You should remember when President Obama Vetoed ITC Ban On iPhone, iPads.
In my opinion unbelievable in a western democracy.
The difference being that the injunction against Apple was based on a disagreement of the licensing of patents that were SEP. One of the stipulation of having your patent an SEP is that you must license it to everyone that wants to market a product that requires that patent and the license must be FRAND. Any disagreement of the licensing terms must be settle in court. Apple was willing to let a court decide on a fair licensing agreement. Motorola was not and demanded licensing on their terms. Which wasn't FRAND by any standards.
Plus, President Obama did not veto anything. The executive branch (I forgot which branch), that is under his control, denied the ITC request to enforce the injunction. And they do not have to follow any ITC rulings because the ITC is not a court of law ........ in any country.
What Apple patents do you think the new Samsung phones breach?
You're kidding, right? Have you seen it? And I didn't say they violate patents, per se - just trade dress, which has always been obvious to everyone except Lucy Koh, as regards "irreparable harm". They were made to pay for some violations, but obviously not enough to discourage:
Need more? That's not to mention the UI, Samsung Pay, even the keyboard and the location of the headphone jack which they made fun of the previous year. They're just dancing right on that line, right where cost of litigation is worth the benefits of parroting Apple's every move. Seriously, it's blatant. And they know the lawsuits will come and they've decided it's worth it.
Well said, and you are asking a lot from these people here at AI. They read one sentence and then go ballistic without reading the rest of the article. They apparently didn't read this part of the article, "You've already licensed these patents up the wazoo!" Judge Moore said, adding later, ""You've licensed them to everyone. So why is it irreparable harm if Samsung uses the patents?""
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.
So you're justifying Sammy's scumbag attitude by iPhone 6 sales?
Who cares if I chop off your pinky. You still have 9 more derp !!
The case is still being litigated in various appeals filed by both Apple and Samsung. Apple hasn't paid a dime on some of their IP infringement losses either as they too are appealing them. That's the way it always works.
The difference being that the injunction against Apple was based on a disagreement of the licensing of patents that were SEP. One of the stipulation of having your patent an SEP is that you must license it to everyone that wants to market a product that requires that patent and the license must be FRAND. Any disagreement of the licensing terms must be settle in court. Apple was willing to let a court decide on a fair licensing agreement. Motorola was not and demanded licensing on their terms. Which wasn't FRAND by any standards.
Plus, President Obama did not veto anything. The executive branch (I forgot which branch), that is under his control, denied the ITC request to enforce the injunction. And they do not have to follow any ITC rulings because the ITC is not a court of law ........ in any country. [/QUOTE]
@DavidW : well, going to court to settle a patent dispute is not just limited to SEPs.
And, as for your nonsensical comment about Apple being such a well-behaving litigator, at least one judge in a Western district case involving Moto and Apple ( 11-cv-00178-bbc) doesn't think so. Apple quite boldly refused to accept the court's decision unless their decision favors them and Judge Crabbs upon hearing Apple's absurd argument dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The same is true for Apple's recent case against Ericsson where Ericsson offered to arbitrate the dispute before a court appointed independent arbitrator; Apple refused.
President Obama vetoed the ITC injunction through its Trade Commissioner Froman. Obama can veto any ITC decision and his decision is not subject to any legal standard or challenge (no appeal or reviews). Obama did veto the ITC injunction under intensive political lobbying by Apple.
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.
The question is 'were they harmed'? Prove that Samsung phones were purchased for no other reason than that they looked like an iPhone, then prove that those same people never bought an iPhone afterwards. All that proof will constitute irreparable harm.
Need more? That's not to mention the UI, Samsung Pay, even the keyboard and the location of the headphone jack which they made fun of the previous year. They're just dancing right on that line, right where cost of litigation is worth the benefits of parroting Apple's every move. Seriously, it's blatant. And they know the lawsuits will come and they've decided it's worth it.
You're kidding, right? Have you seen it? And I didn't say they violate patents, per se - just trade dress, which has always been obvious to everyone except Lucy Koh, as regards "irreparable harm". They were made to pay for some violations, but obviously not enough to discourage:
Need more? That's not to mention the UI, Samsung Pay, even the keyboard and the location of the headphone jack which they made fun of the previous year. They're just dancing right on that line, right where cost of litigation is worth the benefits of parroting Apple's every move. Seriously, it's blatant. And they know the lawsuits will come and they've decided it's worth it.
Yes I have seen it. have you seen the Samsung Alpha which came out before the 6?
