I think it was their plan all along. File an appeal, file another appeal, file some motions, request a review, request a retrial, move to dismiss, move to vacate, stall, hem and haw (all while billing their client, Samsung, hourly), hoping Apple will give up trying to collect.
That is their standard operating procedure globally. They start by blatantly stealing, cheating (price fixing), lying (hiring bloggers to trash the competition), etc. then drag it through the courts while they thumb their nose at the rest of the world. To them it's a simple cost benefit analysis, not a moral, ethical or legal question. They have no morals based on their continued pattern of violating the law all around the world. This company needs to be aggressively pursued by the courts internationally based on a pattern of behavior instead of just incident by incident, and then slapped down hard.
@dasanman69 : Well, it's either this or SCOTUS. Samsung does have a fairly good case here and, if Samsung prevails, it's also likely to defend and benefit Apple in the long run (ie, $400M win from Samsung is nothing compared to what Apple might to have pay Ericsson if upheld). <span style="line-height:1.4em;">CAFC has ruled in favor of some appropriate apportionment in previous cases, but, in the last Samsung </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">appeal, they somehow decided not to deal with the design disgorgement (without any apportionment), explaining that it's a legislative matter. CAFC judges aren't biased like Apple's hometown jury or district court judges -- one of the three CFAC panel, Kim Moore, is the author of "Xenophobia in American Courts" -- but they are still under pressure from Apple supporters/influence in the US congress, so we will see. </span>
And what planet are you living on? Samsung documents submitted in court clearly showed that they set out to copy the iPhone, in just a matter of weeks, as closely as they possibly could so stop your twitsted tortured pseudo-intellectual bullshit. They not only copied the look, feel and functionality of the iPhone, but everything down to the package design and even the font used. And let's not forget even the charger was exactly the same. Anyone with half a brain can see that as blatant theft in order to accelerate their own sales. It is those revenues that are the issue, not the number of underlying patents. It is quite obvious that it was the fact that they copied the iPhone almost exactly that they were able to so rapidly increase their sales becoming the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. The number of underlying patents is irrelevant.
And what planet are you living on? Samsung documents submitted in court clearly showed that they set out to copy the iPhone, in just a matter of weeks, as closely as they possibly could so stop your twitsted tortured pseudo-intellectual bullshit. They not only copied the look, feel and functionality of the iPhone, but everything down to the package design and even the font used. And let's not forget even the charger was exactly the same. Anyone with half a brain can see that as blatant theft in order to accelerate their own sales. It is those revenues that are the issue, not the number of underlying patents. It is quite obvious that it was the fact that they copied the iPhone almost exactly that they were able to so rapidly increase their sales becoming the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. The number of underlying patents is irrelevant.
Sure, and the email evidence has nothing to do with the design infringement (or "complete disgorgement") at issue here. Samsung's emails were presented as evidence for Apple's trade dress claims, not design claims. And that's after both Apple and Samsung had agreed not to bring any materials that might influence, or taint, the jury decision on Apple's non-trade dress claims (ie, design claims) for obvious reason. note : while Koh allowed Apple to bring their evidence at the last minute, she denied Samsung's counterevidence on procedural ground (ie, too late)
Who said anything about the size of either companies' patent portfolio? Most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung were either invalidated or non-infringed (or worked-around) and they subsequently dropped all non-US lawsuits last year. Apple's hometown jury / judge are the are the only exception to this. Have you already forgotten that Apple was ordered to publicly acknowledge their misleading PR / legal campaign against Samsung in the UK?
Samsung doesn't get it. This is not Korea where they can delay justice while they shop for a crooked judge...
Another point: Samsung's got their fine down to less then 40% of the original amount... and they aren't even happy with that.
I don't think it's about being happy, it's about abusing the legal system to stall, delay, and outright avoid paying the judgment for as long as possible,
Sure, and the email evidence has nothing to do with the design infringement (or "complete disgorgement") at issue here. Samsung's emails were presented as evidence for Apple's trade dress claims, not design claims. And that's after both Apple and Samsung had agreed not to bring any materials that might influence, or taint, the jury decision on Apple's non-trade dress claims (ie, design claims) for obvious reason. note : while Koh allowed Apple to bring their evidence at the last minute, she denied Samsung's counterevidence on procedural ground (ie, too late)
Who said anything about the size of either companies' patent portfolio? Most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung were either invalidated or non-infringed (or worked-around) and they subsequently dropped all non-US lawsuits last year. Apple's hometown jury / judge are the are the only exception to this. Have you already forgotten that Apple was ordered to publicly acknowledge their misleading PR / legal campaign against Samsung in the UK?
