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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


     


    Oh look, we have a new troll on AI. And one who's so stupid he doesn't even realize the case wasn't even about "rounded corners".


     


    Samsung will have the PR mess since they're the ones found guilty of infringement. Of course, with Samsung, Google, their lawyers and legions of FUD spewing trolls they just might make some people believe this case was about "rounded corners".



     


    I was using the rounded corners as an example, but thank you for the warm welcome and your assessment on my mental capacity.



     


    Then you might want to avoid presenting false dilemmas - either a fine or an injunction for a silly patent, as you put it. How about an injunction for perfectly good cause, which is the discussion in this case?

  • Reply 22 of 72


    Is all of AI this friendly?

     

  • Reply 23 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,956member
    n8ersworld wrote: »
    A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.

    Boo hoo hoo.
  • Reply 24 of 72
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,585member
    n8ersworld wrote: »
    A fine is one thing, but if Apple gets Samsung products banned over silly patents like rounded corners then Apple may end up with quite a PR mess on their hands due to public backlash.
    Here we go - another halfwit, or troll, or both, regurgitating the phoney hype of Samesung's well capitalized PR machine as they spread false imformation about the patent claims. Suggestion: go get yourself a proper education and then actually read the evidence presented at trial from Samesung's own documents, that show that they copied just about every aspect of the original iphone, and did so in just a matter of weeks.
  • Reply 25 of 72
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post


    Is all of AI this friendly?

     



     


    AI is really quite friendly, but very intolerant of the use of flawed arguments to support Samsung, Google etc. You definitely got off to a bad start.

  • Reply 26 of 72
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N8ERSWORLD View Post


    Is all of AI this friendly?

     



     


    At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!

  • Reply 27 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

    What a paradox!


     


    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.

  • Reply 28 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post





    Here we go - another halfwit, or troll, or both, regurgitating the phoney hype of Samesung's well capitalized PR machine as they spread false imformation about the patent claims. Suggestion: go get yourself a proper education and then actually read the evidence presented at trial from Samesung's own documents, that show that they copied just about every aspect of the original iphone, and did so in just a matter of weeks.


     


    I'll ignore yet another personal attack and say the following.  I think you hit the nail on the head as to what I was getting at earlier.  PR machines are where this case will be won or lost.  If Apple manages to get Samsung products banned, they should prep the PR machine to start working double time.  Despite the fact that we prefer Apple products, there are millions who prefer Samsung products as well and they're not going to be happy with Apple when they're told they can't get the product they wanted.  This will cause a backlash against Apple if it's not handled properly by Apple's PR department.

  • Reply 29 of 72
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    n8ersword wrote: »
    I'll ignore yet another personal attack and say the following.  I think you hit the nail on the head as to what I was getting at earlier.  PR machines are where this case will be won or lost.  If Apple manages to get Samsung products banned, they should prep the PR machine to start working double time.  Despite the fact that we prefer Apple products, there are millions who prefer Samsung products as well and they're not going to be happy with Apple when they're told they can't get the product they wanted.  This will cause a backlash against Apple if it's not handled properly by Apple's PR department.

    When you eat, do you find that the fork occasionally goes in your eye?

    700
  • Reply 30 of 72
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 3,996member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


     


    At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!



     


    Oh look, someone using a false dichotomoy. Can you post up an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy?

  • Reply 31 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,956member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


    At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!



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


     


    Can you explain? Please?

  • Reply 32 of 72
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by xgman View Post



    I'm getting to hate Apple over this. Corporate bullying.


     


    "Where two companies are in competition against one another, the patentee suffers the harm—often irreparable--of being forced to compete against products that incorporate and infringe its own patented inventions."

  • Reply 33 of 72
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


     


    At AI you're either a senior executive Apple evangelist or a troll.  Get it together, troll!  There's a crowd who think the whole basis of the trial is a sham (at least some of the patents in question shouldn't have been awarded to Apple or existed to begin with due to prior art) and then there are the regulars here.  Basically unless you want to get blocked or ridiculed, you should be pre-cheering Apple's victory over 'Samesung'.  The funny thing is the evangelists will preach how infinitely superior Apple's devices and software are, how shoddy and terrible the competitions are, then turn around and say the competition has so successfully STOLEN and duplicated the IP from Apple, that Apple can no longer profit from their own product.  If Samsung's "junk" is so terrible, why is it such a threat?  What a paradox!



