I think the real issue is Ericsson wants to charge Apple at a much higher rate than it collects from other makers.
I don't think so. The rate is probably the same or very close to it, 1.5% of the end product price. The amount of money involved is higher because of Apple's much greater revenues attributable to the products using the technology.
FWIW they've had the same rate for quite awhile as best I read, and even Apple's previous and recently expired contract with Ericsson was almost certainly based on that same publicly stated 1.5%. They would rather not pay it again, irrespective of the fact that others are paying at that rate.
You're right, the money is secondary. Look what happens when Samsung releases products that don't look like an iPhone. It hurt profits enough that they had to go back to copying the same general look of the iPhone 6, with exception of the back of the phone. Even got rid of the few features that used to distinguish their phones like the micro SD, removable battery and waterproofing.
So how did the SGS 3 do? A valid argument can be made that Samsung devices didn't gain popularity until they looked different from the iPhone.
The Federal Circuit argues that trade dress elements are not protectable if they contains any functionality - and they conclude that the trade dress being asserted by Apple is a functional configuration and/or shape, and therefore not protectable.
Distinguishably, the court argues that while a trade dress analysis completely eliminates any functional elements of a product, design patents can cover ornamental aspects of the functional elements, so that elimination of the entire element from infringement analysis is not required.
I think the real issue is Ericsson wants to charge Apple at a much higher rate than it collects from other makers.
@tzeshan : probably not. (1), Apple doesn't have any access to Ericsson's licensees to prove this claim (Apple did make the same claim back in 2012-2013 against Samsung, but without any evidence to back that up). (2), Ericsson's FRAND rate is announced and published time to time, so it's highly unlikely that Ericsson is asking for a discriminatorily higher rate. (3) Ericsson is also asserting non-SEPs.
Now that being said, Apple is not the only licensee complaining about the licensing renewal. Ericsson also sued Samsung after almost two years in negotiation, but they eventually settled last year.
I haven't counted the total number of lawyers participating in this trial but a quick glance at the list provided in the courts papers would seem to indicate that 100 would not seem out of the question. Too many bottom feeding lawyers making good coin off of this trial, trust me , this story is not over yet by a long shot.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/82438/tzeshan" style="display:inline-block;">@tzeshan</a>
: probably not. (1), Apple doesn't have any access to Ericsson's licensees to prove this claim (Apple did make the same claim back in 2012-2013 against Samsung, but without any evidence to back that up). (2), Ericsson's FRAND rate is announced and published time to time, so it's highly unlikely that Ericsson is asking for a discriminatorily higher rate. (3) Ericsson is also asserting non-SEPs.
Now that being said, Apple is not the only licensee complaining about the licensing renewal. Ericsson also sued Samsung after almost two years in negotiation, but they eventually settled last year.
Of course Apple is much more deeply-pocketed than Nokia and can take the chance on losing this one if it might instead result in them adding a few more billions to their bank savings accounts. I suspect Apple might fight this tooth and nail for years unless it becomes readily-apparent there's little chance of winning in the current environment. IMO there's not way they'll depend on another " Presidential veto" to keep their products from being banned in the US market if it comes down to that.
Apple's management and legal team are smart enough to know when they've pushed it as far as practical.
Samsung is getting DESTROYED where it counts: Profits.
The $900 million is pocket change for Apple. The main objective is to prove to the world that Samsung is a 2nd class company and they have done it.
Not $900 millions anymore, but $600+million after today ruling which is a joke. From now it sets a standard that you can make a device look and feel similar to competitor as long as the functions are not Infringed (WFT?) . Still, it's not about money, but public image: Samsung, A Nasty Copycat!
@sog35 : Samsung's sales really took off as the legal battle with Apple began in 2012. It was ultimately the Chinese phone makers who brought them down last year. So I'm not sure if the lawsuits had any significant impact on Samsung's sales. I also speculate that most consumers don't know or even care at all about these on-going lawsuits.
WRONG. Chinese phone makers competed at the bottom which wouldn't hurt Samsung that much financially. iPhone actually hurt them in the premium segment. Look at China market shares in Q1 2015, you can tell more than half of Samsung market shares went to Apple within 1 year.
So where are the idiots who thought Hogan was a biased juror and Samsung should get a retrial because of him?
Guess that argument didn't fly with the appeals court either.
