The Friends of the Court shouldn't have included Google, which is a close partner with Samsung in Android OS products, but it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, and this case isn't precedent setting as some have argued.
@tmay : All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products. This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung.
Sorry for the pithiness, then. I'll spell it out, since it really was intended to mean quite the opposite.
By calling the US 'justice system' an oxymoron (i.e., a self-contradiction in terms), I was bemoaning the fact that Apple will be getting only $400M out of this utter travesty of a trial as well as the appeals process.
@tmay : All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products. This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung.
I guess we won't really know until Samsung tries an appeal to the Supreme Court.
@tmay : All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products. This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung.
From the consumers perspective, is the iPhone a "highly complex, multicomponent tech product" or is it a unitary product?
1) The phrase 'justice system' in the U.S. is an oxymoron.
2) Apple should donate the money to a S. Korean charity, and visibly so.
Apple is entitled to recover the profits they would have made if Samsung had not created the opportunity to buy non-Apple phones that satisfied demand for features Apple invented.
What about in markets in which the iPhone was not or is not available?
@tmay : Sure, a rubber iPhone case whose design represents the entire value of the product (plus the cost of rubber) would be an unitary product.
How is your phone used? As a modular device or as an integrated one?
That's the point that people arguing with Samsung are missing. Not only is the iPhone a unitary device to the consumer, it was considered a unitary device by the jury, and it was considered that in counter-marketing by Samsung. That's why the Court decided against Samsung; because the Jury's decision was valid based on the law.
I guess we won't really know until Samsung tries an appeal to the Supreme Court.
@tmay : it doesn't matter whether the case goes to the SCOTUS or not. We now have a new legal precedent that says a design infringement can lead to a total disgorgement of profit, even in highly complex, multicomponent products, and the appeals court just reaffirmed that particular interpretation of the law. Again, this is a relatively new interpretation of the law that may not survive, but only the SCOTUS can reverse that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay
How is your phone used? As a modular device or as an integrated one?
That's the point that people arguing with Samsung are missing. Not only is the iPhone a unitary device to the consumer, it was considered a unitary device by the jury, and it was considered that in counter-marketing by Samsung. That's why the Court decided against Samsung; because the Jury's decision was valid based on the law.
why torture yourself with clumsy wordsmithing?
First, a unitary product is one that uses a few simple components or features (or patents) -- in contrast to highly-complex, multicomponents products like smartphones. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how it is packaged, delivered or used by consumers; or how it is perceived by consumers -- it's totally irrelevant in a patent infringement case.
The USPTO grants exclusive rights on very narrow, original features, methods or designs for certain terms (usually 18 years for method patents or, now, 14 years for design). Folks who are involved in patent lawsuits, from judges, to lawyers, to expert witnesses, fight excruciatingly lengthy battles over the narrow scope and definition of "claim constructions." No jury are ever instructed to evaluate any product in its entirety with broad strokes, especially in a patent infringement case, unless the asserted patent/claim itself is the product (or the only driver for market demand), as is typical in a unitary product.
Trade dress suits are close to what you are describing here and deal with the product's visual impression, packaging, etc, but. even here, there are many rules and limitations to what can be trademarked. That part of the lawsuit has been already addressed by the same appeals court -- they just reversed Apple's victory and remanded it back to the lower court earlier this year because of flawed jury instructions -- or the lower court's failure to instruct the jury that non-ornamental elements can't be trademarked.
If Apple's judgment falls apart, it should spur them to buy more companies with exclusive, difficult to reproduce technology that only they would have access to. If patents are essentially useless to protecting your big moneymaker, then you have to win in other ways.
If Apple's judgment falls apart, it should spur them to buy more companies with exclusive, difficult to reproduce technology that only they would have access to. If patents are essentially useless to protecting your big moneymaker, then you have to win in other ways.
Yeah I read that 2nd. Problem with FossPatents links is too many here don't like him anymore (tho they were perhaps big fans once) and would ignore it.
The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday denied Samsung's request for an en banc review of a previous decision that kept Apple's patent infringement trial win largely intact, leaving the Supreme Court as the Korean company's last recourse.
At stake is $399 million in damages that Samsung claims was wrongfully awarded. The company argues that a complex device, such as a smartphone or tablet, includes "hundreds or thousands of different patented technologies," noting that patents asserted by Apple only cover minor features of the whole. In addition, certain patents Apple successfully leveraged during the trial cover functional design ineligible for a damages award, Samsung claims.
Samsung wasn't alone in its CAFC petition, as companies like Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard and more, offered support in a "friend of the court" brief filed <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/07/20/google-facebook-others-push-for-rehearing-over-damages-in-apple-v-samsung-patent-case">in July</a>. The concerned firms warned the decision in favor of Apple, if left standing, would "lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including amici, who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components."
Comments
Um your pithy #1 suggests otherwise.
The Friends of the Court shouldn't have included Google, which is a close partner with Samsung in Android OS products, but it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, and this case isn't precedent setting as some have argued.
@tmay : All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products. This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung.
Um... who said they're not?
I was commenting about this measly $400 million, and a genuine opportunity to shame Samsung.
