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?
As I said, not in this case.
Samsung was obvious in attempting to copy Apple's user experience, and had documents that demonstrated that they were attempting to do that. Where do you put "user experience" on a BOM?
This is why, in this case, I would not see application of Section 8, but as I said, that is for the Judge to decide.
Samsung was obvious in attempting to copy Apple's user experience, and had documents that demonstrated that they were attempting to do that. Where do you put "user experience" on a BOM?
This is why, in this case, I would not see application of Section 8, but as I said, that is for the Judge to decide.
So for future cases involving smartdevices they should be considered simple devices, subject to profit disgorgement for design patent infringement despite the intent or level of it in your opinion. Intent won't necessarily matter and may not be something a "future judge' may think he can decide. You do understand that right? Once set precedent can be very difficult to overcome.
So for future cases involving smartdevices they should be considered simple devices, subject to profit disgorgement for design patent infringement despite the intent or level of it in your opinion. Intent won't necessarily matter and may not be something a "future judge' may think he can decide. You do understand that right? Once set precedent can be very difficult to overcome.
It wasn't Apple that was trying to set a precedent; it is these parties. Why would I care one way or another about whether there would be precedence? I have no control over that.
I have only argued that Section 89 does not apply because of the context of this case; that Samsung was clearly trying to copy the "whole widget" and was quite successful in the market with that strategy.
Comparing BOM's, there probably isn't all that much difference between Apple and Samsung's devices today. Arguably though, and definitely based on profits, Apple does seem to have benefited from the user experience that it created for its customers; an experience worth protection I'd say.
It wasn't Apple that was trying to set a precedent; it is these parties. Why would I care one way or another about whether there would be precedence? I have no control over that.
I have only argued that Section 89
In actual fact you are arguing that Section 89 DOES apply. I believe you may not have read it yet.
It wasn't Apple that was trying to set a precedent; it is these parties. Why would I care one way or another about whether there would be precedence?
You cited precedence as a factor often when you and I were discussing SEP licensing. It mattered to you then. Sadly I'm pretty sure I understand why you want to say it doesn't matter now.
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.
Google acts like Communists whenever it suits them.
"Viewing the smartphone as a single “article of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute (289) [B][SIZE=4]required[/SIZE][/B] it to award the total profit where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers."
Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all iPhones to the patent holder if they were to be found guilty of certain IP infringement? Disaster for Apple while the patent holder instantly becomes the richest company on the planet. Fair? Would your opinion change?
All I'm seeing here is "Apple vs, the World" and the fact that they need to seriously increase their Washington lobbying efforts. Also, don't forget that an ex-Googler is the current head of the patents office!
"Viewing the smartphone as a single “article of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute (289) required it to award the total profit where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers."
Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all iPhones to the patent holder if they were to be found guilty of certain IP infringement? Disaster for Apple while the patent holder instantly becomes the richest company on the planet. Fair? Would your opinion change?
I guess I am in the camp of letting the Court decide how to interpret Section 89, rather than have a narrow interpretation supported by the parties. That would suit me fine.
No, I haven't read the link as I'm trying to finish up parts that I'm machining, but I did skim it.
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.
@jungmark : yes, in this particular re-appeal, just the design patents -- and whether Apple can disgorge Samsung's entire profit ($399M) on the minor design infringements (ie, rectangular icons, rounded corners, and iPhone shape) -- no apportionment. The damage on the utility infringements was "apportioned."
No, while SEP holders announce royalty rates for their patent portfolio publicly time to time, they can and do charge different FRAND rates. There are many variables that influence the final FRAND rates, such as licensee's sales volume, length of licensing agreements, balance payment, cross-licensing, and other reasonable terms.
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,
The difference is that Apple's use of an internal component (which all its competitors likewise use) does not increase the iPhone's desirability or sales. Meanwhile, Samsung's use of Apple's design for devices, chargers, packaging, user-interface, and even icons(!) has most definitely given a boost to their brand and their sales, somewhat to the detriment of Apple's. To the extent that Samsung copying on specific products has moved some sales from Apple's column into Samsung's, yes, I think it is appropriate to consider the cost of the entire product.
Note that nobody ever lost unit sales due to Apple's use of an internal component. This is all about royalties for the use of the component, and they should be computed in a FRAND manner. Some component patent holders are just attempting to unfairly gouge Apple because the latter has very deep pockets. Definitely not FRAND.
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.
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.
Because they sell all the stolen technologies form all the theifing suppliers.
Really, this issue is simple to solve, companies should come up with their own ideas stop coping others then they do not have to worry about getting their pants suited off in court.
