These self serving pricks are only trying to protect their own miserable asses from future suits instead of doing the right thing. Without question, Samsung would have NEVER seen the success they had if for not copying almost every single detail of the iPhone down to its charger, packaging and even the font used for same. They actually deserve to be fined much more.
@boredumb : no amici is advocating for less patent protection. All they are saying here is that damage compensation should be proportional to infringed patents' importance and contribution to sales and profit, not their "entire profit" based on an esoteric legal statute designed for unitary products such as carpet, desk, or chair.
This is not only hypocritical for Apple to demand Samsung's "entire profit" for three infringements while claiming that Ericsson's asking royalty (FRAND and NON-FRAND patents) is unfair on another on-going contradict renewal dispute. But also it's going to hurt Apple more than anyone else in the long run. Of course, Apple obviously knows it too -- and this lawsuit is really more of a kabuki theatre than anything else at this point. After all, $580M from Samsung is a paltry sum compared what Apple might have to pay out in future infringement cases if such absurd legal theory is upheld by the higher courts.
What total bullshit from some armchair or mail order lawyer. The fact of that matter is that samesung set out to copy the iPhone in near entirety, and thus reaped massive sales and market share increases, while other competitors were devastated by the iPhone, thus proving that all profits should be stripped from them for their illegal behavior.
It's time to close all Google, Facebook accounts, and any related apps. Never shop at Newegg again. Never buy any HP or Dell product. Last but not least, close the damn eBay account. And stop PayPal transactions.
I see this situation setting up Apple to become even more powerful - once licensing becomes irrelevant, regardless of how much copying others do, no-one else provides the things that make iPhones so popular: the software and services.
Customer satisfaction can't be copied or bought.
And once licensing is devalued, Apple can simply create its own duplicate technology in house. This can only lead to even greater innovation and efficience within Apple's products.
If these fools had any clue, they'd be dissing SS and developing better user experiences at SS's expense.
It's time to close all Google, Facebook accounts, and any related apps. Never shop at Newegg again. Never buy any HP or Dell product. Last but not least, close the damn eBay account. And stop PayPal transactions.
If the law "explicitly authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design," following the statue does not "set a dangerous precedent."
In 1990 Polaroid prevailed in its 14 year lawsuit against Kodak for ripping off its instant photography patents, and was awarded $925 million.
The value that Samsung got for infringing Apple's IP was far higher in a more valuable market. There is no "dangerous precedent" set by forcing Samsung to pay a small portion of its profits.
@corrections : it's pretty obvious that you didn't read the Polaroid vs Kodak decision you just cited and, further, it doesn't even support your claims.
In Polaroid vs Kodak, Polaroid asked the court to determine whether Kodak's infringements were "willful" and calculate appropriate damage award (ie, lost profit, lawyers' fee and willfulness penalty). The court used various legal analysis, such as market demand, competition, industry trend, marketing practices, and pricing behavior, to award an appropriate damage. Unlike Apple's trivial design patents, Polaroid's patents asserted were technical "method" patents at the core of "instant photography." In another word, Polaroid not only proved that there were seven infringements, but also that their sales were adversely affected by Kodak's infringement. Neither parties contested whether the defender's "entire profit" should be disgorged. (note: Polaroid initially demanded $4B in damage x 3 for willful infringement, or $12B).
Now back to Apple vs Samsung, most of Apple's remaining $548M award comes from a few design patent infringements, but were not subject to the same kind of legal analysis commonly applied in patent cases, such as the Polaroid and Kodak case you just cited. The district court agreed, and the appellate panel upheld, that, under 35 U.S.C. § 289, Apple can disgorge Samsung's "entire profit" without such analysis or apportionment. In this particular re-appeal, Samsung and amici are arguing that 35 U.S.C. § 289 doesn't apply to cases involving complex, multicomponent devices, such as smartphones.
As I said earlier, Apple has very little to gain from such victory. Apple might have gained short-term PR victory in the original 2012 lawsuit, but in the long-run Apple would lose either way. If Samsung wins, it'd be a PR disaster for Apple. But if Apple wins its design claims, it would bring down the whole industry with the new absurd legal standard ("precedent"). That's exactly why these tech companies are now stepping up.
Note that when it benefits them Apple has made the exact same argument that damages (ie past royalties) should be figured on the infringing component rather than the entire revenue from an iPhone. Some of the patent owners bringing cases against them have argued Apple should be paying based on the entire value, which most folks here have thought unfair,
@boredumb : no amici is advocating for less patent protection. All they are saying here is that damage compensation should be proportional to infringed patents' importance and contribution to sales and profit, not their "entire profit" based on an esoteric legal statute designed for unitary products such as carpet, desk, or chair.
This is not only hypocritical for Apple to demand Samsung's "entire profit" for three infringements while claiming that Ericsson's asking royalty (FRAND and NON-FRAND patents) is unfair on another on-going contradict renewal dispute. But also it's going to hurt Apple more than anyone else in the long run. Of course, Apple obviously knows it too -- and this lawsuit is really more of a kabuki theatre than anything else at this point. After all, $580M from Samsung is a paltry sum compared what Apple might have to pay out in future infringement cases if such absurd legal theory is upheld by the higher courts.