His explanation of the patent issues to his fellow jurors might have been off-base but a retrial because of it sure wasn't in the cards.
EDIT:
A couple of the questions Mr. Hogan answered for the media concerning the case after the trial was concluded:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?
Velvin Hogan answered:
"No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system."
That was inaccurate. The validity of the patents was an appropriate issue for the jury to consider.
"Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?"
Hogan replied:
"I did not ignore prior art, yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents..." Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. The prior art cited even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statutes covering Prior art."
Again inaccurate. If that were the case, and since code written in Objective-C is not "interchangeable" with Java, there could not have been any utility patent infringement on Samsung's part.
None of that warranted a retrial tho. Things tend to work out as they should most of the time.
What's the difference between trade dress and design patents? How could the court say Samsung violated one but not the other?
Here's what I wrote on the subject back in 2012:
Among Apple's assertions in its lawsuit was that Samsung 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.
This thread makes me laugh. You really think normal non-techy people know or care about these patent battles? They don't. Even if they did know about them they wouldn't give two hoots if Samsung copies Apple, or if anyone copied anyone. All they care about is getting a cool device that meets their needs. This is true for the vast majority of the Smartphone marketplace. Only a small segment of tech nerds care about this stuff.
You guys talking about this patent war having an impact on Samsung's reputation and that affecting their profits are nuts.
The main thing that affected their profits was the poorly designed S5. That has nothing to do with the patent war.
No Simpsons problem is they no longer have differentiation now that Apple released larger screen phones and Chinese competitors started offering cheap Android phones there. Samsung is using commodity software that all their competitors, sans Apple use. They have no real ecosystem to speak of. Google has the ecosystem but again that's not unique to Samsung. Also they don't have the brand caché Apple does. There's nothing aspirational about Samsung. Apple is totally an aspirational brand. We can see that especially in China. If Samsung thinks aluminum and glass are going to save their problems they're more delusional than I thought. Ben Bajarin says Samsung should be going after Intel and Qualcomm not Apple. I agree.
Oh and about the Galaxy S6 that the media got a collective boner over...we no find out that the case they designed is causing the display to get scratched. I have yet to see one of the big tech sites cover this. Yet we all know if an Apple designed iPhone case was causing the display to get scratched it would be front page news on Engadget, The Verge, Ars Technica, etc.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/18868/Maestro64" style="display:inline-block;">@Maestro64</a>
: There are some restrictions on what can be trademarked, and the court notes, "trademark law allows for a perpetual monopoly and its use in the protection of “physical details and design of a product” must be limited to those that are “nonfunctional." That's a pretty important factor to consider in trade dress cases and that's been Samsung's main argument against the first ruling all along. The court likewise found that <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple failed to show there was "substantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding in favor of non-functionality." (p7-p14)</span>
Trade dress is not always what is trademarked. When the original case happen and this whole tradedress things came up, a Ferrari case was brough up and how Ferrari sued some company for making knock off look a like Ferraris. Ferrari won on the whole trade dress arguement, The company did not use any Ferrari symbols or names or functional items of the car, they just made a car which look like and used the Ferrari red color. Ferrari successfully argued this knock off cars would confuse the buying public.
As I pointed out, I do not think Apple could argue the trade dress since they could not show that the Iphone design was unique to them and was on the market for a long time as with Ferrari (which even the non car enthusiast can identify a Ferrari on the road). Trade Dress is more than what is copyrighted or trademarked.
UPDATE; I just notice RadarTheKat was the source of my information on the Ferrari case, so I need to give him credit since I originally could not rememeber where I heard or read it before.
I don't think so. The rate is probably the same or very close to it, 1.5% of the end product price. The amount of money involved is higher because of Apple's much greater revenues attributable to the products using the technology.
FWIW they've had the same rate for quite awhile as best I read, and even Apple's previous and recently expired contract with Ericsson was almost certainly based on that same publicly stated 1.5%. They would rather not pay it again, irrespective of the fact that others are paying at that rate.
Yes, when the iPhone started selling in 2007, Apple signed a contract with Ericsson that entitled Ericsson to a slice of the price of the completed iPhone product. Now Apple does not want to pay that extra tax to Ericsson. Whatever product Apple is buying from Ericsson, Apple should pay for that product and only that product. The price of the device the Ericsson product is being used in should not be included in any payment to Ericsson. Ericsson was able to work out a favorable deal when Apple was starting out. Instead of accepting millions of dollars from Apple for the Ericsson product, Ericsson wants the billions of dollars it could be earn if Apple just signed another contract.