This is nothing new Henry Ford suite everyone too when all the other car companies copied his design and manufacturing idea and they scream foul and said he should not be allow to stop innovation.
Because they sell all the stolen technologies from all the thieving suppliers.
Really, this issue is simple to solve. Companies should come up with their own ideas and stop copying others, then they won't have to worry about getting their pants sued off in court.
This is nothing new. Henry Ford sued everyone too when all the other car companies copied his design and manufacturing ideas. They cried foul and said he should not be allowed to stop innovation.
I see a few people have jumped on Newegg over their involvement. Still don't see exactly what their interest is. I don't think it's just because they want to seel things made by people who steal from other manufacturers, or that they just hate Apple.
Still, no-one's mentioned The SAS Institute. Their involvement suggests the brief is about something other than Apple's phone handsets. SAS don't compete with Apple at all. Their main competition is open-source Analytics packages (mostly R) and some subsets of Oracle's product line. Obviously there is concern here that reaches much further than the original case.
I see a few people have jumped on Newegg over their involvement. Still don't see exactly what their interest is. I don't think it's just because they want to seel things made by people who steal from other manufacturers, or that they just hate Apple.
Still, no-one's mentioned The SAS Institute. Their involvement suggests the brief is about something other than Apple's phone handsets. SAS don't compete with Apple at all. Their main competition is open-source Analytics packages (mostly R) and some subsets of Oracle's product line. Obviously there is concern here that reaches much further than the original case.
I've tried to read the entirety of the brief, but frankly, it doesn't really close the deal on why I should be excited about a narrowing of the current interpretation of Section 89. The subtext from this is that this isn't really about consumer products or hardware at all. It seems to be that the intent is to insure that the "few lines of copied code" within the millions of lines doesn't create any financial loss.
Pretty much defines why Google is on board. The fact that there aren't any hardware builders among the bunch other than HP, and to an extent, Google, pretty much confirms this. No consumer electronics builders amongst them, other than, of course Samsung.
Most of my previous comments were made before a reading of the brief, without any knowledge of Section 89. To wit, if the copying of the device is driven by the marketing slight of hand to create the illusion that Samsung's device is the equivalent to the Apple iPhone, then that is what the customer is reacting to, not to the innumerable components that are integrated into the device. In this case, Apple's instance of integration of those components with its ecosystem and brand is an innovation:
To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economicalcost and must satisfy a specific need.
The interesting thing is that this view absolutely supports the contention that FRAND should be smallest device basis, again as the device as integrated is greater than the sum of the parts, and in Apple's case, the iPhone, the prototypical innovation driving the industry.
The real issue here is whether a company with the intent to ride Apple's innovation coattails into the market, with considerable success I might add, should not be subject to penalties appropriate to the profits that they made doing so. Even these awards hardly dent the profits that Samsung made with this strategy.
I've tried to read the entirety of the brief, but frankly, it doesn't really close the deal on why I should be excited about a narrowing of the current interpretation of Section 89. The subtext from this is that this isn't really about consumer products or hardware at all. It seems to be that the intent is to insure that the "few lines of copied code" within the millions of lines doesn't create any financial loss.
It has nothing to do with "copied code". Zilch.
The issue is that if Section 89 is allowed to be interpreted in the manner this court thought it should be the mere use of a single icon in a software package could completely bankrupt a company if that icon is found to infringe some obscure design patent. For that single icon of the 100's they might have in their software they could see 100% of their profits taken as damages. THAT'S the problem. I've no idea why your think code is somehow covered by the statute. It is not. It's specific to design patents, not utility nor copyright. Had you read the cited statute that I linked for you a number of posts back you should have recognized that.
Perhaps that's why you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. You don't know what this is all about, confusing it with things that aren't involved in any way.
As a side note since you either didn't see or ignored the mention earlier: Nothing from this case would have any bearing on the Oracle/Google lawsuit. They are two totally different issues covered by entirely different laws and statutes. Your guess as to why Google is involved is 100% incorrect.
The issue is that if Section 89 is allowed to be interpreted in the manner this court thought it should be the mere use of a single icon in a software package could completely bankrupt a company if that icon is found to infringe some obscure design patent. For that single icon of the 100's they might have in their software they could see 100% of their profits taken as damages. THAT'S the problem. I've no idea why your think code is somehow covered by the statute. It is not. It's specific to design patents, not utility nor copyright. Had you read the cited statute that I linked for you a number of posts back you should have recognized that.
Perhaps that's why you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. You don't know what this is all about, confusing it with things that aren't involved in any way.
OK.