I think it reasonable to think that Samsung could equally be accused of recycling their own layout. I imagine they might have relocated the headphone port because of the IR blaster in the top meant it was more practical and aesthetic to move it to the bottom to prevent headphone cords possibly getting in the way of the port. Looking at the Note 4 I imagine that could well happen. The constant radius rounded edges are not a first by Apple either. Samsung probably decided on those before the 6 was even out on account of their going with the curved edge screen in the Edge model, which is clearly a continuation of the idea first floated with the Note Edge. I imagine developing that screen and the manufacturing capabilities behind it took a good while longer than the iP6 has been out so the design the screen was intended for was probably settled on before the 6 was a known quantity. Note that Samsung had those plastic insulators in the frame of the Alpha before the iP6.
When and where did Samsung make fun of the headphone port location? The headphone port on the Galaxy A4 & 5 is on the bottom edge, which came out in Oct 2014. Claiming they came up with these phones from concept to market in under a month would not be credible, so obviously the decision to place the headphone port on the bottom in their latest phones is quite likely something that was decided on before seeing images of an iP6.
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?
"...in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product."
It may be that the site hosting the product contains other, legal, content but the site is not that to which my mention of "100%" refers.
"100% of the product" does refer to the product, not the site.
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.
The question is 'were they harmed'? Prove that Samsung phones were purchased for no other reason than that they looked like an iPhone, then prove that those same people never bought an iPhone afterwards. All that proof will constitute irreparable harm.
Just because Apple is successful doesn't mean they weren't harmed.
Was Queen/David Bowie irreparably harmed by Vanilla Ice? Nope but Ice did steal the bass line and was forced to pay up.
I think it reasonable to think that Samsung could equally be accused of recycling their own layout. I imagine they might have relocated the headphone port because of the IR blaster in the top meant it was more practical and aesthetic to move it to the bottom to prevent headphone cords possibly getting in the way of the port. Looking at the Note 4 I imagine that could well happen. The constant radius rounded edges are not a first by Apple either. Samsung probably decided on those before the 6 was even out on account of their going with the curved edge screen in the Edge model, which is clearly a continuation of the idea first floated with the Note Edge. I imagine developing that screen and the manufacturing capabilities behind it took a good while longer than the iP6 has been out so the design the screen was intended for was probably settled on before the 6 was a known quantity. Note that Samsung had those plastic insulators in the frame of the Alpha before the iP6.
When and where did Samsung make fun of the headphone port location? The headphone port on the Galaxy A4 & 5 is on the bottom edge, which came out in Oct 2014. Claiming they came up with these phones from concept to market in under a month would not be credible, so obviously the decision to place the headphone port on the bottom in their latest phones is quite likely something that was decided on before seeing images of an iP6.
Because he paid up and they were credited as song writers, I believe.
And Samsung should be made to pay up as well. Just like a bass line of an entire song wasn't enough to ban the song the patents Samsung infringed isn't enough to ban an entire device.
Irreparable harm is basically damage that cannot be corrected with money. Economic loss is not irreparable harm.
By that alone, no irreparable harm has been done to Apple. The only thing Apple lost out on was potentials licensing fees or phone sales. That is economic loss. All of that could be fixed with compensation.
Even with that said, irreparable harm has to be actual, certain and great. It can't be just a theory. Apple can't prove that when Samsung sold a phone with their stolen patents... that it caused Apple to to lose phone sales as well.
And Samsung should be made to pay up as well. Just like a bass line of an entire song wasn't enough to ban the song the patents Samsung infringed isn't enough to ban an entire device.
Comments
You should remember when President Obama Vetoed ITC Ban On iPhone, iPads.
In my opinion unbelievable in a western democracy.
The difference being that the injunction against Apple was based on a disagreement of the licensing of patents that were SEP. One of the stipulation of having your patent an SEP is that you must license it to everyone that wants to market a product that requires that patent and the license must be FRAND. Any disagreement of the licensing terms must be settle in court. Apple was willing to let a court decide on a fair licensing agreement. Motorola was not and demanded licensing on their terms. Which wasn't FRAND by any standards.
Plus, President Obama did not veto anything. The executive branch (I forgot which branch), that is under his control, denied the ITC request to enforce the injunction. And they do not have to follow any ITC rulings because the ITC is not a court of law ........ in any country.
a minor correction :
"Why are you fighting it?" Moore asked Apple. "Why am I wasting my time?"
Moore asked Samsung, not Apple.
What Apple patents do you think the new Samsung phones breach?
You're kidding, right? Have you seen it? And I didn't say they violate patents, per se - just trade dress, which has always been obvious to everyone except Lucy Koh, as regards "irreparable harm". They were made to pay for some violations, but obviously not enough to discourage:
Need more? That's not to mention the UI, Samsung Pay, even the keyboard and the location of the headphone jack which they made fun of the previous year. They're just dancing right on that line, right where cost of litigation is worth the benefits of parroting Apple's every move. Seriously, it's blatant. And they know the lawsuits will come and they've decided it's worth it.
