Google, Facebook, others push for rehearing over damages in Apple v. Samsung patent case

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member

    Samsung substantially met the "look like a duck test" in its Android OS version of an iPhone and iOS, and had the roadmap documented to prove intent. There were too many similarities immediately and readily obvious to the jurors for them to find otherwise.

     

    Google would like to have this revisited as it has direct bearing on damages that it might have to pay in Oracle's Java case against it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Ok there's a differnce. And....? Don't stop now. Why is the value of the total device a fair basis in one instance but not fair in the other.

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui-interface-improvement

     

    Samsung using the near identical design cues for hardware and UI in an attempt to ride Apple's coattails in the market is quite different than the arcane IP buried in a chip as part of that devices BOM. The Jury found that Samsung, for all intents, copied Apple on the device and UI level, and that's how damages should be awarded.

     

    But, hey, if Google, et al, can get that changed, good for them.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    tmay wrote: »

    Google would like to have this revisited as it has direct bearing on damages that it might have to pay in Oracle's Java case against it.
    What would Facebook's interest be? How about eBay? Limelight Networks or SAS?

    Curious, did you read the brief? Do you think the "entire market value" argument they make has some validity? You did note that rather than argue Samsung is innocent they recognize Samsung did in fact copy some elements from Apple's iPhone. That's not being disputed at all by the amici.

    EDIT: If you hadn't had an opportunity to read thru it here's the link. I believe AI also included it in their article.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/272131718/Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Samsung-Rehearing#scribd
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 81
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,369member

    So you're saying you're all a bunch of crooks then. Good to know.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    What would Facebook's interest be? How about eBay? Limelight Networks or SAS?



    Curious, did you read the brief? Do you think the "entire market value" argument they make has some validity? You did note that rather than argue Samsung is innocent they recognize Samsung did in fact copy some elements from Apple's iPhone. That's not being disputed at all by the amici.



    EDIT: If you hadn't had an opportunity to read thru it here's the link. I believe AI also included it in their article.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/272131718/Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Samsung-Rehearing#scribd

    I didn't read it, but I understand what the argument is.

     

    The parties wish to constraint the applicable rules about profits to a "simple device". Certainly that's what Apple created with the iPhone, out of complexity, and Samsung copied that to give itself an edge in a burgeoning market, and succeeded. The parties will attempt to define smartphones as inherently complex devices, and hence, not "simple devices". 

     

    Good for them if they succeed, but I think they picked the wrong case to pursue this.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    tmay wrote: »
    I didn't read it, but I understand what the argument is.

    The parties wish to constraint the applicable rules about profits to a "simple device". Certainly that's what Apple created with the iPhone, out of complexity, and Samsung copied that to give itself an edge in a burgeoning market, and succeeded. The parties will attempt to define smartphones as inherently complex devices, and hence, not "simple devices". 

    Good for them if they succeed, but I think they picked case to pursue this.
    But you're not saying what you think of the argument. Should smartphones be considered a "simple device" for the purpose of royalties and/or damages, or are they as the amici claim "complex devices". In past comments on the topic I think you've been more in agreement with the the argument the amici are making. Have you changed your opinions in the past few weeks or have I misunderstood what you thought was fair?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 81
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Samsung substantially met the "look like a duck test" in its Android OS version of an iPhone and iOS, and had the roadmap documented to prove intent. There were too many similarities immediately and readily obvious to the jurors for them to find otherwise.

     

    Google would like to have this revisited as it has direct bearing on damages that it might have to pay in Oracle's Java case against it.


    Oracle v Google is a copyright case. With respect to Oracle's asserted patents, Android was already found to be noninfringing.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 81
    Not surprised Google supports Samsung. After all, Google is a thief who doesn't respect other companies IP.

    Their stance on patents and the idea that popular IP should become defacto standards and treated as SEP's WITHOUT the permission of the patent holder should scare the hell out of any company that spends money on R&D.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    But you're not saying what you think of the argument. Should smartphones be considered a "simple device" for the purpose of royalties and/or damages, or are they as the amici claim "complex devices". In past comments on the topic I think you've been more in agreement with the the argument the amici are making. Have you changed your opinions in the past few weeks or have I misunderstood what you thought was fair?

    My argument centers around Samsung's intent, and I believe that the intent was to create a clone of the iPhone, albeit not absolutely identical, but one perceived in the market to be equivalent. In that case, profits should be awarded to Apple as part of damages.

     

    This is what I believe the Jury found, and the evidence points to Samsung's goal of creating a "copy" of the iPhone.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    Oracle v Google is a copyright case. With respect to Oracle's asserted patents, Android was already found to be noninfringing.


    True, but the copyright trial is still on, and Google will want to limit damages from copying "just a few lines of code".

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    tmay wrote: »
    My argument centers around Samsung's intent, and I believe that the intent was to create a clone of the iPhone, albeit not absolutely identical, but one perceived in the market to be equivalent. In that case, profits should be awarded to Apple as part of damages.

    This is what I believe the Jury found, and the evidence points to Samsung's goal of creating a "copy" of the iPhone.