Strike the "copied" part; that wasn't in the brief. I shouldn't cast aspersions on Google.
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.
"The lead party on the brief, Google, Inc., admittedly has a direct interest in the outcome of this appeal. As the motion explains, Google is the developer of the Android operating system running on the Samsung smartphones that Apple seeks to enjoin in this case. That interest conflicts with the traditional role of an amicus as “an impartial friend of the court — not an adversary party in interest in the litigation.” United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original)
Indeed, when amici have such a stake in the outcome of the case, courts have denied them leave to participate to prevent “an end run around court-imposed limitations on the length of parties’ briefs.”
Google is not an impartial party, by any stretch of the imagination.
I told you they should have picked a different case.
Comments
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?
As I said, not in this case.
Samsung was obvious in attempting to copy Apple's user experience, and had documents that demonstrated that they were attempting to do that. Where do you put "user experience" on a BOM?
This is why, in this case, I would not see application of Section 8, but as I said, that is for the Judge to decide.
So for future cases involving smartdevices they should be considered simple devices, subject to profit disgorgement for design patent infringement despite the intent or level of it in your opinion. Intent won't necessarily matter and may not be something a "future judge' may think he can decide. You do understand that right? Once set precedent can be very difficult to overcome.
It wasn't Apple that was trying to set a precedent; it is these parties. Why would I care one way or another about whether there would be precedence? I have no control over that.
I have only argued that Section 89 does not apply because of the context of this case; that Samsung was clearly trying to copy the "whole widget" and was quite successful in the market with that strategy.
Comparing BOM's, there probably isn't all that much difference between Apple and Samsung's devices today. Arguably though, and definitely based on profits, Apple does seem to have benefited from the user experience that it created for its customers; an experience worth protection I'd say.
Google acts like Communists whenever it suits them.
In actual fact you are arguing that Section 89 DOES apply. I believe you may not have read it yet.
I didn't read it; I just looked at the summary page.
Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all iPhones to the patent holder if they were to be found guilty of certain IP infringement? Disaster for Apple while the patent holder instantly becomes the richest company on the planet. Fair? Would your opinion change?
"Viewing the smartphone as a single “article of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute (289) required it to award the total profit where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers."
Can you see a possibility, however remote, that this could negatively affect Apple in some future hearing? Can you imagine a court being "required" to to award the total profit from all iPhones to the patent holder if they were to be found guilty of certain IP infringement? Disaster for Apple while the patent holder instantly becomes the richest company on the planet. Fair? Would your opinion change?
I guess I am in the camp of letting the Court decide how to interpret Section 89, rather than have a narrow interpretation supported by the parties. That would suit me fine.
No, I haven't read the link as I'm trying to finish up parts that I'm machining, but I did skim it.
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.
@jungmark : yes, in this particular re-appeal, just the design patents -- and whether Apple can disgorge Samsung's entire profit ($399M) on the minor design infringements (ie, rectangular icons, rounded corners, and iPhone shape) -- no apportionment. The damage on the utility infringements was "apportioned."
No, while SEP holders announce royalty rates for their patent portfolio publicly time to time, they can and do charge different FRAND rates. There are many variables that influence the final FRAND rates, such as licensee's sales volume, length of licensing agreements, balance payment, cross-licensing, and other reasonable terms.
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,
The difference is that Apple's use of an internal component (which all its competitors likewise use) does not increase the iPhone's desirability or sales. Meanwhile, Samsung's use of Apple's design for devices, chargers, packaging, user-interface, and even icons(!) has most definitely given a boost to their brand and their sales, somewhat to the detriment of Apple's. To the extent that Samsung copying on specific products has moved some sales from Apple's column into Samsung's, yes, I think it is appropriate to consider the cost of the entire product.
Note that nobody ever lost unit sales due to Apple's use of an internal component. This is all about royalties for the use of the component, and they should be computed in a FRAND manner. Some component patent holders are just attempting to unfairly gouge Apple because the latter has very deep pockets. Definitely not FRAND.
Thompson
Unless it impacts their own patents of course.
Because they sell all the stolen technologies form all the theifing suppliers.
Really, this issue is simple to solve, companies should come up with their own ideas stop coping others then they do not have to worry about getting their pants suited off in court.
This is nothing new Henry Ford suite everyone too when all the other car companies copied his design and manufacturing idea and they scream foul and said he should not be allow to stop innovation.
Because they sell all the stolen technologies from all the thieving suppliers.
Really, this issue is simple to solve. Companies should come up with their own ideas and stop copying others, then they won't have to worry about getting their pants sued off in court.