There's a difference between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
Note that when it benefits them Apple has made the exact same argument that damages (ie past royalties) should be figured on the infringing component rather than the entire revenue from an iPhone. Some of the patent owners bringing cases against them have argued Apple should be paying based on the entire value, which most folks here have thought unfair,
Difference between FRAND and non FRAND and a difference between stealing and licensing.
Newegg has never been an Apple supporter and has carried very few Apple-market products over the years. Frankly, who needs them? Aside from their popular campaign to fight trolls in court instead of settling, their fickle pricing, declining customer service and diversification Alibaba-style merchandising have turned me off for good. They are not the same company they were a decade ago.
Comments
I thought Apple and Facebook were friends?
Does this mean Apple is becoming a more intimidating tech company??
no amazon.com?
What total bullshit from some armchair or mail order lawyer. The fact of that matter is that samesung set out to copy the iPhone in near entirety, and thus reaped massive sales and market share increases, while other competitors were devastated by the iPhone, thus proving that all profits should be stripped from them for their illegal behavior.
Hmm once apple pay is up and going bye bye paypal, eBay are being especially silly trying to stick the boot in.
Customer satisfaction can't be copied or bought.
And once licensing is devalued, Apple can simply create its own duplicate technology in house. This can only lead to even greater innovation and efficience within Apple's products.
If these fools had any clue, they'd be dissing SS and developing better user experiences at SS's expense.
It's time to close all Google, Facebook accounts, and any related apps. Never shop at Newegg again. Never buy any HP or Dell product. Last but not least, close the damn eBay account. And stop PayPal transactions.
Nothing stopping you...
@corrections : it's pretty obvious that you didn't read the Polaroid vs Kodak decision you just cited and, further, it doesn't even support your claims.
In Polaroid vs Kodak, Polaroid asked the court to determine whether Kodak's infringements were "willful" and calculate appropriate damage award (ie, lost profit, lawyers' fee and willfulness penalty). The court used various legal analysis, such as market demand, competition, industry trend, marketing practices, and pricing behavior, to award an appropriate damage. Unlike Apple's trivial design patents, Polaroid's patents asserted were technical "method" patents at the core of "instant photography." In another word, Polaroid not only proved that there were seven infringements, but also that their sales were adversely affected by Kodak's infringement. Neither parties contested whether the defender's "entire profit" should be disgorged. (note: Polaroid initially demanded $4B in damage x 3 for willful infringement, or $12B).
Now back to Apple vs Samsung, most of Apple's remaining $548M award comes from a few design patent infringements, but were not subject to the same kind of legal analysis commonly applied in patent cases, such as the Polaroid and Kodak case you just cited. The district court agreed, and the appellate panel upheld, that, under 35 U.S.C. § 289, Apple can disgorge Samsung's "entire profit" without such analysis or apportionment. In this particular re-appeal, Samsung and amici are arguing that 35 U.S.C. § 289 doesn't apply to cases involving complex, multicomponent devices, such as smartphones.
As I said earlier, Apple has very little to gain from such victory. Apple might have gained short-term PR victory in the original 2012 lawsuit, but in the long-run Apple would lose either way. If Samsung wins, it'd be a PR disaster for Apple. But if Apple wins its design claims, it would bring down the whole industry with the new absurd legal standard ("precedent"). That's exactly why these tech companies are now stepping up.
So a bunch of tech companies are defending a Korean knock off manufacturer. ?!!!
I thought Apple and Facebook were friends?
Does this mean Apple is becoming a more intimidating tech company??
@cali : Sure, Mr. Xenophobe. The tech industry doesn't need any new legal standard inviting more lawsuits.
Lot of software companies in that brief. Clearly they feel it has implications beyond the manufacture of phones.
And Newegg...not clear what their interest is.
@anome : Well, NewEgg's been busy fighting patent trolls (and mostly winning). They know it when they see one. *cough* *cough*
Then again, this isn't something Google has figured out, since all of their products are acquisitions or dupes.
I wonder how Google would react if someone copied their web search and ranking patents.
There's a difference between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
Typical troll response. If Apple's design patents were so trivial, why didn't the major players come up with them first?
Difference between FRAND and non FRAND and a difference between stealing and licensing.
There's a difference between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
Typical troll response. If Apple's design patents were so trivial, why didn't the major players come up with them first?
Difference between FRAND and non FRAND and a difference between stealing and licensing.
@jungmark :
Sure, and you do realize that Ericsson is asserting both FRAND and non-FRAND patents.
Who would have thought you could patent rectangular icons or rounded corners?
Ever heard of "reverse hold-up"?
Newegg has never been an Apple supporter and has carried very few Apple-market products over the years. Frankly, who needs them? Aside from their popular campaign to fight trolls in court instead of settling, their fickle pricing, declining customer service and diversification Alibaba-style merchandising have turned me off for good. They are not the same company they were a decade ago.
...
And Newegg...not clear what their interest is.