    That still doesn't answer the question. In your opinion do the amici have a valid point that should be considered, ignoring the fact it's Samsung paying Apple rather than Apple paying someone else? Why do the other companies submitting their signatures on the brief have a concern in your opinion? They represent a pretty broad spectrum of the tech industry: Software providers, services, hardware manufacturers... it's not "Google vs Apple", far from it..

    No doubt there's many more that see issues in this even tho they didn't spend the time or money to add their voices to the brief.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 81
    gatorguy wrote: »
    What would Facebook's interest be? How about eBay? Limelight Networks or SAS?

    What are you trying to say? That because other companies support Samsung it must mean they're correct?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    That still doesn't answer the question. In your opinion do the amici have a valid point that should be considered, ignoring the fact it's Samsung paying Apple rather than Apple paying someone else? Why do the other companies submitting their signatures on the brief have a concern?

    As I stated, they should have picked a different party than Samsung; I believe their point is tainted by Samsung's intent clearly demonstrated in the case.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    tmay wrote: »
    As I stated, they should have picked a different party than Samsung; I believe their point is tainted by Samsung's intent clearly demonstrated in the case.

    Sigh. . .
    So do they have a valid point, one you have some sympathy for, ignoring who the parties involved are? You're completely avoiding whether Section 289 concerning "articles of manufacture" and profits disgorgement should apply to smartphones (or tablets or smartwatches). Judges are concerned with the law. Whether the infringing party didn't mean to use/steal the IP may not matter to them as much as the fact of infringing.

    As for your comment about them "choosing the wrong case" to use the argument is there another one going on right now that would be a better it, particularly one that could have even more precedent-setting impact on future cases? You really think this one should have been ignored?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Sigh. . .

    So do they have a valid point, one you have some sympathy for, ignoring who the parties involved are? You're completely avoiding whether Section 289 concerning "articles of manufacture" and profits disgorgement should apply to smartphones (or tablets or smartwatches). Judges are concerned with the law. Whether the infringing party didn't mean to use/steal the IP may not matter to them as much as the fact of infringing.

    The Judge will decide it that is an appropriate application of Section 289. My opinion isn't relevant to that decision other than to state that the iPhone is the prototypical "simple device" in the market that Samsung was copying to gain a market advantage.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    tmay wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">The Judge will decide it that is an appropriate application of Section 289. My opinion isn't relevant to that decision other than to state that the iPhone is </span>
    the<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> prototypical "simple device" in the market that Samsung was copying to gain a market advantage.</span>
    Your opinion is just as relevant as anyone's here. You don't typically shy away from offering one. You've even offered opinions in this thread on why you think Google is involved*. Why avoid offering your opinion on my question now? Saying it won't affect the judge's decision and that's why you won't offer one is dodging.

    *which would have zero to do with the Oracle lawsuit as it doesn't involve design patents.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 81
    isteelersisteelers Posts: 738member
    freerange wrote: »
    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.

    And you see what Samsung "innovates" when left on their own. They fail so miserably at product design that they had to copy the iPhone 6 to save what's left of their profits. Obviously they are still profitable in mobile products, but they are a shadow of their former selves since the got away from their close iPhone designs with their SG4 and SG5.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 81
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,470member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Your opinion is just as relevant as anyone's here. You don't typically shy away from offering one. You've even offered opinions in this thread on why you think Google is involved. Why avoid offering your opinion on my question now? Saying it won't affect the judge's decision and that's why you won't offer one is dodging.

    You want me to comment on the application of law, and I am commenting on intent. You could interpret Section 89 to be the complete device (to the user is is a "simple device") or you could use it wrt to a BOM.

     

    As the iPhone is the prototypical device of its generation, and in use is a "simple device", then Samsung, whose intent was to copy those features that defined the iPhone, would have to have damages calculated on the total value of the infringing devices.

    Edited for clarity

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 81
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,928member
    tooltalk wrote: »
    @jungmark :

    Sure, and you do realize that Ericsson is asserting both FRAND and non-FRAND patents.
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Who would have thought you could patent rectangular icons or rounded corners? </span>

    Ever heard of "reverse hold-up"?

    Are the design patents only being challenged here? Pretty sure the utility patents are a major component of the suit.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Ok there's a differnce. And....? Don't stop now. Why is the value of the total device a fair basis in one instance but not fair in the other.

    Easy, FRAND is fair and reasonable and non discriminatory. You shouldnt be able to charge one company one price and another company 10x as much for the same patent simply because they can afford it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 81
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Are the design patents only being challenged here? Pretty sure the utility patents are a major component of the suit.
    Easy, FRAND is fair and reasonable and non discriminatory. You shouldnt be able to charge one company one price and another company 10x as much for the same patent simply because they can afford it.
    tmay wrote: »
    You want me to comment on the application of law, and I am commenting on intent. You could interpret Section 89 to be the complete device (to the user is is a "simple device") or you could use it wrt to a BOM.

    As the iPhone is the prototypical device of its generation, and in use is a "simple device", then Samsung, whose intent was to copy those features that defined the iPhone, would have to have damages calculated on the total value of the infringing devices.
    Edited for clarity
    Does section 289 allow for "intent"? No sir it does not AFAIK. It's pretty cut and dried if you read it.
    http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=130046

    Seeing as it's an interpretation that will likely be used a precedent in other cases do you believe that the Amicus Brief is appropo?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.