They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.
From how I understand it Google could be sued. It's just that the possible damages are going to be a lot lower. When you can prove that a company made significant profits from using your patents you will be able to ask for more compensation. With Google not making any profit on Android (only Google Services), if found to infringe, the amount of damages would be limited and could even result in the court being content if Google adapted their software so it doesn't infringe anymore and at most a small compensation.
Apple says this is more than about financial compensation, then apple should sue Google and get this over with.
Samsung is doing a great job making this about Google vs apple as it should be.
You really are becoming tiresome on this site. Your comment is utter nonsense. Samsung has been the one making , marketing and selling stolen technology raking in billions. They are absolutely the right one to be suing first. Google will get their turn once Apple takes down this scumbag of a company. Apple will wound them first.
"Samsung throws Google under the bus." Details at 11:00 PM.
I hope Samsung's lawyers call Eric Schmidt, the Apple mole, to testify... I'd buy popcorn to watch that.
Hehe, the throwing under the bus is actually not too far from the truth. It does seem to be Samsung's best defense though trying to prove that Apple is 'unfairly' targeting them, this could actually work . If it does I'm curious if Apple would go ahead and sue Google directly, they have been very hesitant in doing that for now (remember the Motorola case was started before the Google acquisition), don't know why exactly but I imagine it has to do with the amount of profits made on the use of the patents if they are found to infringe.
So VP of Android Engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer claims they didn't copy things from Apple and that Android / Google actually invented some of Apple's patented items before Apple patented them. Just because he says they did <span style="line-height:22px;">doesn't make it so. Where is the proof / documentation / prototypes etc. to back his claims?</span>
I would assume it comes with testimony from deposed Google folks next week. I'm sure Apple counsel thought of that.
From how I understand it Google could be sued. It's just that the possible damages are going to be a lot lower. When you can prove that a company made significant profits from using your patents you will be able to ask for more compensation. With Google not making any profit on Android (only Google Services), if found to infringe, the amount of damages would be limited and could even result in the court being content if Google adapted their software so it doesn't infringe anymore and at most a small compensation.
That's why Apple goes after Samsung.
Apple can most certainly make the same "lost profits" argument for damages they're making against Samsung if they were to sue Google directly. It doesn't matter one whit if Google ever made a single penny from Android, or even lost billions on it. If Apple wants to claim they've been monetarily harmed by Google's Android they only have to file a lawsuit and prove their claim to receive a probably huge multi-billion damage award. Inability to get money from Google is not the reason Apple has avoided taking them on directly so far.
Apple can most certainly make the same "lost profits" argument for damages they're making against Samsung if they were to sue Google directly. It doesn't matter one whit if Google ever made a single penny from Android, or even lost billions on it. If Apple wants to claim they've been monetarily harmed by Google's Android they only have to file a lawsuit and prove their claim to receive a probably huge multi-billion damage award. Inability to get money from Google is not the reason Apple has avoided taking them on directly so far.
If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why....
Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.
Actually we're not all thinking that at all. It's mindless drones such as yourself, who parade through here without the slightest idea about patent law, or that this is a fairly significant case. If it is such an irritant to you, why did you click the link and then add a comment.
Please go and spend a large amount of money on R&D and then see if you think it's OK if some asian company makes masses of cheap copies - then lets see who's "childish."
Apple says this is more than about financial compensation, then apple should sue Google and get this over with.
Samsung is doing a great job making this about Google vs apple as it should be.
It doesn't matter if it's Google or Samsung that originated the infringing functionality. If the functionality is shown to infringe a patent then the fact that Samsung released that functionality in its handsets makes Samsung liable for what in patent law is termed indirect infringement. And that means Samsung is liable to Apple for damages. How the law works then, is that Samsung, if it feels Google did not inform it that parts of Android infringed Apple's patents, can then sue Google to recover its costs. In such situations, a smart company would have in place a contract element that states that the supplier of technology (Google) will hold harmless and indemnify the user of that technology (Samsung) in situations where the supplied technology causes harm. That's typically the way contracts are written in the case where the supplier of a technology sells rights to reuse its technology in an end-use product. However, Google is not selling (licensing for a fee) Android, so it may be that such a contract element does not exist between Google and Samsung; I don't know and it doesn't factor into this trial. If Samsung is found to have infringed Apple's patents, then Samsung will have to pay damages to Apple. Whether Samsung can later make a recovery against Google is another issue altogether.
