Thomas loves to write screwy patent opinions. It's not a sure thing they won't take this one in an opportunity to be wrong again.
Best of luck storming the castle!
@eightzero : hey, looks like we have a fellow SCOTUS watcher here. So what did you find so screwy about Thomas's recent opinion (ie, Alice vs CLS) unanimously agreed by all justices? Thomas is certainly no Scalia, but Scalia is in his own league.
@tmay : Let me repeat, this case at this point is all about Apple's design patents, or, specifically, their applicabilities and compensation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's hardware, software, or ecosystem, as you falsely insinuate here.
There is no "not entirely." Google's argument about multitude of features in its amicus brief is intended to dilute the importance of "design patent" on which Apple's 2012 victory is based, and to give rationale for (smaller) appropriate apportionment in favor of Samsung. You are now essentially agreeing with Google that Apple's design isn't the main driver for market demand -- it's their ecosystem and software that drive Apple sales. This argument would help undermine Apple's case for a total disgorgement (or design patents in general), as it stands now, and in favor of Samsung.
I consider (industrial) design as part of the hardware; that is what the consumer sees along with the UI, hence why I agree with the current disgorgement of profits. The consumer buys an integrated device, not a BOM, so yes, I see design as important to the consumer.
I consider (industrial) design as part of the hardware; that is what the consumer sees along with the UI, hence why I agree with the current disgorgement of profits. The consumer buys an integrated device, not a BOM, so yes, I see design as important to the consumer.
@tmay : You are still confused about the difference between trade dress and design patent lawsuits. Again, as I explained earlier in different threads, trade dress deals with what non-technical average consumers perceive -- visual impressions, packaging, etc, and CAFC recently struck down Apple's trade dress win and remanded it for a re-trial. There is no total disgorgment of profits in trade dress suits.
What we are talking about here is, specifically, design patents and how the US laws define and enforce them. What you "think" or "consider" don't matter -- Apple certainly doesn't agree that designs are merely part of the hardware (or even software). For Apple to win, they need to make a compelling case (or defense) that their designs, not their hardware or software, contribute significantly to consumer's purchasing decision. Everything you are saying here is opposite of what Apple is arguing for.
@tmay : You are still confused about the difference between trade dress and design patent lawsuits. Again, as I explained earlier in different threads, trade dress deals with what non-technical average consumers perceive -- visual impressions, packaging, etc, and CAFC recently struck down Apple's trade dress win and remanded it for a re-trial. There is no total disgorgment of profits in trade dress suits.
What we are talking about here is, specifically, design patents and how the US laws define and enforce them. What you "think" or "consider" don't matter -- Apple certainly doesn't agree that designs are merely part of the hardware (or even software). For Apple to win, they need to make a compelling case (or defense) that their designs, not their hardware or software, contribute significantly to consumer's purchasing decision. Everything you are saying here is opposite of what Apple is arguing for.
I'll leave it to them to continue to make the case then.
Is this some Asian culture/honor thing? I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will take this appeal. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.
Agreed. _The_ federal appeals court for patent disputes reviewed it (twice, IIRC) and found essentially nothing to criticize. Even with the attempts of Google to insinuate itself into the case (through amicus briefs), the idea that the US Supreme Court would even take up a patent dispute of minimal broader impact in order to rule against a US company in favor of a foreign company seems nuts. But who knows- maybe there's some rabid Fandroids on that bench.
Is Apple entitled to interest on the award? I hope so-
They don't have any of those things much of the time, but it's still not going to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court generally will only take on cases that have major constitutional ramifications. This one doesn't.
@zoetmb: let's take your nonsensical rambling to be true, how do you account for the recent SCOTUS patent rulings such as "Alice vs CLS" or "Microsoft vs i4i"? Where did you get your JD again? Apple university?
Doesn't Samsung now have new ammo to fire in the SCOTUS, with the USPTO invalidating a couple of Apple's patents? Or is that something else?
I'm wondering if Apple really is a US company, the way the US courts, government and all other official agencies are forever trying to bring it down, or cut it down to size. I thought everyone in the US loved a great US success story.