Um your pithy #1 suggests otherwise.
Sorry for the pithiness, then. I'll spell it out, since it really was intended to mean quite the opposite.
By calling the US 'justice system' an oxymoron (i.e., a self-contradiction in terms), I was bemoaning the fact that Apple will be getting only $400M out of this utter travesty of a trial as well as the appeals process.
@tmay : All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products. This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung.
I guess we won't really know until Samsung tries an appeal to the Supreme Court.
With interest.
@tmay : All cases are precedent setting in the American court system. This particular ruling matters a lot to the tech industry because the "disgorgement of total profit" damage typically applied to unitary product was never used in a case involving highly complex, multicomponent tech products. This is exactly why all large tech companies are stepping up their support for Samsung.
From the consumers perspective, is the iPhone a "highly complex, multicomponent tech product" or is it a unitary product?
What about in markets in which the iPhone was not or is not available?
From the consumers perspective, is the iPhone a "highly complex, multicomponent tech product" or is it a unitary product?
@tmay : Sure, a rubber iPhone case whose design represents the entire value of the product (plus the cost of rubber) would be an unitary product.
@tmay : Sure, a rubber iPhone case whose design represents the entire value of the product (plus the cost of rubber) would be an unitary product.
How is your phone used? As a modular device or as an integrated one?
That's the point that people arguing with Samsung are missing. Not only is the iPhone a unitary device to the consumer, it was considered a unitary device by the jury, and it was considered that in counter-marketing by Samsung. That's why the Court decided against Samsung; because the Jury's decision was valid based on the law.
Samsung, such a wonderful company.
Innovative washing machines.
Cool. Why don't they "fix" their phones in this way as well? I think with a nice bag around they'd certainly be more attractive /s
Cool. Why don't they "fix" their phones in this way as well? I think with a nice bag around they'd certainly be more attractive /s
Their new waterproof version.
I guess we won't really know until Samsung tries an appeal to the Supreme Court.
@tmay : it doesn't matter whether the case goes to the SCOTUS or not. We now have a new legal precedent that says a design infringement can lead to a total disgorgement of profit, even in highly complex, multicomponent products, and the appeals court just reaffirmed that particular interpretation of the law. Again, this is a relatively new interpretation of the law that may not survive, but only the SCOTUS can reverse that.
Quote:
How is your phone used? As a modular device or as an integrated one?
That's the point that people arguing with Samsung are missing. Not only is the iPhone a unitary device to the consumer, it was considered a unitary device by the jury, and it was considered that in counter-marketing by Samsung. That's why the Court decided against Samsung; because the Jury's decision was valid based on the law.
why torture yourself with clumsy wordsmithing?
First, a unitary product is one that uses a few simple components or features (or patents) -- in contrast to highly-complex, multicomponents products like smartphones. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how it is packaged, delivered or used by consumers; or how it is perceived by consumers -- it's totally irrelevant in a patent infringement case.
The USPTO grants exclusive rights on very narrow, original features, methods or designs for certain terms (usually 18 years for method patents or, now, 14 years for design). Folks who are involved in patent lawsuits, from judges, to lawyers, to expert witnesses, fight excruciatingly lengthy battles over the narrow scope and definition of "claim constructions." No jury are ever instructed to evaluate any product in its entirety with broad strokes, especially in a patent infringement case, unless the asserted patent/claim itself is the product (or the only driver for market demand), as is typical in a unitary product.
Trade dress suits are close to what you are describing here and deal with the product's visual impression, packaging, etc, but. even here, there are many rules and limitations to what can be trademarked. That part of the lawsuit has been already addressed by the same appeals court -- they just reversed Apple's victory and remanded it back to the lower court earlier this year because of flawed jury instructions -- or the lower court's failure to instruct the jury that non-ornamental elements can't be trademarked.
The USPTO has tossed the iPhone design patent that led to most of the design patent infringement damages against Samsung.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/08/17/us-patent-office-overturns-infamous-apple-iphone-design-patent-samsung-may-not-be-paying-apple-much-after-all/
Samsung will likely owe very little after all is said and done. Didn't see this one coming.
This is kinda big news:
The USPTO has tossed the iPhone design patent that led to most of the design patent infringement damages against Samsung.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/08/17/us-patent-office-overturns-infamous-apple-iphone-design-patent-samsung-may-not-be-paying-apple-much-after-all/
Samsung will likely owe very little after all is said and done. Didn't see this one coming.
You really should've used the FOSS Patents link instead: http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-office-considers-apples-d677.html
If Apple's judgment falls apart, it should spur them to buy more companies with exclusive, difficult to reproduce technology that only they would have access to. If patents are essentially useless to protecting your big moneymaker, then you have to win in other ways.
What wonderland are you getting your info from?
You do know apples main patent that awarded them the 1billion in damages in the first place has been thrown out the patent office and is now invalid
At least according to the author here, the decision is not yet final.
He just kinda forgot to mention it lol the decision is final,apple design patent is invalid and was the main patent against Samsung.
Samsung is going to have a field day with this in court and will make apple pay there lawyer fees
Contain yourself. The decision is not final.