Well said, and you are asking a lot from these people here at AI..
And then you state this utter idiocy:
Quote:
Apple has not suffered any irreparable harm because the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus broke all sales records. How has Apple been harmed? They haven't...now they are just trying to be greedy. They need to stop wasting millions on this stupid lawsuit and end all of it. It is a phone, and all phones have similar operational functions. If Apple does build a car, next thing they will do is sue everyone over wheels, tires, steering wheels, seats, etc.
What a moronic, asinine fucking argument. You're not being original with that car line. It's been uttered by trolls before you, and all it does is paint you as the intellectually dishonest troll that you are. Do you REALLY think these brain-dead analogies strengthen any argument you're trying to make?
There's no excuse for your bald-faced dishonesty and grotesque contempt of the facts. Just becuase Apple still manages to be successful IN SPITE of the blatant, criminal, shameless copycats, does not mean that should be excused. If Apple was led by lesser people, this kind of thing could have finished off the company. Your lack of logic is truly something to behold. "Greedy"? Any money they win will be a drop in the bucket. It's about principle, and protecting their IP. Just because you personally celebrate, excuse, and justify the shameless theft of IP by spouting lies and putting forth obtuse analogies, does mean make it right.
Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the harm cannot be "irreparable". Money can cure it, so no injunction is required.
Isn't that like saying that the movie industry can't have sites, that pirate their movies, shut down since the movie industry offer licenses of their movies to others? Therefore, their only recourse is to seek monetary compensation, if they can find out who own these sites (that pirate their movies), as no "irreparable" damage had occurred.
You're right - there is some of that taste in this. [Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not "legal advice"]
The original question asked about what constituted "irreparable harm" and not "what bases might there be for an injunction". One of them is irreparable harm but there are others, such as a refusal to pay license fees.
So, in the context of your example, the studios would not be able to get an injunction on the basis of irreparable harm, but could get one because the pirates refused to negotiate for a license and pay whatever is appropriate.
Another difference is that, in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product. With the patent issues between Apple and Samsung it's much less than the whole thing. It's a part, not the essence, and that makes a difference.
Apple has not suffered any irreparable harm because the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus broke all sales records. How has Apple been harmed? They haven't...now they are just trying to be greedy. They need to stop wasting millions on this stupid lawsuit and end all of it. It is a phone, and all phones have similar operational functions. If Apple does build a car, next thing they will do is sue everyone over wheels, tires, steering wheels, seats, etc.
Common troll post. If the iPhone was just a phone, why did other smartphones suck at the time? Why did others quickly copy it?
Apple spent millions developing it so why should others be allowed to steal it.
Nobody would license patented technology if not for the fear of an injunction or civil suit. Patent holders alone are responsible for enforcement of IP laws. Without consequences, infringement will happen all the time--not just when Samsung does it. What makes Samsung so special?
Yes, it would have been possible to be even more successful than Apple has been.
Looks like the judges are using information not presented as evidence in court (AAPL's high valuation). Perhaps they should all recuse themselves.
When is Samsung going to pay the license fee--never? Injunction time!
It's very simple... if Samsung had not copied Apple and used Apple's IP... they would not have sold so many devices and would not have gained the market share that they did and Apple would have sold more ithings.
It's very simple... if Samsung had not copied Apple and used Apple's IP... they would not have sold so many devices and would not have gained the market share that they did and Apple would have sold more ithings.
Apple's attorneys need to provide evidence of this--ASAP.
@Banjamin Frost: I think Apple was trying to argue irreparable harm as a means to obtain an injunction. The judges did not say what Samsung was doing is acceptable because Apple makes huge profits. The judges eluded to the fact that Apple already licenses the technology to others and any harm can be easily "repaired" by Samsung paying those licensing fees. No different to how Microsoft uses "true-ups" with enterprise customers to get current on licensing.
If Apple didn't license the technology to others that could be a different story.