@BestKeptSecret : it's all up to the district court judge's discretion and, just last year, the same judge Koh prohibited Samsung's lawyers from arguing that the USPTO makes mistakes and invalidates patents time to time while allowing Apple's lawyers to argue the opposite : that USPTO never makes mistakes (therefore all Apple's patents are valid) LOL!! Koh has a lot of leeway insofar as how and what evidence is presented to the jury.
Let's not forget Senator Leahy's new design protection law introduced in August 2012 in support of Apple. Or the USPTO's celebration of their inventor hero Steve Jobs's patents -- ironically, some of which got invalidated this week -- just months before the original trial began in August 2012. And you complaint about no love for Apple from your gov't?
Agreed. _The_ federal appeals court for patent disputes reviewed it (twice, IIRC) and found essentially nothing to criticize. Even with the attempts of Google to insinuate itself into the case (through amicus briefs), the idea that the US Supreme Court would even take up a patent dispute of minimal broader impact in order to rule against a US company in favor of a foreign company seems nuts. But who knows- maybe there's some rabid Fandroids on that bench.
Is Apple entitled to interest on the award? I hope so-
@pdq2 : First, the CAFC reversed about $0.5B of the original damages (ie, trade dress) and remanded it for a re-trial.
Second, the lower courts' flawed design ruling has far greater implication in the whole US economy, more specifically in the IP world, and, as you will discover in the next year or so, there would be more companies and industries stepping up their support for Samsung. Many large tech companies have already filed an amicus brief in support of Samsung's cause, as have the IP legal community and academics. While Apple has no such support, it has considerable political clout over policy-makers who in turn can influence lower-court judges.
This is now basically over. The chance of the supreme court taking this are low to zero since it's not an area of law which they need to create a test case for: Either something infringes or it doesn't.
Samsung claiming that the infringing portions were just minor features is irrelevant since the courts require patent holders to slim down their claims to a level which can be handled in a reasonable amount of time. While a patent holder may view that hundreds or even thousands of their patents are infringed upon (not unlikely in such a complex product), they only get the opportunity to test a handful at a time in the court.
This is a key flaw in the patent system since it requires that companies only copy each other a little bit. Since Samsung will copy as much as possible: it's a winning business tactic that skirts the abilities of patent holders to protect their inventions or obtain appropriate compensation through the courts.
Comments
Thomas loves to write screwy patent opinions. It's not a sure thing they won't take this one in an opportunity to be wrong again.
Best of luck storming the castle!
@eightzero : hey, looks like we have a fellow SCOTUS watcher here. So what did you find so screwy about Thomas's recent opinion (ie, Alice vs CLS) unanimously agreed by all justices? Thomas is certainly no Scalia, but Scalia is in his own league.
@tmay : Let me repeat, this case at this point is all about Apple's design patents, or, specifically, their applicabilities and compensation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's hardware, software, or ecosystem, as you falsely insinuate here.
There is no "not entirely." Google's argument about multitude of features in its amicus brief is intended to dilute the importance of "design patent" on which Apple's 2012 victory is based, and to give rationale for (smaller) appropriate apportionment in favor of Samsung. You are now essentially agreeing with Google that Apple's design isn't the main driver for market demand -- it's their ecosystem and software that drive Apple sales. This argument would help undermine Apple's case for a total disgorgement (or design patents in general), as it stands now, and in favor of Samsung.
I consider (industrial) design as part of the hardware; that is what the consumer sees along with the UI, hence why I agree with the current disgorgement of profits. The consumer buys an integrated device, not a BOM, so yes, I see design as important to the consumer.
I consider (industrial) design as part of the hardware; that is what the consumer sees along with the UI, hence why I agree with the current disgorgement of profits. The consumer buys an integrated device, not a BOM, so yes, I see design as important to the consumer.
@tmay : You are still confused about the difference between trade dress and design patent lawsuits. Again, as I explained earlier in different threads, trade dress deals with what non-technical average consumers perceive -- visual impressions, packaging, etc, and CAFC recently struck down Apple's trade dress win and remanded it for a re-trial. There is no total disgorgment of profits in trade dress suits.
What we are talking about here is, specifically, design patents and how the US laws define and enforce them. What you "think" or "consider" don't matter -- Apple certainly doesn't agree that designs are merely part of the hardware (or even software). For Apple to win, they need to make a compelling case (or defense) that their designs, not their hardware or software, contribute significantly to consumer's purchasing decision. Everything you are saying here is opposite of what Apple is arguing for.
