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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 72
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


     


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



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


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


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


     


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



     


    Now, who is pretending?

  • Reply 42 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,147member
    loptimist wrote: »
    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.

    Why don't you share with us your great wisdom?

    Assuming you have any....
  • Reply 43 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,147member
    loptimist wrote: »
    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.

    Groan.

    Something tells me that you are not even capable of embarrassment.
  • Reply 44 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,147member
    kdarling wrote: »

    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."

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

    Can you name an example of a 'priceless patent'?
  • Reply 45 of 72
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,060member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


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


     


     



     


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

  • Reply 46 of 72
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


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


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



     


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


     


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


     


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


     



    Quote:


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



     



    Indeed, the ITC has its own rules, and does believes in injunctions (even for FRAND patents) because that's their sole remedial power. (Unlike Federal Courts, they cannot levy fines.)


     


    However, the whole thing is already moot.  As I pointed out, the infringing devices no longer are sold.


     


    As for Mueller's idea that the snowplow case is similar to the Apple-Samsung case, he ignores the fact that in the snowplow case, two of the three judges determined that all four prongs were satisfied.


     


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

  • Reply 47 of 72
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


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



     


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


     


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


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


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



     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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

  • Reply 48 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,147member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post




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



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


     


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

  • Reply 49 of 72
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,060member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


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


     


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


     


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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



     


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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     


     


     


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


     


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

  • Reply 50 of 72
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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


     


    Can you explain? Please?



     


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

  • Reply 51 of 72
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


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


     


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




    See.



     


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


     


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


     


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

  • Reply 52 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post


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



     


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

  • Reply 53 of 72
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


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


     


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




    See.



     


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


     


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


     


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



     


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


     


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


     


     


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

  • Reply 54 of 72
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member
    You can steal marketshare/profits while not a "perfect" copy. There I solved your false conflict.

    Also have spent time reading comments I see why one person says half in his nick. Half....
  • Reply 55 of 72
    loptimistloptimist Posts: 113member
    Edit.

    I need sleep.
  • Reply 56 of 72

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


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



    Tallest, Muppetry & Loptimist are correct...


     


     


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


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


    Result: Apple lost the desktop war.


     


    This time round….


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


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


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


     


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

  • Reply 57 of 72
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:


     



    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


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



     


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


     


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


     


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


     


    Quote:


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



     


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


     


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


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



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



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


     


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


     


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


     


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


     



    • Man: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds? 


    • Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it. 


    • Man: Would you sleep with me for a pound? 


    • Actress: Certainly not!  What kind of woman do you think I am?! 


    • Man: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price. 


     

  • Reply 58 of 72
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,147member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


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


    .........


     


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


    .......


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


    .....


     




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


     


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


     


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


     


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

  • Reply 59 of 72
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    kdarling wrote: »

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

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

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

    The only problem with your 'logic' is that the jury already decided that the infringement was willful. That question is now settled.
    kdarling wrote: »
    What they mean by "priceless" is that the holder believes there is no fair price possible.

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

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

    And the fact that Apple offered to license it doesn't mean that the theft can be fixed by payment of money. Apple's license may have had other terms that restrict its use. Or Samsung's infringement may have been for things that fall outside of Apple's proposed license. An offer to license does not mean that a future infringer is free to use it without concern.
  • Reply 60 of 72
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,577member
    jragosta wrote: »
    The only problem with your 'logic' is that the jury already decided that the infringement was willful. That question is now settled.

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