Please stop being a shill for a third-rate Apple copyist in an Apple forum.
In the ongoing battle between those two giants there is only one winner: the lawyers, who make millions, since both companies can afford to pay a lot of money to them.
Comments
That is their standard operating procedure globally. They start by blatantly stealing, cheating (price fixing), lying (hiring bloggers to trash the competition), etc. then drag it through the courts while they thumb their nose at the rest of the world. To them it's a simple cost benefit analysis, not a moral, ethical or legal question. They have no morals based on their continued pattern of violating the law all around the world. This company needs to be aggressively pursued by the courts internationally based on a pattern of behavior instead of just incident by incident, and then slapped down hard.
And what planet are you living on? Samsung documents submitted in court clearly showed that they set out to copy the iPhone, in just a matter of weeks, as closely as they possibly could so stop your twitsted tortured pseudo-intellectual bullshit. They not only copied the look, feel and functionality of the iPhone, but everything down to the package design and even the font used. And let's not forget even the charger was exactly the same. Anyone with half a brain can see that as blatant theft in order to accelerate their own sales. It is those revenues that are the issue, not the number of underlying patents. It is quite obvious that it was the fact that they copied the iPhone almost exactly that they were able to so rapidly increase their sales becoming the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. The number of underlying patents is irrelevant.
And what planet are you living on? Samsung documents submitted in court clearly showed that they set out to copy the iPhone, in just a matter of weeks, as closely as they possibly could so stop your twitsted tortured pseudo-intellectual bullshit. They not only copied the look, feel and functionality of the iPhone, but everything down to the package design and even the font used. And let's not forget even the charger was exactly the same. Anyone with half a brain can see that as blatant theft in order to accelerate their own sales. It is those revenues that are the issue, not the number of underlying patents. It is quite obvious that it was the fact that they copied the iPhone almost exactly that they were able to so rapidly increase their sales becoming the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. The number of underlying patents is irrelevant.
Sure, and the email evidence has nothing to do with the design infringement (or "complete disgorgement") at issue here. Samsung's emails were presented as evidence for Apple's trade dress claims, not design claims. And that's after both Apple and Samsung had agreed not to bring any materials that might influence, or taint, the jury decision on Apple's non-trade dress claims (ie, design claims) for obvious reason. note : while Koh allowed Apple to bring their evidence at the last minute, she denied Samsung's counterevidence on procedural ground (ie, too late)
Who said anything about the size of either companies' patent portfolio? Most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung were either invalidated or non-infringed (or worked-around) and they subsequently dropped all non-US lawsuits last year. Apple's hometown jury / judge are the are the only exception to this. Have you already forgotten that Apple was ordered to publicly acknowledge their misleading PR / legal campaign against Samsung in the UK?
I don't think it's about being happy, it's about abusing the legal system to stall, delay, and outright avoid paying the judgment for as long as possible,
iPhone 6 and 6 Plus were already deployed.
Sure, and the email evidence has nothing to do with the design infringement (or "complete disgorgement") at issue here. Samsung's emails were presented as evidence for Apple's trade dress claims, not design claims. And that's after both Apple and Samsung had agreed not to bring any materials that might influence, or taint, the jury decision on Apple's non-trade dress claims (ie, design claims) for obvious reason. note : while Koh allowed Apple to bring their evidence at the last minute, she denied Samsung's counterevidence on procedural ground (ie, too late)
Who said anything about the size of either companies' patent portfolio? Most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung were either invalidated or non-infringed (or worked-around) and they subsequently dropped all non-US lawsuits last year. Apple's hometown jury / judge are the are the only exception to this. Have you already forgotten that Apple was ordered to publicly acknowledge their misleading PR / legal campaign against Samsung in the UK?
Please stop being a shill for a third-rate Apple copyist in an Apple forum.
They're closer to first-rate than third.