Doh! I suggest best you read up and educate your self if you believe that; you'll continue to look ignorant until you do.. oh, and while your at it, run a spell check on your name.. "skill" has two L's dumb dumb.
It would be shocking to me if you are older than 12.
You're best argument was to go after his spelling??
"Yourself" is one word, Mr. Grammar. Remember when you're pointing a finger, three are pointing at you.
Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.
Educating people one at-a-time. I think that's become my lot in life. Here we go again. Something I wrote at the time of the first trial to help dispell the simplistic notion that Apple tried to patent the rectangle. Hope you find this at least interesting, Ryan96:
Apple's assertion in its lawsuit is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
Ok I now see the purpose of patents more clearly, thank you so much for explaining it to me. I apologize for being so ignorant, I didn't realize how big of a deal it really was.
Educating people one at-a-time. I think that's become my lot in life. Here we go again. Something I wrote at the time of the first trial to help dispell the simplistic notion that Apple tried to patent the rectangle
Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!
As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286
I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.
Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!
As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286
I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.
Well, like this article indicates, in the sidebar at the bottom, most companies that create a distinctive ornamental form for a product go on to apply for a design patent to protect that design. Microsoft did this for the xBox, as the sidebar indicates. So there's nothing unusual about this application of design patents by Apple. And I think Apple had a point to make, if not a legally enforceable one, that Samsung did its level best to copy the form of the iPad (and iPhone), bolstering Apple's position that Samsung copied many elements of Apple's iDevices. I think it helped to form a context under which Apple did prove infringement of other of its patents.
Comments
They can be sued since they make money indirectly. There's actually a term for it but I don't remember it.
From how I understand it Google could be sued. It's just that the possible damages are going to be a lot lower. When you can prove that a company made significant profits from using your patents you will be able to ask for more compensation. With Google not making any profit on Android (only Google Services), if found to infringe, the amount of damages would be limited and could even result in the court being content if Google adapted their software so it doesn't infringe anymore and at most a small compensation.
That's why Apple goes after Samsung.
You really are becoming tiresome on this site. Your comment is utter nonsense. Samsung has been the one making , marketing and selling stolen technology raking in billions. They are absolutely the right one to be suing first. Google will get their turn once Apple takes down this scumbag of a company. Apple will wound them first.
NEWS FLASH:
"Samsung throws Google under the bus." Details at 11:00 PM.
I hope Samsung's lawyers call Eric Schmidt, the Apple mole, to testify... I'd buy popcorn to watch that.
Hehe, the throwing under the bus is actually not too far from the truth. It does seem to be Samsung's best defense though trying to prove that Apple is 'unfairly' targeting them, this could actually work
I would assume it comes with testimony from deposed Google folks next week. I'm sure Apple counsel thought of that.
Apple can most certainly make the same "lost profits" argument for damages they're making against Samsung if they were to sue Google directly. It doesn't matter one whit if Google ever made a single penny from Android, or even lost billions on it. If Apple wants to claim they've been monetarily harmed by Google's Android they only have to file a lawsuit and prove their claim to receive a probably huge multi-billion damage award. Inability to get money from Google is not the reason Apple has avoided taking them on directly so far.
Apple can most certainly make the same "lost profits" argument for damages they're making against Samsung if they were to sue Google directly. It doesn't matter one whit if Google ever made a single penny from Android, or even lost billions on it. If Apple wants to claim they've been monetarily harmed by Google's Android they only have to file a lawsuit and prove their claim to receive a probably huge multi-billion damage award. Inability to get money from Google is not the reason Apple has avoided taking them on directly so far.
If that's not the reason I really wonder what is, I think it's pretty clear that Apple (so far) is trying to avoid direct confrontation with Google (even now during the Samsung trial they are doing everything they can to keep Google out of it). I find that very strange indeed, there must be a reason but why....
‘Kay. Go ahead and keep believing that you can patent a tree or a fish, I guess.
