The press is so very wrong about why Apple is suing!
Apple is requesting Samsung to do one thing and is being polite with the request... Please stop copying.
For some inexplicable reason Samsung refuses to agree.
And, for another inexplicable reason Judge Lucy Koh refuses to allow a sales band on Samsung's infringing products.
Any future Apple breakthrough technology is in jeopardy of being slavishly, unapologetically copied by Samsung if Samsung is not forced to stop.
I agree, the media does not understand so they painting a negative picture,
However, keep in mind Samsung is pointing the finger at Google this time around, since all the patents relate to software, which Samsung claims has little control over. They trying to show that it was the Google software that infringed not Samsung. Even with Apple asking them not to use those feature they are trying to show they have no choice or control and Apple should have gone after Google. I am not sure if it came out nut Samsung in fact did remove some of the feature from future releases of the software. Which creates a problem for them, on one hand they are claiming it is Google's fault and they have no control, but they also show they had the ability to remove the infringing features on future releases.
Also, their refuse is a legal strategy, if they remove them it show guilt and Apple could have shown up in court and said if Samsung did not feel they were infringing then they would have never removed it. This is what lawyer advise, which it never admit you did anything wrong and make the other side prove their case. Plus since google is going to pay their bill in this case they had no incentive to comply with the request, actually the deal with Samsung and Google probably did not allow Samsung to dump it all on Google lap. I suspect if Apple wins this case, they will be going after google for fee to all the other android licensees. A win against Samsung make a case against Google and any other android user a lot easier and it also set the fee structure for Apple to collect from everyone else.
Since AI has not yet covered this huge breaking story, here's a link to the reversal of summary judgment favoring Motorola in the Apple vs. Motorola case:
I agree, the media does not understand so they painting a negative picture,
However, keep in mind Samsung is pointing the finger at Google this time around, since all the patents relate to software, which Samsung claims has little control over. They trying to show that it was the Google software that infringed not Samsung. Even with Apple asking them not to use those feature they are trying to show they have no choose or control and Apple should have gone after Google. I am not sure if it came out they Samsung in fact did remove some of the feature from future releases of the software. Which creates a problem for them, on one hand they are claiming it is Google's fault and they have no control, but they also show they had the ability to remove the infringing features on future releases.
Also, their refuse is a legal strategy, if they remove them it show guilt and Apple could have shown up in court and said if Samsung did not feel they were infringing then they would have never removed it. This is what lawyer advise, which it never admit you did anything wrong and make the other side prove their case. Plus since google is going to pay their bill in this case they had no incentive to comply with the request, actually the deal with Samsung and Google probably did not allow Samsung to dump it all on Google lap. I suspect if Apple wins this case, they will be going after google for fee to all the other android licensees. A win against Samsung make a case against Google and any other android user a lot easier and it also set the fee structure for Apple to collect from everyone else.
I disagree the media does not understand. The media fully understands what is going on and has purposely chosen to disregard the truth to paint Apple as being too litigious instead of innovative.
You can search every Web site from Cnet to The Verge to Forbes to Bloomberg to Gartner to wherever to read about how they wrote Apple had to fight to protect its patents else loose claim to the patents. These articles were written in 2011 before the first trial. When you read articles about this second trial, you understand exactly how much the a Web sites have changed points of view. Apple must innovate instead of litigate so its new innovations can propel the market forward.
Look at the smartwatch field. Apple is not there. What has Samsung presented that will propel the industry forward? It's own CEOs admit the smart watches do not have a wow factor. If Apple released an innovative smartwatch, the industry would follow Apple.
Look at mobile payments. What has Samsung done to propel the industry forward? PayPal is testing a payments system in house based on iBeacons technology instead of NFC!
Look at health. Samsung customers are griping the heart rate sensor does not work.