@tmay : You are still confused about the difference between trade dress and design patent lawsuits. Again, as I explained earlier in different threads, trade dress deals with what non-technical average consumers perceive -- visual impressions, packaging, etc, and CAFC recently struck down Apple's trade dress win and remanded it for a re-trial. There is no total disgorgment of profits in trade dress suits.
What we are talking about here is, specifically, design patents and how the US laws define and enforce them. What you "think" or "consider" don't matter -- Apple certainly doesn't agree that designs are merely part of the hardware (or even software). For Apple to win, they need to make a compelling case (or defense) that their designs, not their hardware or software, contribute significantly to consumer's purchasing decision. Everything you are saying here is opposite of what Apple is arguing for.
I'll leave it to them to continue to make the case then.
Is this some Asian culture/honor thing? I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will take this appeal. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.
Agreed. _The_ federal appeals court for patent disputes reviewed it (twice, IIRC) and found essentially nothing to criticize. Even with the attempts of Google to insinuate itself into the case (through amicus briefs), the idea that the US Supreme Court would even take up a patent dispute of minimal broader impact in order to rule against a US company in favor of a foreign company seems nuts. But who knows- maybe there's some rabid Fandroids on that bench.
Is Apple entitled to interest on the award? I hope so-
They don't have any of those things much of the time, but it's still not going to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court generally will only take on cases that have major constitutional ramifications. This one doesn't.
@zoetmb: let's take your nonsensical rambling to be true, how do you account for the recent SCOTUS patent rulings such as "Alice vs CLS" or "Microsoft vs i4i"? Where did you get your JD again? Apple university?
Doesn't Samsung now have new ammo to fire in the SCOTUS, with the USPTO invalidating a couple of Apple's patents? Or is that something else?
I'm wondering if Apple really is a US company, the way the US courts, government and all other official agencies are forever trying to bring it down, or cut it down to size. I thought everyone in the US loved a great US success story.
@BestKeptSecret : it's all up to the district court judge's discretion and, just last year, the same judge Koh prohibited Samsung's lawyers from arguing that the USPTO makes mistakes and invalidates patents time to time while allowing Apple's lawyers to argue the opposite : that USPTO never makes mistakes (therefore all Apple's patents are valid) LOL!! Koh has a lot of leeway insofar as how and what evidence is presented to the jury.
Let's not forget Senator Leahy's new design protection law introduced in August 2012 in support of Apple. Or the USPTO's celebration of their inventor hero Steve Jobs's patents -- ironically, some of which got invalidated this week -- just months before the original trial began in August 2012. And you complaint about no love for Apple from your gov't?
Agreed. _The_ federal appeals court for patent disputes reviewed it (twice, IIRC) and found essentially nothing to criticize. Even with the attempts of Google to insinuate itself into the case (through amicus briefs), the idea that the US Supreme Court would even take up a patent dispute of minimal broader impact in order to rule against a US company in favor of a foreign company seems nuts. But who knows- maybe there's some rabid Fandroids on that bench.
Is Apple entitled to interest on the award? I hope so-
@pdq2 : First, the CAFC reversed about $0.5B of the original damages (ie, trade dress) and remanded it for a re-trial.
Second, the lower courts' flawed design ruling has far greater implication in the whole US economy, more specifically in the IP world, and, as you will discover in the next year or so, there would be more companies and industries stepping up their support for Samsung. Many large tech companies have already filed an amicus brief in support of Samsung's cause, as have the IP legal community and academics. While Apple has no such support, it has considerable political clout over policy-makers who in turn can influence lower-court judges.
This is now basically over. The chance of the supreme court taking this are low to zero since it's not an area of law which they need to create a test case for: Either something infringes or it doesn't.
Samsung claiming that the infringing portions were just minor features is irrelevant since the courts require patent holders to slim down their claims to a level which can be handled in a reasonable amount of time. While a patent holder may view that hundreds or even thousands of their patents are infringed upon (not unlikely in such a complex product), they only get the opportunity to test a handful at a time in the court.
This is a key flaw in the patent system since it requires that companies only copy each other a little bit. Since Samsung will copy as much as possible: it's a winning business tactic that skirts the abilities of patent holders to protect their inventions or obtain appropriate compensation through the courts.