Samsung is getting DESTROYED where it counts: Profits.
The $900 million is pocket change for Apple. The main objective is to prove to the world that Samsung is a 2nd class company and they have done it.
Samsung as a whole earns more than apple and Google combined with profits well near 400billion hell even Walmart earns more than all 3 with profits in the 500 billion dollar range
Trade dress is not always what is trademarked. When the original case happen and this whole tradedress things came up, a Ferrari case was brough up and how Ferrari sued some company for making knock off look a like Ferraris. Ferrari won on the whole trade dress arguement, The company did not use any Ferrari symbols or names or functional items of the car, they just made a car which look like and used the Ferrari red color. Ferrari successfully argued this knock off cars would confuse the buying public.
As I pointed out, I do not think Apple could argue the trade dress since they could not show that the Iphone design was unique to them and was on the market for a long time as with Ferrari (which even the non car enthusiast can identify a Ferrari on the road). Trade Dress is more than what is copyrighted or trademarked.
UPDATE; I just notice RadarTheKat was the source of my information on the Ferrari case, so I need to give him credit since I originally could not rememeber where I heard or read it before.
@maestro64 : Sure, I'm not saying that it is. In Ferrari v Roberts, the main issues that the court addressed were :
- Whether Ferrari's automobile designs have acquired secondary meaning;
- Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Ferrari's cars and Roberts' replicas;
- Whether the appropriated features of Ferrari's designs are nonfunctional; and
- Whether the injunction granted by the district court is excessively broad.
and the main argument Samsung brought against Apple is not that of "secondary meaning" or "likelihood confusion, but of "non-functionality." Apple's trade dress claims aren't nonfunctional, or ornamental. Unlike in Ferrari case where the court found clear evidence that "Roberts copied the nonfunctional features of an item having great secondary meaning," Apple admitted that their unregistered/registered trade dress was developed not just for "beauty" that gives a secondary meaning to their product, but also simplicity and usability (and Samsung further added in "portability" and durability").
I'm just pointing out that Apple's hometown jury already considered those factors and decided in Apple's favor in 2012, but the appeals court reversed the earlier ruling mostly based on the "functionality" of elements found in the registered/unregistered trade dress. The other factors had almost no weight in the new ruling.
Samsung admitted (only under pressure of evidence) that it blatantly copied Apple, explicitly highlighting their egregious fradulence. Why is Samsung even still trading? At all? They admitted guilt. Remove all their products and have them return all profits made from every model sold based on Apple's designs and be done with it.
How any person, not just in the USA, could buy a Samsung is unbelievable.
Now that this has come to pass, the legal system has demonstrated almost total ineffectiveness, opening the doors from the likes of Xiaomi.
This further increases my awe at Apple's busines savvy, excellent leadership, their integrity despite being a capitalist venture, and their continuous contribution to technological innovation with minimal governmental support.
If nothing else, 'The truth will out' is best exemplifed by Apple's competitiveness in removing all competitor's profits. Go Apple!
Comments
FWIW they've had the same rate for quite awhile as best I read, and even Apple's previous and recently expired contract with Ericsson was almost certainly based on that same publicly stated 1.5%. They would rather not pay it again, irrespective of the fact that others are paying at that rate.
So how did the SGS 3 do? A valid argument can be made that Samsung devices didn't gain popularity until they looked different from the iPhone.
The Federal Circuit argues that trade dress elements are not protectable if they contains any functionality - and they conclude that the trade dress being asserted by Apple is a functional configuration and/or shape, and therefore not protectable.
Distinguishably, the court argues that while a trade dress analysis completely eliminates any functional elements of a product, design patents can cover ornamental aspects of the functional elements, so that elimination of the entire element from infringement analysis is not required.
I think the real issue is Ericsson wants to charge Apple at a much higher rate than it collects from other makers.
@tzeshan : probably not. (1), Apple doesn't have any access to Ericsson's licensees to prove this claim (Apple did make the same claim back in 2012-2013 against Samsung, but without any evidence to back that up). (2), Ericsson's FRAND rate is announced and published time to time, so it's highly unlikely that Ericsson is asking for a discriminatorily higher rate. (3) Ericsson is also asserting non-SEPs.