This is nothing new. Henry Ford sued everyone too when all the other car companies copied his design and manufacturing ideas. They cried foul and said he should not be allowed to stop innovation.
Still, no-one's mentioned The SAS Institute. Their involvement suggests the brief is about something other than Apple's phone handsets. SAS don't compete with Apple at all. Their main competition is open-source Analytics packages (mostly R) and some subsets of Oracle's product line. Obviously there is concern here that reaches much further than the original case.
I see a few people have jumped on Newegg over their involvement. Still don't see exactly what their interest is. I don't think it's just because they want to seel things made by people who steal from other manufacturers, or that they just hate Apple.
Still, no-one's mentioned The SAS Institute. Their involvement suggests the brief is about something other than Apple's phone handsets. SAS don't compete with Apple at all. Their main competition is open-source Analytics packages (mostly R) and some subsets of Oracle's product line. Obviously there is concern here that reaches much further than the original case.
I've tried to read the entirety of the brief, but frankly, it doesn't really close the deal on why I should be excited about a narrowing of the current interpretation of Section 89. The subtext from this is that this isn't really about consumer products or hardware at all. It seems to be that the intent is to insure that the "few lines of copied code" within the millions of lines doesn't create any financial loss.
Pretty much defines why Google is on board. The fact that there aren't any hardware builders among the bunch other than HP, and to an extent, Google, pretty much confirms this. No consumer electronics builders amongst them, other than, of course Samsung.
Most of my previous comments were made before a reading of the brief, without any knowledge of Section 89. To wit, if the copying of the device is driven by the marketing slight of hand to create the illusion that Samsung's device is the equivalent to the Apple iPhone, then that is what the customer is reacting to, not to the innumerable components that are integrated into the device. In this case, Apple's instance of integration of those components with its ecosystem and brand is an innovation:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html
The process of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value or for which customers will pay.
To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need.
The interesting thing is that this view absolutely supports the contention that FRAND should be smallest device basis, again as the device as integrated is greater than the sum of the parts, and in Apple's case, the iPhone, the prototypical innovation driving the industry.
The real issue here is whether a company with the intent to ride Apple's innovation coattails into the market, with considerable success I might add, should not be subject to penalties appropriate to the profits that they made doing so. Even these awards hardly dent the profits that Samsung made with this strategy.
The issue is that if Section 89 is allowed to be interpreted in the manner this court thought it should be the mere use of a single icon in a software package could completely bankrupt a company if that icon is found to infringe some obscure design patent. For that single icon of the 100's they might have in their software they could see 100% of their profits taken as damages. THAT'S the problem. I've no idea why your think code is somehow covered by the statute. It is not. It's specific to design patents, not utility nor copyright. Had you read the cited statute that I linked for you a number of posts back you should have recognized that.
Perhaps that's why you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. You don't know what this is all about, confusing it with things that aren't involved in any way.
As a side note since you either didn't see or ignored the mention earlier: Nothing from this case would have any bearing on the Oracle/Google lawsuit. They are two totally different issues covered by entirely different laws and statutes. Your guess as to why Google is involved is 100% incorrect.
It has nothing to do with "copied code". Zilch.
The issue is that if Section 89 is allowed to be interpreted in the manner this court thought it should be the mere use of a single icon in a software package could completely bankrupt a company if that icon is found to infringe some obscure design patent. For that single icon of the 100's they might have in their software they could see 100% of their profits taken as damages. THAT'S the problem. I've no idea why your think code is somehow covered by the statute. It is not. It's specific to design patents, not utility nor copyright. Had you read the cited statute that I linked for you a number of posts back you should have recognized that.
Perhaps that's why you're having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. You don't know what this is all about, confusing it with things that aren't involved in any way.
OK.
Strike the "copied" part; that wasn't in the brief. I shouldn't cast aspersions on Google.
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
Looks like Apple responded.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/140111346/13-05-07-Apple-Opposition-to-Google-Et-Al-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-in-Samsung-Case
Apple's take;
"The lead party on the brief, Google, Inc., admittedly has a direct interest in the outcome of this appeal. As the motion explains, Google is the developer of the Android operating system running on the Samsung smartphones that Apple seeks to enjoin in this case. That interest conflicts with the traditional role of an amicus as “an impartial friend of the court — not an adversary party in interest in the litigation.” United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original)
Indeed, when amici have such a stake in the outcome of the case, courts have denied them leave to participate to prevent “an end run around court-imposed limitations on the length of parties’ briefs.”
Google is not an impartial party, by any stretch of the imagination.
I told you they should have picked a different case.