Apple discourages Supreme Court from hearing Samsung patent petition, calls case 'legally unexcepti

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple this week attempted to dissuade the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing Samsung's request for review in their ongoing patent infringement dispute, with Apple telling the highest court in America that the $548 million settlement does not deserve review.




"Samsung's effort to make this case seem certworthy depends on a made-up narrative in which Samsung, not Apple, is the innovator, despite the overwhelming evidence that Samsung copied the iPhone's innovative design," Apple's attorneys wrote in the filing.

According to Apple, the original rulings in the iPhone maker's favor "broke no new legal ground." Instead, the company argues, that they "simply applied the statute and well-settled law to the extraordinary record of infringement and copying" committed by Samsung.

In an analysis of the filing, intellectual property expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents noted that Apple's attorneys filed their opposition brief two weeks ahead of the court's Feb. 16 deadline. He believes Apple's attorneys at Wilmer Hale and Morrison & Foerster have an uphill battle in trying to call the Samsung case, in Apple's words, "legally unexceptional."

"Honestly, this must have been one of the most difficult challenges ever for Apple's lawyers: to try to downplay the certworthiness of an issue after pretty much the entire (Information and Communications Technologies) industry has made it clear that it is profoundly concerned," Mueller wrote.

"Certworthy" is an abbreviated way of saying that a case is deemed worthy of certiorari, a writ that the Supreme Court issues to a lower court to review a judgment for legal error when no appeal is available. Historically speaking, Samsung's petition is a longshot -- the Supreme Court typically does not hear them, and also has not heard a patent design case in 122 years.

Still, Mueller suspects that Samsung's petition will at least result in in a call for views of the Solicitor General, allowing the U.S. government to talk to the industry and find out how much concern there is over patent litigation.

Samsung filed its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in December, arguing that the laws were incorrectly interpreted in the case, which first began nearly five years ago. After multiple appeals and revisions, Samsung ended up paying Apple $548 million for patent infringement.

For its part, Samsung has argued that modern devices like smartphones are not dependent on design for their functionality. According to Samsung, electronic devices "contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 445member
    It would not suprise me in the least if the current Justices don't weigh in on this. They certainly have given decisions in the last few years on matters that didn't concern them. To much legislation from the highest court... Surely one of them has an axe to grind with Apple or Samsung. /s
    SpamSandwich[Deleted User]
  • Reply 2 of 21
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Ha, ha

    Kodachrome monies
    They give us those nice bright colors
    They give us the greens of summers
    Makes you think all the world's a sunny day
    I got a Nikon camera
    I love to take a photograph
    So mama don't take my Kodachrome monies away



    edited February 2016
  • Reply 3 of 21
    rs9rs9 Posts: 68member
    Everyone knows in the industry that Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone. However Apple based it suit that it affected Apples bottom line.  For the last 13 years Apple has been in an upswing; the most recent quarter we learned Apple made a little less that $18 billion in profit.  Apples contention that it hurt its bottom line, doesn't hold water.   What Apple needs to do is completely break ties with Samsung if its even possible.
    Rayz2016conceptvbs
  • Reply 4 of 21
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,915member
    "not dependent on design for their functionality" then why did Samsung immediately copy the design? Design sells a lot more things than features no matter what many people say. Look at clothes. The majority of people buy clothes because of how they look, who's label is on them or how much they cost. They rarely buy them because they are made better. There are exceptions but not many.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 5 of 21
    Samsung, GTFO!
  • Reply 6 of 21
    Strange but in this country, we find stupid patents to be worthwhile and critical patents to be not valid.  

    Apple just got fined for using the concept of file protection in its FaceTime usage to the tune of 600 MILLION$.   But totally copying everything they do,  who should care??

    Its way too strange a world. 
    larryaanantksundaramibillRayz2016nostrathomas
  • Reply 7 of 21
    rs9 said:
    Everyone knows in the industry that Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone. However Apple based it suit that it affected Apples bottom line.  For the last 13 years Apple has been in an upswing; the most recent quarter we learned Apple made a little less that $18 billion in profit.  Apples contention that it hurt its bottom line, doesn't hold water.   What Apple needs to do is completely break ties with Samsung if its even possible.
    just because they made $18b it doesn't mean they didn't lose sales to samsung phones. You could look to samsung's sales boom in smartphones after adopting the iphone's look and features to being all sales to people that would have otherwise bought an iphone.

    it's like saying its ok to steal one of donald trump's rolls royce's because he's rich and has another one in the garage - theft is still theft.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    rs9 said:
    Everyone knows in the industry that Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone. However Apple based it suit that it affected Apples bottom line.  For the last 13 years Apple has been in an upswing; the most recent quarter we learned Apple made a little less that $18 billion in profit.  Apples contention that it hurt its bottom line, doesn't hold water.   What Apple needs to do is completely break ties with Samsung if its even possible.
    Thats not the criteria for hurting a bottom line. Just because they were profitable doesn't mean they received all the profit they could have, had samsung not done business the way they did.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 9 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    This has almost nothing to do with Samsung nor Apple per-se so forget about the names involved. 

    What the legal community and  industry concerns have to do with is how damages are to be apportioned when an item is deemed to infringe on a protected design. As it stands even Apple could be required to disgorge every single penny of profit they ever made on the iPhone, tens of $Billions, if they were found to infringe a valid design patent on something as mundane as a single icon. According to the Federal Appeals Court judges and juries have no wiggle room and any design patent infringement, however small, must by law be entitled to the ENTIRE PROFIT from the infringing device.