Now that being said, Apple is not the only licensee complaining about the licensing renewal. Ericsson also sued Samsung after almost two years in negotiation, but they eventually settled last year.
I haven't counted the total number of lawyers participating in this trial but a quick glance at the list provided in the courts papers would seem to indicate that 100 would not seem out of the question. Too many bottom feeding lawyers making good coin off of this trial, trust me , this story is not over yet by a long shot.
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2015/05/public-version-of-judge-essex-itc-decision-that-nokia-phones-infringe-interdigitals-3gpp-patents-337-ta-613/
Of course Apple is much more deeply-pocketed than Nokia and can take the chance on losing this one if it might instead result in them adding a few more billions to their bank savings accounts. I suspect Apple might fight this tooth and nail for years unless it becomes readily-apparent there's little chance of winning in the current environment. IMO there's not way they'll depend on another " Presidential veto" to keep their products from being banned in the US market if it comes down to that.
Apple's management and legal team are smart enough to know when they've pushed it as far as practical.
WRONG.
Samsung is getting DESTROYED where it counts: Profits.
The $900 million is pocket change for Apple. The main objective is to prove to the world that Samsung is a 2nd class company and they have done it.
Not $900 millions anymore, but $600+million after today ruling which is a joke. From now it sets a standard that you can make a device look and feel similar to competitor as long as the functions are not Infringed (WFT?) . Still, it's not about money, but public image: Samsung, A Nasty Copycat!
Quote:@sog35 : Samsung's sales really took off as the legal battle with Apple began in 2012. It was ultimately the Chinese phone makers who brought them down last year. So I'm not sure if the lawsuits had any significant impact on Samsung's sales. I also speculate that most consumers don't know or even care at all about these on-going lawsuits.
WRONG. Chinese phone makers competed at the bottom which wouldn't hurt Samsung that much financially. iPhone actually hurt them in the premium segment. Look at China market shares in Q1 2015, you can tell more than half of Samsung market shares went to Apple within 1 year.
Guess that argument didn't fly with the appeals court either.
EDIT:
A couple of the questions Mr. Hogan answered for the media concerning the case after the trial was concluded:
Did you have the opportunity to ask "Is this something that should be patentable?" during the trial?
Velvin Hogan answered:
"No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system."
That was inaccurate. The validity of the patents was an appropriate issue for the jury to consider.
"Why did you choose to ignore prior art despite it being a legitimate claim?"
Hogan replied:
"I did not ignore prior art, yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents..."
Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. The prior art cited even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statutes covering Prior art."
Again inaccurate. If that were the case, and since code written in Objective-C is not "interchangeable" with Java, there could not have been any utility patent infringement on Samsung's part.
None of that warranted a retrial tho. Things tend to work out as they should most of the time.
What's the difference between trade dress and design patents? How could the court say Samsung violated one but not the other?
Here's what I wrote on the subject back in 2012:
Among Apple's assertions in its lawsuit was that Samsung 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.
No Simpsons problem is they no longer have differentiation now that Apple released larger screen phones and Chinese competitors started offering cheap Android phones there. Samsung is using commodity software that all their competitors, sans Apple use. They have no real ecosystem to speak of. Google has the ecosystem but again that's not unique to Samsung. Also they don't have the brand caché Apple does. There's nothing aspirational about Samsung. Apple is totally an aspirational brand. We can see that especially in China. If Samsung thinks aluminum and glass are going to save their problems they're more delusional than I thought. Ben Bajarin says Samsung should be going after Intel and Qualcomm not Apple. I agree.
Oh and about the Galaxy S6 that the media got a collective boner over...we no find out that the case they designed is causing the display to get scratched. I have yet to see one of the big tech sites cover this. Yet we all know if an Apple designed iPhone case was causing the display to get scratched it would be front page news on Engadget, The Verge, Ars Technica, etc.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s6-edge/accessories/samsung-view-case-scratched-screen-t3107467
Auto-correct I assume?
Auto-correct I assume?
What exactly is the problem with The Simpsons?