Look at environment sensors. Samsung has several of these sensors. How are customers using the sensors? When I learned Apple might be integrating these sensors in an iPhone, I immediately thought about how I could update my personal fitness app to use the sensors to help me analyze my Spring/Summer/Fall workouts versus my Winter workouts. I despise Winter workouts! ????
This why Apple must fight for the truth. Samsung wants to spin the truth to focus on Google. Google did not create Wiz, Samsung did. Samsung's own documents show how Samsung copied Apple. Google is not innocent in this since it offered to pay Samsung's bill. Since Samsung was not going to lose, there was no incentive for it to change course. And since the US government chooses to not block the sales of the infringing phones, the US government is allowing Samsung to steal without retribution.
This is relatively big news affecting the current Apple/Samsung trial. On the '647 patent which Judge Koh took on herself to rule that Samsung is infringing based on a fairly wide interpretation of the claim the US Appeals Court has just ruled that Judge Posner had it right. By necessity it would mean Judge Koh has it wrong on the claim construction for that "data-tapping" patent. Apple already said they'd accept just .60 per infringing device based on Posner's construction in the Motorola case where Apple used this same patent and claim.
For those interested there were some bright spots from the Appeals Court ruling as it's relates to Moto. No doubt AI will report on that one later today including denial of Motorola's demand for injunctive relief. . http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1548.Opinion.4-23-2014.1.PDF Note: Everything after page 71 references dissenting opinions and not legally binding.
Apple can license their patents at any rate they want. It matters not in the least what they previously asked or demanded. Mueller is wrong.
The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
The verdict form has to be complicated. Just look at the hundreds of models Samsung has cloned from the iPhone!
If you recall the previous trial, it seems like it would be in Apple's best interest to have a highly specific form. That way it can at least be clear what is being awarded on what basis. I can't see where a lack of transparency would help conclude the ongoing legal battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember
Check out Samsung S5 new alternative to iPhone rumored Sapphire crystal
What a shameful company.. Again another reason that Samsung copies Apple
I'm not sure that claim lines up. The device itself is just ridiculously tacky, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.
The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
No matter who "wins", appeals are virtually guaranteed.
The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
Posner argued that smartphones needed to work like this or they would't sell and would cause harm to consumers, the appeals court upheld that part.
Apple can charge whatever they want AND that part covers causal nexus.
Mueller is very close to parroting Samsung's legal team's arguments in his latest opinion pieces.
Samsung paid me to say the device was a tacky piece of crap? Apparently you sir, are an imbecile.
Remember a couple of posters we've had here in the past who intentionally went overboard in their Apple praise and talking points in an effort to make real fans of Apple look silly?
If you recall the previous trial, it seems like it would be in Apple's best interest to have a highly specific form. That way it can at least be clear what is being awarded on what basis. I can't see where a lack of transparency would help conclude the ongoing legal battle.
I'm not sure that claim lines up. The device itself is just ridiculously tacky, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.
iMember "What a shameful company" and your response to that was.."You're searching for a bogeyman here". Opps did i strike
a nerve there? because in my book that was an insult
iMember "What a shameful company" and your response to that was.."You're searching for a bogeyman here". Opps did i strike
a nerve there? because in my book that was an insult
Huh? That comment wasn't meant as an insult. Where I see them aping Apple usually comes down to feature set. If they decided to advertise a similar coating, that would be an example. A few people commented on the inclusion of a fingerprint reader on one of their phones. There isn't much Apple can do about them trying to copy features. As you've seen they need specific claims where Samsung actually infringes on the use of a patented feature. If their engineers took a disassembler and tried to rebuild Apple's source code, that would fall under the realm of copyright violation. Anyway in this case all I saw was a tacky phone. It looks more like a costume piece than something made for actual use, and it does nothing to maintain parity in features with whatever Apple chooses to incorporate in their next phone. Hopefully that provides a better explanation.
Comments
Wait, are you saying he’s lying?