    That's completely different than the way utility patent damages are determined. Does that sound silly on a product with perhaps hundreds of various design features? It does to me, and it does to almost everyone else with complicated products who have weighed in on the side of cert. The trolls are already circling with design patents in their claws. If cert is denied this has the potential to make them richer than they could have imagined a couple years ago.
    http://www.insidesources.com/patent-trolls-are-already-abusing-the-apple-v-samsung-ruling/

    I haven't read of anyone siding with Apple on the issue of damage basis this time, nor should they IMHO. So this has little to nothing to do with the specific players involved and everything to do with how damages are to be determined when a design patent is found to be infringed. As it stands it's cut and dried. All profit, every last penny, goes to the patent holder, who in many cases did nothing more than put a drawing on paper. 
    edited February 2016 cnocbuiwmforktechlover
  • Reply 10 of 21
    Samsung should pay what they owe. Arguing over the amount is pointless as it is less than a quarters profit for either apple and Samsung. It is a point of principal, at no point has Samsung been able to convince anyone it is anything more than a ME TO company that feels it can copy anyone from Apple to Dyson and get away Scot free. As such I hope the Supreme Court do hear Samsungs appeal but then reinstate the full $1 billion originally awarded plus penalties and costs for wasting everyone's time. It's not how much Apple has conceivably lost that should now be the issue but rather the penalty should be punative enough to stop Samsung or anyone else trying anything similar again. 
    buzdots
  • Reply 11 of 21

    For its part, Samsung has argued that modern devices like smartphones are not dependent on design for their functionality. According to Samsung, electronic devices "contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design."
    Actually, Samsung has tied the noose around its own neck with that argument. What S. basically is saying here is that before the "modern" smartphones, external design mattered a lot for the functionality of phones. But since the introduction of the "modern" smartphone, the external design hasn't made much of a difference — as long as you have that particular "modern" design. For these phones, other [countless] features (eg internal design) can now instead give them their remarkable functionality, ie distinct characteristics. Since this state of external design-independancy has only happened once in the history of cell-phones, the first "modern device" that Samsung is referring to must be the iPhone. Hence, Samsung and all other "modern" smartphone makers copied the unique iPhone design, enabling them to enter the era of external design independancy, and instead drive differentiation based on the internal design parts. Since S. is openly sharing this insight here, they must be aware of the described advantages of this unique design. And since S. apparently uses this design, they are admitting to deliberately copying it. They are also admitting that copying this first "modern" design has given them a distinct advantage that they would not have had without it — namely the external design independancy. Lastly, since nearly all smartphones today have this "modern" design, it must have been crucial for market success. Therefore, nearly all the market value of today's smartphones (esp. from Samsung) come from copying, or being, the iPhone. Which is exactly what we all knew anyway, including the courts of law.

    (Sorry if my chain of thoughts above is somewhat intricate)
  • Reply 12 of 21
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,963member
    adm1 said:
    rs9 said:
    Everyone knows in the industry that Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone. However Apple based it suit that it affected Apples bottom line.  For the last 13 years Apple has been in an upswing; the most recent quarter we learned Apple made a little less that $18 billion in profit.  Apples contention that it hurt its bottom line, doesn't hold water.   What Apple needs to do is completely break ties with Samsung if its even possible.
    just because they made $18b it doesn't mean they didn't lose sales to samsung phones. You could look to samsung's sales boom in smartphones after adopting the iphone's look and features to being all sales to people that would have otherwise bought an iphone.

    it's like saying its ok to steal one of donald trump's rolls royce's because he's rich and has another one in the garage - theft is still theft.
    The question is did they lose sales because they infringed on patents, or for another reason. Companies lose sales to other companies everyday. 
  • Reply 13 of 21
    Strange but in this country, we find stupid patents to be worthwhile and critical patents to be not valid.  

    Apple just got fined for using the concept of file protection in its FaceTime usage to the tune of 600 MILLION$.   But totally copying everything they do,  who should care??

    Its way too strange a world. 
    Right. Some small part of a small part (FaceTime) is worth MORE than a close copy of the whole? 
  • Reply 14 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,146member
    the irony of the following is palpable:

    http://www.cultofandroid.com/78604/apple-asks-supreme-court-to-reject-samsungs-unexceptional-appeal/

    and right below it;

    http://www.cultofandroid.com/78621/htcs-new-one-m10-looks-like-another-iphone-clone/

    For the record, I saw the link at MacSurfer; I avoid C o A for the most part, and I haven't ever commented there.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    buzdots said:
    It would not suprise me in the least if the current Justices don't weigh in on this.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if they reversed the damages.
  • Reply 16 of 21
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,146member
    buzdots said:
    It would not suprise me in the least if the current Justices don't weigh in on this.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if they reversed the damages.
    This requires legislative initiatives; the SC isn't going to take this.
  • Reply 17 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    tmay said:
    buzdots said:
    It would not suprise me in the least if the current Justices don't weigh in on this.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if they reversed the damages.
    This requires legislative initiatives; the SC isn't going to take this.
    I believe they will. Other parts of patent law and the method of determining damages have been set with judicial rulings rather than legislative action. This one will be too IMHO. 
  • Reply 18 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    We may know as early as tomorrow whether SCOTUS will accept Samsung's petition for review. 
    cnocbui
  • Reply 19 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    tmay said:
    buzdots said:
    It would not suprise me in the least if the current Justices don't weigh in on this.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if they reversed the damages.
    This requires legislative initiatives; the SC isn't going to take this.
    They did take it as I suspected they would. 
  • Reply 20 of 21
    Everyone knows in the industry that Samsung shamelessly copied the Iphone
Sign In or Register to comment.