Trade dress is not always what is trademarked. When the original case happen and this whole tradedress things came up, a Ferrari case was brough up and how Ferrari sued some company for making knock off look a like Ferraris. Ferrari won on the whole trade dress arguement, The company did not use any Ferrari symbols or names or functional items of the car, they just made a car which look like and used the Ferrari red color. Ferrari successfully argued this knock off cars would confuse the buying public.
As I pointed out, I do not think Apple could argue the trade dress since they could not show that the Iphone design was unique to them and was on the market for a long time as with Ferrari (which even the non car enthusiast can identify a Ferrari on the road). Trade Dress is more than what is copyrighted or trademarked.
UPDATE; I just notice RadarTheKat was the source of my information on the Ferrari case, so I need to give him credit since I originally could not rememeber where I heard or read it before.
I don't think so. The rate is probably the same or very close to it, 1.5% of the end product price. The amount of money involved is higher because of Apple's much greater revenues attributable to the products using the technology.
FWIW they've had the same rate for quite awhile as best I read, and even Apple's previous and recently expired contract with Ericsson was almost certainly based on that same publicly stated 1.5%. They would rather not pay it again, irrespective of the fact that others are paying at that rate.
Yes, when the iPhone started selling in 2007, Apple signed a contract with Ericsson that entitled Ericsson to a slice of the price of the completed iPhone product. Now Apple does not want to pay that extra tax to Ericsson. Whatever product Apple is buying from Ericsson, Apple should pay for that product and only that product. The price of the device the Ericsson product is being used in should not be included in any payment to Ericsson. Ericsson was able to work out a favorable deal when Apple was starting out. Instead of accepting millions of dollars from Apple for the Ericsson product, Ericsson wants the billions of dollars it could be earn if Apple just signed another contract.
Samsung as a whole earns more than apple and Google combined with profits well near 400billion hell even Walmart earns more than all 3 with profits in the 500 billion dollar range
Trade dress is not always what is trademarked. When the original case happen and this whole tradedress things came up, a Ferrari case was brough up and how Ferrari sued some company for making knock off look a like Ferraris. Ferrari won on the whole trade dress arguement, The company did not use any Ferrari symbols or names or functional items of the car, they just made a car which look like and used the Ferrari red color. Ferrari successfully argued this knock off cars would confuse the buying public.
As I pointed out, I do not think Apple could argue the trade dress since they could not show that the Iphone design was unique to them and was on the market for a long time as with Ferrari (which even the non car enthusiast can identify a Ferrari on the road). Trade Dress is more than what is copyrighted or trademarked.
UPDATE; I just notice RadarTheKat was the source of my information on the Ferrari case, so I need to give him credit since I originally could not rememeber where I heard or read it before.
@maestro64 : Sure, I'm not saying that it is. In Ferrari v Roberts, the main issues that the court addressed were :
- Whether Ferrari's automobile designs have acquired secondary meaning;
- Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Ferrari's cars and Roberts' replicas;
- Whether the appropriated features of Ferrari's designs are nonfunctional; and
- Whether the injunction granted by the district court is excessively broad.
and the main argument Samsung brought against Apple is not that of "secondary meaning" or "likelihood confusion, but of "non-functionality." Apple's trade dress claims aren't nonfunctional, or ornamental. Unlike in Ferrari case where the court found clear evidence that "Roberts copied the nonfunctional features of an item having great secondary meaning," Apple admitted that their unregistered/registered trade dress was developed not just for "beauty" that gives a secondary meaning to their product, but also simplicity and usability (and Samsung further added in "portability" and durability").
I'm just pointing out that Apple's hometown jury already considered those factors and decided in Apple's favor in 2012, but the appeals court reversed the earlier ruling mostly based on the "functionality" of elements found in the registered/unregistered trade dress. The other factors had almost no weight in the new ruling.
Why is Samsung even still trading? At all?
They admitted guilt. Remove all their products and have them return all profits made from every model sold based on Apple's designs and be done with it.
How any person, not just in the USA, could buy a Samsung is unbelievable.
Now that this has come to pass, the legal system has demonstrated almost total ineffectiveness, opening the doors from the likes of Xiaomi.
This further increases my awe at Apple's busines savvy, excellent leadership, their integrity despite being a capitalist venture, and their continuous contribution to technological innovation with minimal governmental support.
If nothing else, 'The truth will out' is best exemplifed by Apple's competitiveness in removing all competitor's profits. Go Apple!