be issued in cases where cash won't recompense the patent owner. There is a presumption that willingness to license SOME companies is evidence that cash does make up for use of the patent.
Apple certainly had the option to try to prove why licensing it to Samsung was different (and, as I indicated in the post you were responding to, there is even a decent argument for that). They apparently failed to do so convincingly, so the court accepted that "money is sufficient remedy".
I agree completely. There were public comments from people who bought Samsung products thinking they were Apple products. In fact, I think Samsung even presented evidence that a significant percentage of their customers were confused and thought they were buying an iPad. That aside, Apple failed to prove it to the judge's satisfaction in both cases where it came up, so either Apple was unable to prove the point or the standards set by the judges were too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.
I'm going to take it that this is as beautifully sarcastic as I think it is?