????????
So you should be, if you are an advocate of anarchy, as you purport to be.
Nice. ????
The difference being that the injunction against Apple was based on a disagreement of the licensing of patents that were SEP. One of the stipulation of having your patent an SEP is that you must license it to everyone that wants to market a product that requires that patent and the license must be FRAND. Any disagreement of the licensing terms must be settle in court. Apple was willing to let a court decide on a fair licensing agreement. Motorola was not and demanded licensing on their terms. Which wasn't FRAND by any standards.
Plus, President Obama did not veto anything. The executive branch (I forgot which branch), that is under his control, denied the ITC request to enforce the injunction. And they do not have to follow any ITC rulings because the ITC is not a court of law ........ in any country.
[/QUOTE]
@DavidW : well, going to court to settle a patent dispute is not just limited to SEPs.
And, as for your nonsensical comment about Apple being such a well-behaving litigator, at least one judge in a Western district case involving Moto and Apple (
11-cv-00178-bbc) doesn't think so. Apple quite boldly refused to accept the court's decision unless their decision favors them and Judge Crabbs upon hearing Apple's absurd argument dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The same is true for Apple's recent case against Ericsson where Ericsson offered to arbitrate the dispute before a court appointed independent arbitrator; Apple refused.
President Obama vetoed the ITC injunction through its Trade Commissioner Froman. Obama can veto any ITC decision and his decision is not subject to any legal standard or challenge (no appeal or reviews). Obama did veto the ITC injunction under intensive political lobbying by Apple.
The question is 'were they harmed'? Prove that Samsung phones were purchased for no other reason than that they looked like an iPhone, then prove that those same people never bought an iPhone afterwards. All that proof will constitute irreparable harm.
Pictures prove nothing. Show patent numbers.
You're kidding, right? Have you seen it? And I didn't say they violate patents, per se - just trade dress, which has always been obvious to everyone except Lucy Koh, as regards "irreparable harm". They were made to pay for some violations, but obviously not enough to discourage:
Need more? That's not to mention the UI, Samsung Pay, even the keyboard and the location of the headphone jack which they made fun of the previous year. They're just dancing right on that line, right where cost of litigation is worth the benefits of parroting Apple's every move. Seriously, it's blatant. And they know the lawsuits will come and they've decided it's worth it.
Yes I have seen it. have you seen the Samsung Alpha which came out before the 6?
I think it reasonable to think that Samsung could equally be accused of recycling their own layout. I imagine they might have relocated the headphone port because of the IR blaster in the top meant it was more practical and aesthetic to move it to the bottom to prevent headphone cords possibly getting in the way of the port. Looking at the Note 4 I imagine that could well happen. The constant radius rounded edges are not a first by Apple either. Samsung probably decided on those before the 6 was even out on account of their going with the curved edge screen in the Edge model, which is clearly a continuation of the idea first floated with the Note Edge. I imagine developing that screen and the manufacturing capabilities behind it took a good while longer than the iP6 has been out so the design the screen was intended for was probably settled on before the 6 was a known quantity. Note that Samsung had those plastic insulators in the frame of the Alpha before the iP6.
When and where did Samsung make fun of the headphone port location? The headphone port on the Galaxy A4 & 5 is on the bottom edge, which came out in Oct 2014. Claiming they came up with these phones from concept to market in under a month would not be credible, so obviously the decision to place the headphone port on the bottom in their latest phones is quite likely something that was decided on before seeing images of an iP6.
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?
"...in the case of a movie, the thing being licensed, or not, is 100% of the product."
It may be that the site hosting the product contains other, legal, content but the site is not that to which my mention of "100%" refers.
"100% of the product" does refer to the product, not the site.
Then why'd they steal it.
Just because Apple is successful doesn't mean they weren't harmed.
Was Queen/David Bowie irreparably harmed by Vanilla Ice? Nope but Ice did steal the bass line and was forced to pay up.
Do you have a pic of the iPhone 5/5S, which came before the Alpha.
Was Vanilla Ice forced to stop selling the song? No.
Because he paid up and they were credited as song writers, I believe.
And Samsung should be made to pay up as well. Just like a bass line of an entire song wasn't enough to ban the song the patents Samsung infringed isn't enough to ban an entire device.
By that alone, no irreparable harm has been done to Apple. The only thing Apple lost out on was potentials licensing fees or phone sales. That is economic loss. All of that could be fixed with compensation.
Even with that said, irreparable harm has to be actual, certain and great. It can't be just a theory. Apple can't prove that when Samsung sold a phone with their stolen patents... that it caused Apple to to lose phone sales as well.
It would if Vanilla Ice didn't agree to pay up.