@Banjamin Frost: I think Apple was trying to argue irreparable harm as a means to obtain an injunction. The judges did not say what Samsung was doing is acceptable because Apple makes huge profits. The judges eluded to the fact that Apple already licenses the technology to others and any harm can be easily "repaired" by Samsung paying those licensing fees. No different to how Microsoft uses "true-ups" with enterprise customers to get current on licensing.
If Apple didn't license the technology to others that could be a different story.
I see. Apple should have just licensed this in the first place. It's obvious. Apple FORCED Samsung to steal because they refused to license! It's all Apple's fault!
"I'm not a murderer, your honor. He refused to give me his wallet and forced me to kill him!"
Unbefrickinlievable.
The legal system seems to be a huge pile of smelly brownish things. If all a judge has to do, to completely devalue a case, is make a personal statement like, 'I'm wasting my time', I can have my grandmother hear the case. Judges are supposed avoid emotive and subjective responses - it's their duty! Too bad no one can tell a judge that they have run afoul of personal bias.
I see. Apple should have just licensed this in the first place. It's obvious. Apple FORCED Samsung to steal because they refused to license! It's all Apple's fault!
"I'm not a murderer, your honor. He refused to give me his wallet and forced me to kill him!"
Unbefrickinlievable.
You're trying to unscramble the egg. Samsung is guilty. The harm can be cured by money. That is all.
Another difference is that, in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product. With the patent issues between Apple and Samsung it's much less than the whole thing. It's a part, not the essence, and that makes a difference.
But a site that provides illegally pirated movies can also be providing perfectly legal contents. So in essence, the pirated movies is only a part of the site's contents. And yet the movie (and music) industry will demand the whole site shut down because they do not have a license for the pirated contents. How many file sharing sites have been shut down, even though pirated IP was not (though maybe close to with some sites) 100% of their contents?
It's very simple... if Samsung had not copied Apple and used Apple's IP... they would not have sold so many devices and would not have gained the market share that they did and Apple would have sold more ithings.
So you think the two patents in question are of such epic importance to potential customers that had Samsung devices not had them, a lot of their potential customers would have gone and bought iPhones instead, just because of these two features?
Personally, I doubt that. Samsung previously had a quite fun unlock method where you could teach the phone a unique symbol/pattern that would unlock it. It could be a Z, an O etc. Of course you could set your symbol as just a simple linear stroke making it functionally similar to slide to unlock. If Samsung had eschewed slide to unlock and instead implemented this earlier unlock method, I doubt they would have lost a single sale to Apple over it. It might be interesting to survey some Samsung users and ask how many were even aware their phones had data detectors and whether or not they would have bought an iPhone instead if Samsung devices had lacked them. I suspect you would find few users were even aware the tech was there and even fewer would consider it's lack a purchase altering matter.
Well one thing's for sure. Looking Samsung's new phones, the court judgements did nothing to deter their copycat strategy. And shouldn't that be the point of a court ruling, really - to discourage the same behavior in the future?
I suppose if you don't call having your hardware design, software design, advertising, packaging and a huge amount of IP blatantly and unashamedly copied to produce a billion dollar market, then yeah, no damage.
Well one thing's for sure. Looking Samsung's new phones, the court judgements did nothing to deter their copycat strategy. And shouldn't that be the point of a court ruling, really - to discourage the same behavior in the future?
What Apple patents do you think the new Samsung phones breach?
It's clear to me that Apple's intentions are to ensure that Samsung cannot simply make the financial penalties for what are obviously patent infringements of other company's portfolio part of Samsung's cost of doing business. Financial penalties to a conglomerate like Samsung are easily passed along and factored into other product sales. Injunctions on the other hand send a message and create a situation that must be addressed by the infringing party - which is all that Apple is asking for.
These cases should be handled in in an impartial and objective manner, but as we have seen with the judges in too many of these cases, their personal opinions, bias, politics, and technical ineptitude overshadow their judgement.