Check out Samsung S5 new alternative to iPhone rumored Sapphire crystal
What a shameful company.. Again another reason that Samsung copies Apple
The press is so very wrong about why Apple is suing!
Apple is requesting Samsung to do one thing and is being polite with the request... Please stop copying.
For some inexplicable reason Samsung refuses to agree.
And, for another inexplicable reason Judge Lucy Koh refuses to allow a sales band on Samsung's infringing products.
Any future Apple breakthrough technology is in jeopardy of being slavishly, unapologetically copied by Samsung if Samsung is not forced to stop.
I agree, the media does not understand so they painting a negative picture,
However, keep in mind Samsung is pointing the finger at Google this time around, since all the patents relate to software, which Samsung claims has little control over. They trying to show that it was the Google software that infringed not Samsung. Even with Apple asking them not to use those feature they are trying to show they have no choice or control and Apple should have gone after Google. I am not sure if it came out nut Samsung in fact did remove some of the feature from future releases of the software. Which creates a problem for them, on one hand they are claiming it is Google's fault and they have no control, but they also show they had the ability to remove the infringing features on future releases.
Also, their refuse is a legal strategy, if they remove them it show guilt and Apple could have shown up in court and said if Samsung did not feel they were infringing then they would have never removed it. This is what lawyer advise, which it never admit you did anything wrong and make the other side prove their case. Plus since google is going to pay their bill in this case they had no incentive to comply with the request, actually the deal with Samsung and Google probably did not allow Samsung to dump it all on Google lap. I suspect if Apple wins this case, they will be going after google for fee to all the other android licensees. A win against Samsung make a case against Google and any other android user a lot easier and it also set the fee structure for Apple to collect from everyone else.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1548.Opinion.4-23-2014.1.PDF
A major rebuke of well-known anti-patent judge Posner that will greatly favor Apple in pursuing damages against Motorola. Another huge Apple win!
1- yours does? When did they change that?
2- exactly how is highly debated, as often is the case with Law or Governments, or anything involving both
Not to mention that courts in their US version is a very alien thing to Europeans...
I disagree the media does not understand. The media fully understands what is going on and has purposely chosen to disregard the truth to paint Apple as being too litigious instead of innovative.
You can search every Web site from Cnet to The Verge to Forbes to Bloomberg to Gartner to wherever to read about how they wrote Apple had to fight to protect its patents else loose claim to the patents. These articles were written in 2011 before the first trial. When you read articles about this second trial, you understand exactly how much the a Web sites have changed points of view. Apple must innovate instead of litigate so its new innovations can propel the market forward.
Look at the smartwatch field. Apple is not there. What has Samsung presented that will propel the industry forward? It's own CEOs admit the smart watches do not have a wow factor. If Apple released an innovative smartwatch, the industry would follow Apple.
Look at mobile payments. What has Samsung done to propel the industry forward? PayPal is testing a payments system in house based on iBeacons technology instead of NFC!
Look at health. Samsung customers are griping the heart rate sensor does not work.
Look at environment sensors. Samsung has several of these sensors. How are customers using the sensors? When I learned Apple might be integrating these sensors in an iPhone, I immediately thought about how I could update my personal fitness app to use the sensors to help me analyze my Spring/Summer/Fall workouts versus my Winter workouts. I despise Winter workouts! ????
This why Apple must fight for the truth. Samsung wants to spin the truth to focus on Google. Google did not create Wiz, Samsung did. Samsung's own documents show how Samsung copied Apple. Google is not innocent in this since it offered to pay Samsung's bill. Since Samsung was not going to lose, there was no incentive for it to change course. And since the US government chooses to not block the sales of the infringing phones, the US government is allowing Samsung to steal without retribution.
For those interested there were some bright spots from the Appeals Court ruling as it's relates to Moto. No doubt AI will report on that one later today including denial of Motorola's demand for injunctive relief. .
http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1548.Opinion.4-23-2014.1.PDF
Note: Everything after page 71 references dissenting opinions and not legally binding.