     


    Why is Samsung such a threat?


     


    Apple is competing against their own intellectual property, which they invested their own money in developing, which Samsung has been found guilty of copying and using, by a jury, in a court of law.

  • Reply 34 of 72
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Clout View Post



    The jury firmly determined that Samsung violated patents. Yet Samsung is allowed to continue selling copied devices, and is selling as many of these in the U.S. as Apple is. 


     


    None of the devices in the first trial that violated trade dress are still being sold.


     


    AFAIK, any others no longer infringe on the Apple patents in the trial, due to software changes.


     


    As for a decision about not needing a causal nexus, that was just one of multiple injunction legs required.  Another major requirement was that monetary damages would not suffice to compensate.  Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.

  • Reply 35 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,956member
    kdarling wrote: »
     Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.

    What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).
  • Reply 36 of 72
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).


     


    yea keep putting terms (e.g., reasonableness/willingness/basis/treble damages) together and pretend you understand a bit of this.

  • Reply 37 of 72
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    None of the devices in the first trial that violated trade dress are still being sold.


     


    AFAIK, any others no longer infringe on the Apple patents in the trial, due to software changes.


     


    As for a decision about not needing a causal nexus, that was just one of multiple injunction legs required.  Another major requirement was that monetary damages would not suffice to compensate.  Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.



     


    According to the article in question, they specifically excluded licensing key patents to Samsung, although they did license some of them to HTC and few others (those others signed a 'non-cloning clause' as a requirement to license).



     


     


    Quote:


    Apple, however, has licensed at least some of the patents-in-suit (though definitely not the relevant design patents) to IBM (which doesn't make smartphones), Nokia, and HTC (which, however, had to agree to an "anti-cloning" provision). But those license deals have very different effects from a de facto compulsory license resulting from the denial of an injunction against Samsung, as my favorite three sentences in Apple's reply brief stress:


    "The question is not whether Apple could be adequately compensated by a narrow, voluntary license to a non-competitor. Instead, the court must ask whether an unrestricted compulsory license to Apple's primary direct competitor is an adequate remedy. The answer to that question is clearly no."




  • Reply 38 of 72
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member


    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.


     


    itc perhaps but the issue would be economically almost moot by then.

  • Reply 39 of 72
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 3,996member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


     Apple's lawyers already blew that one by presenting evidence that they had offered to license their IP to Samsung... thus proving that money was compensation enough.



     


    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).

  • Reply 40 of 72
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    What!? How the heck do you come to that conclusion!? It could turn out to the exact opposite: a signal of Apple's reasonableness, and its willingness to license it's IP, thus a basis for treble damages (and perhaps much more).


     


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


     


    In denying the injunction, and in the section on Inadequacy of Money Damages, Judge Koh wrote that she believed Apple had suffered some harm due to lost sales (even though Apple failed to prove how much).


     


    She also noted past Apple licensing:


     


    "However, Apple’s licensing activity suggests that Apple does not believe that these patents are priceless, such that there can be no fair price set for Samsung’s practice of the claimed inventions or designs. Both parties discuss the evidence of Apple’s previous licenses and offers for these and other patents. Apple claims that it “would not willingly license the infringed patents and designs for use in iPhone knockoffs,” (Mot. At 10).


     


    "Apple attempts to draw a distinction between the current injunction request and the licenses to which Apple has agreed in the past. But Apple’s past licensing behavior does not demonstrate that it treats either these specific patents, or Samsung as a licensing partner, as somehow off limits. "


     


    The end result for that section was:


     


    "In sum, the difficulty in calculating the cost of lost downstream sales does suggest that money damages may not provide a full compensation for every element of Apple’s loss, but Apple’s licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it.  Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung."

Sign In or Register to comment.