There is also a prevailing mentality, not just in the US but around the world, that stealing from an entity that is viewed as being financially omnipotent is somehow acceptable. For example, it's okay to hide income or avoid personal taxes owed to the government because, you know, "they" already have all the money they need, I don't like how they are spending it, and I'm not cow-towing to The Man. The same philosophy is touted by folks, say high ranking officials in companies like Google, that Apple is charging too much for the products that it designs and builds. Apple is so big and has so much money that it should simply give away the products it builds or sell them at little or no profit. Same behavior applies for stealing software, music, books, movies, and just about anything that has almost zero copying cost. Committing a crime with a keyboard seems wholly acceptable - no GSR. In all of these cases there is little regard for the cost to produce the material that is stolen or they want given away, or who you are really stealing from when you don't pay your owed taxes, that stealing is stealing no matter the weapon, or the amount of money that needs to be set aside by profitable companies to bankroll future investments without undue risk to investors. Once something or someone is seen as financially omnipotent the basic rules of morality and fairness no longer apply - they become fair game for rationalizing theft and cheating and redistribution of earned value to those who didn't earn it and don't deserve it.
Judges are no less immune to these basic human tendencies than anyone else. They see Apple as financially omnipotent and therefore apply a different set of rules and value assessments to Apple. The laws don't matter when the people entrusted to enforce the laws are powerless to overcome their own human nature, vulnerabilities, bias, and weaknesses. File this judge under "asleep at the switch" and reluctantly admit that the situation will never change unless Apple's financial situation changes dramatically.
Comments
Well said, and you are asking a lot from these people here at AI..
And then you state this utter idiocy:
What a moronic, asinine fucking argument. You're not being original with that car line. It's been uttered by trolls before you, and all it does is paint you as the intellectually dishonest troll that you are. Do you REALLY think these brain-dead analogies strengthen any argument you're trying to make?
There's no excuse for your bald-faced dishonesty and grotesque contempt of the facts. Just becuase Apple still manages to be successful IN SPITE of the blatant, criminal, shameless copycats, does not mean that should be excused. If Apple was led by lesser people, this kind of thing could have finished off the company. Your lack of logic is truly something to behold. "Greedy"? Any money they win will be a drop in the bucket. It's about principle, and protecting their IP. Just because you personally celebrate, excuse, and justify the shameless theft of IP by spouting lies and putting forth obtuse analogies, does mean make it right.
Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the harm cannot be "irreparable". Money can cure it, so no injunction is required.
Isn't that like saying that the movie industry can't have sites, that pirate their movies, shut down since the movie industry offer licenses of their movies to others? Therefore, their only recourse is to seek monetary compensation, if they can find out who own these sites (that pirate their movies), as no "irreparable" damage had occurred.
You're right - there is some of that taste in this. [Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not "legal advice"]
The original question asked about what constituted "irreparable harm" and not "what bases might there be for an injunction". One of them is irreparable harm but there are others, such as a refusal to pay license fees.
So, in the context of your example, the studios would not be able to get an injunction on the basis of irreparable harm, but could get one because the pirates refused to negotiate for a license and pay whatever is appropriate.
Another difference is that, in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product. With the patent issues between Apple and Samsung it's much less than the whole thing. It's a part, not the essence, and that makes a difference.
Common troll post. If the iPhone was just a phone, why did other smartphones suck at the time? Why did others quickly copy it?
Apple spent millions developing it so why should others be allowed to steal it.
Punish thieves.
Nobody would license patented technology if not for the fear of an injunction or civil suit. Patent holders alone are responsible for enforcement of IP laws. Without consequences, infringement will happen all the time--not just when Samsung does it. What makes Samsung so special?
Yes, it would have been possible to be even more successful than Apple has been.
Looks like the judges are using information not presented as evidence in court (AAPL's high valuation). Perhaps they should all recuse themselves.
When is Samsung going to pay the license fee--never? Injunction time!
It's very simple... if Samsung had not copied Apple and used Apple's IP... they would not have sold so many devices and would not have gained the market share that they did and Apple would have sold more ithings.
Apple's attorneys need to provide evidence of this--ASAP.
If Apple didn't license the technology to others that could be a different story.
"I'm not a murderer, your honor. He refused to give me his wallet and forced me to kill him!"
Unbefrickinlievable.