EDIT: Mueller has a story up on this, crunching numbers to say Apple will have to reduce their damage demands by at least 1/3 based on the Appeals Court ruling handed down today.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/04/appeals-court-deals-apples-current-case.html
EDIT2: Apple's demand for an injunction on some Motorola devices is also denied.
EDIT3: My overall impression is that the ruling is a bit more in favor of Apple than MOTO.
The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
The verdict form has to be complicated. Just look at the hundreds of models Samsung has cloned from the iPhone!
If you recall the previous trial, it seems like it would be in Apple's best interest to have a highly specific form. That way it can at least be clear what is being awarded on what basis. I can't see where a lack of transparency would help conclude the ongoing legal battle.
Check out Samsung S5 new alternative to iPhone rumored Sapphire crystal
What a shameful company.. Again another reason that Samsung copies Apple
I'm not sure that claim lines up. The device itself is just ridiculously tacky, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.
The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
No matter who "wins", appeals are virtually guaranteed.
The claim construction Judge Koh is using won't likely be accepted if appealed, and it will be appealed if Samsung comes out on the short end of it. Instead a very narrowed interpretation was deemed correct. Guess where this case would go if one side or the other (or both) disagree with the damages. Yup, same United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
So sure, Apple can say what they want in damages (they're not offering a license). Samsung obviously disagrees so that's what this case determines. One thing for near-certain (not entirely out of the realm of possibility yet tho) is Apple won't be getting the $12.49/device it argues it deserves for that single patent claim. Likely much closer to their Motorola damage acceptance.
Posner argued that smartphones needed to work like this or they would't sell and would cause harm to consumers, the appeals court upheld that part.
Apple can charge whatever they want AND that part covers causal nexus.
Mueller is very close to parroting Samsung's legal team's arguments in his latest opinion pieces.
Yes, that is interesting, isn't it? In the interest of serving his readers he should consider divulging the source of his current income.
And that is the big one right there. Samsung cannot possibly argue Apple's patents are worth less (or "worthless"...LOL)!
but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.
You are wrong!
Try again tommorowland
One question how much does Samsung paid u to lose your self-respect?
You are wrong!
Try again tommorowland
One question how much does Samsung paid u to lose your self-respect?
Samsung paid me to say the device was a tacky piece of crap? Apparently you sir, are an imbecile.
Remember a couple of posters we've had here in the past who intentionally went overboard in their Apple praise and talking points in an effort to make real fans of Apple look silly?
Jus'sayin'
So you don't trust most everything he says anymore? Seems you've now come around to my way of thinking tho it's been a long road. You're welcome.
If you recall the previous trial, it seems like it would be in Apple's best interest to have a highly specific form. That way it can at least be clear what is being awarded on what basis. I can't see where a lack of transparency would help conclude the ongoing legal battle.
I'm not sure that claim lines up. The device itself is just ridiculously tacky, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Apple. You're searching for a bogeyman here.
iMember "What a shameful company" and your response to that was.."You're searching for a bogeyman here". Opps did i strike
a nerve there? because in my book that was an insult
iMember "What a shameful company" and your response to that was.."You're searching for a bogeyman here". Opps did i strike
a nerve there? because in my book that was an insult
Huh? That comment wasn't meant as an insult. Where I see them aping Apple usually comes down to feature set. If they decided to advertise a similar coating, that would be an example. A few people commented on the inclusion of a fingerprint reader on one of their phones. There isn't much Apple can do about them trying to copy features. As you've seen they need specific claims where Samsung actually infringes on the use of a patented feature. If their engineers took a disassembler and tried to rebuild Apple's source code, that would fall under the realm of copyright violation. Anyway in this case all I saw was a tacky phone. It looks more like a costume piece than something made for actual use, and it does nothing to maintain parity in features with whatever Apple chooses to incorporate in their next phone. Hopefully that provides a better explanation.