Ok. Let me say what were all thinking.. Apple and samsung are being childish in even starting the patent wars. first off apple didn't even invent the iphone shape so why patent an idea and not actual inventions. The whole "slide to unlock" and the basic idea of a "smartphone" we all acknowledge the fact that apple changed the game and smartphone itself with the iPhone. And slide to unlock was probably on the iPhone before it was on anything else. But the never ending wars that are going on, no customer cares about it, so stop it, and spend your billions on something else. Not to mention every other headline about apple (on AI or otherwise) has to do with samsung and patents. It gets really annoying.
Actually we're not all thinking that at all. It's mindless drones such as yourself, who parade through here without the slightest idea about patent law, or that this is a fairly significant case. If it is such an irritant to you, why did you click the link and then add a comment.
Please go and spend a large amount of money on R&D and then see if you think it's OK if some asian company makes masses of cheap copies - then lets see who's "childish."
P.S> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
It doesn't matter if it's Google or Samsung that originated the infringing functionality. If the functionality is shown to infringe a patent then the fact that Samsung released that functionality in its handsets makes Samsung liable for what in patent law is termed indirect infringement. And that means Samsung is liable to Apple for damages. How the law works then, is that Samsung, if it feels Google did not inform it that parts of Android infringed Apple's patents, can then sue Google to recover its costs. In such situations, a smart company would have in place a contract element that states that the supplier of technology (Google) will hold harmless and indemnify the user of that technology (Samsung) in situations where the supplied technology causes harm. That's typically the way contracts are written in the case where the supplier of a technology sells rights to reuse its technology in an end-use product. However, Google is not selling (licensing for a fee) Android, so it may be that such a contract element does not exist between Google and Samsung; I don't know and it doesn't factor into this trial. If Samsung is found to have infringed Apple's patents, then Samsung will have to pay damages to Apple. Whether Samsung can later make a recovery against Google is another issue altogether.
Doh! I suggest best you read up and educate your self if you believe that; you'll continue to look ignorant until you do.. oh, and while your at it, run a spell check on your name.. "skill" has two L's dumb dumb.
It would be shocking to me if you are older than 12.
You're best argument was to go after his spelling??
"Yourself" is one word, Mr. Grammar. Remember when you're pointing a finger, three are pointing at you.
Educating people one at-a-time. I think that's become my lot in life. Here we go again. Something I wrote at the time of the first trial to help dispell the simplistic notion that Apple tried to patent the rectangle. Hope you find this at least interesting, Ryan96:
Apple's assertion in its lawsuit is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
Ok I now see the purpose of patents more clearly, thank you so much for explaining it to me. I apologize for being so ignorant, I didn't realize how big of a deal it really was.
Absolutely great post sir. Not a lot of folks put forth such an effort to explain a somewhat confusing topic. Thanks!
As an aside since you may have missed it, Apple did eventually succeed in actually patenting the round-cornered rectangle shape. Really. US Patent D670,286
I can't imagine they could protect it if they ever chose to assert it tho as there's nothing "novel" about it as far as I can tell. No idea how it could have passed muster with the USPTO unless you see something I don't? Still it serves as a hindrance for companies that might find it the most useful and common-sense shape for their device.
What's your opinion on it?
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/
I was under the impression that you cannot patent an idea... but you can patent a specific implementation of an idea.
An implementation of an idea is still just an idea until it has been made tangible.
see: patent trolls. Their patents are all just ideas since none of them are put into practice, regardless of what they might cover.
Well, like this article indicates, in the sidebar at the bottom, most companies that create a distinctive ornamental form for a product go on to apply for a design patent to protect that design. Microsoft did this for the xBox, as the sidebar indicates. So there's nothing unusual about this application of design patents by Apple. And I think Apple had a point to make, if not a legally enforceable one, that Samsung did its level best to copy the form of the iPad (and iPhone), bolstering Apple's position that Samsung copied many elements of Apple's iDevices. I think it helped to form a context under which Apple did prove infringement of other of its patents.
and while your at it, run a spell check on your name.. "skill" has two L's dumb dumb.
You are assuming that Skil has the same meaning as Skill.
and as you noted, it is his name...
and you, dumb dumb, ?before you start trying to correct people, may want to make sure you write correctly.
You do not use an apostrophe to make a word plural.
It is "two Ls", not "two L's". and in this case, it is one l, not two Ls.
And "Bryan" is correctly spelled "Brian".
Unfortunately for Samsung, Apple has legitimate patents.