You're trying to unscramble the egg. Samsung is guilty. The harm can be cured by money. That is all.
You should remember when President Obama Vetoed ITC Ban On iPhone, iPads.
In my opinion unbelievable in a western democracy.
Another difference is that, in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product. With the patent issues between Apple and Samsung it's much less than the whole thing. It's a part, not the essence, and that makes a difference.
But a site that provides illegally pirated movies can also be providing perfectly legal contents. So in essence, the pirated movies is only a part of the site's contents. And yet the movie (and music) industry will demand the whole site shut down because they do not have a license for the pirated contents. How many file sharing sites have been shut down, even though pirated IP was not (though maybe close to with some sites) 100% of their contents?
Why are you forcing me to charge my client $750 and hour defending this useless claim?
It's very simple... if Samsung had not copied Apple and used Apple's IP... they would not have sold so many devices and would not have gained the market share that they did and Apple would have sold more ithings.
So you think the two patents in question are of such epic importance to potential customers that had Samsung devices not had them, a lot of their potential customers would have gone and bought iPhones instead, just because of these two features?
Personally, I doubt that. Samsung previously had a quite fun unlock method where you could teach the phone a unique symbol/pattern that would unlock it. It could be a Z, an O etc. Of course you could set your symbol as just a simple linear stroke making it functionally similar to slide to unlock. If Samsung had eschewed slide to unlock and instead implemented this earlier unlock method, I doubt they would have lost a single sale to Apple over it. It might be interesting to survey some Samsung users and ask how many were even aware their phones had data detectors and whether or not they would have bought an iPhone instead if Samsung devices had lacked them. I suspect you would find few users were even aware the tech was there and even fewer would consider it's lack a purchase altering matter.
Well one thing's for sure. Looking Samsung's new phones, the court judgements did nothing to deter their copycat strategy. And shouldn't that be the point of a court ruling, really - to discourage the same behavior in the future?
What Apple patents do you think the new Samsung phones breach?
It's clear to me that Apple's intentions are to ensure that Samsung cannot simply make the financial penalties for what are obviously patent infringements of other company's portfolio part of Samsung's cost of doing business. Financial penalties to a conglomerate like Samsung are easily passed along and factored into other product sales. Injunctions on the other hand send a message and create a situation that must be addressed by the infringing party - which is all that Apple is asking for.
These cases should be handled in in an impartial and objective manner, but as we have seen with the judges in too many of these cases, their personal opinions, bias, politics, and technical ineptitude overshadow their judgement.
There is also a prevailing mentality, not just in the US but around the world, that stealing from an entity that is viewed as being financially omnipotent is somehow acceptable. For example, it's okay to hide income or avoid personal taxes owed to the government because, you know, "they" already have all the money they need, I don't like how they are spending it, and I'm not cow-towing to The Man. The same philosophy is touted by folks, say high ranking officials in companies like Google, that Apple is charging too much for the products that it designs and builds. Apple is so big and has so much money that it should simply give away the products it builds or sell them at little or no profit. Same behavior applies for stealing software, music, books, movies, and just about anything that has almost zero copying cost. Committing a crime with a keyboard seems wholly acceptable - no GSR. In all of these cases there is little regard for the cost to produce the material that is stolen or they want given away, or who you are really stealing from when you don't pay your owed taxes, that stealing is stealing no matter the weapon, or the amount of money that needs to be set aside by profitable companies to bankroll future investments without undue risk to investors. Once something or someone is seen as financially omnipotent the basic rules of morality and fairness no longer apply - they become fair game for rationalizing theft and cheating and redistribution of earned value to those who didn't earn it and don't deserve it.
Judges are no less immune to these basic human tendencies than anyone else. They see Apple as financially omnipotent and therefore apply a different set of rules and value assessments to Apple. The laws don't matter when the people entrusted to enforce the laws are powerless to overcome their own human nature, vulnerabilities, bias, and weaknesses. File this judge under "asleep at the switch" and reluctantly admit that the situation will never change unless Apple's financial situation changes dramatically.