Of course these companies are backing apple. They the only ones with tons of money that can file hundreds of thousands of design patents even if they never use them and most are so stupidly simple as a rectangle with curved edges. I'm sorry but this kind of bullcrap is destroying creativity and keeping smaller companies from creating a lot of useful designs. I just do not think most design patents should be given out. Should be very hard to patent one. Must be majorly unique and not oblivious
The iPhone was unique and not obvious. It only became obvious AFTER Apple showed the way.
So is this going to be decided before Apple releases its Galaxy Note clone this fall?
The Galaxy Note that was originally designed to resemble a jumbo iPhone in the first place? Why is it that nearly every other Android OEM can design a phone or tablet that doesn't look like an Apple product, except Samsung?
Hmm...it seems that all smartphones these days look similar. How many different ways can you design a smartphone or tablet? It's mostly a rectangular piece of glass.
Unfortunately this seems to be standard operating procedure for Samsung. They copy and if taken to court start filing counter patents which effectively bury the whole process under a pile of paper work. It worked with small opponents like Dyson but hopefully they can get a good slap in the face versus Apple this time around.
In a just world, they wouldn't be able to sell any of their phones in the US until they finally pay Apple.
If one day, god forbid, I do switch to Android or Windows, Samsung products will be at the very bottom of my list.
Your concern, and the reason that you want the Court to rule in favor of Samsung, is that Apple was granted 100% of the profits on the finished product.
In this case, I happen to agree with that. The Court may or may not decide if that stays a precedent, or may rule in other ways.
Nope. My concern is that current law interpretation AUTOMATICALLY AWARDS the entire infringer's product profits no matter how mundane or minimal the protected design. See the Microsoft design patent image above as an example. if Corel loses it won't have to give Microsoft a few thousand, which is probably all that design is worth if that in my opinion Instead they'll have to give Microsoft every penny of profit from sales of the "infringing" Core Home Office. It's automatic and non-negotiable. FWIW if this were to go back for a retrial and instead of $500M Samsung was ordered to pay $2B I'd wouldn't shed a tear for them as they deserve to be hammered IMHO.
My issue is NOT the size of the award, it's the way it's determined.
I added some of the text from the amicus brief in my response before you posted. It is relevant to your statement.
It doesn't change the fact that if Corel is found to be infringing on Microsoft's design patent for a graphical slider the ONLY financial cure and the one that will be awarded is 100% of Corel's profits garnered from selling the "infringing" product. Corel's version need not be exactly the same either, it's whether a jury thinks the two versions are at least very similar. That slider is no iconic iPhone nor as likely to lead to a sale of Corel's product and does not deserve the same reward does it? Yet it does.
I added some of the text from the amicus brief in my response before you posted. It is relevant to your statement.
It doesn't change the fact that if Corel is found to be infringing on Microsoft's design patent for a graphical slider the ONLY financial cure and the one that will be awarded is 100% of Corel's profits garnered from selling the "infringing" product. Corel's version need not be exactly the same either, it's whether a jury thinks the two versions are at least very similar. That slider is no iconic iPhone and does not deserve the same reward does it?
So the test would be the jurors examination as consumers, to see if the commonality of the original and the copy would effect their selection. between the products.
If it did, then MS could get 100% of the profits awarded; if not, then MS may still get a lower amount.
So is this going to be decided before Apple releases its Galaxy Note clone this fall?
This will never get sorted. Samsung will just keep doing appeal after appeal. They're just purposely wasting Apple's money at this point. In the end, it will cost Apple far more than they're going to gain from any lawsuit unless Apple ends up getting its original $1 Billion payout (which I highly doubt). This will go on for years...
The Galaxy Note that was originally designed to resemble a jumbo iPhone in the first place? Why is it that nearly every other Android OEM can design a phone or tablet that doesn't look like an Apple product, except Samsung?
Hmm...it seems that all smartphones these days look similar. How many different ways can you design a smartphone or tablet? It's mostly a rectangular piece of glass.
You sound like Samsung. I think its more of the software rather than the hardware, however that doesn't mean you can't design a phone differently. Who says it always has to be a rectangle with glass over it? Apple certainly didn't think all phones should have a screen with a hardware keyboard under it when they designed the iPhone. This is just silly thinking.
While it wasn't wildly successful, Microsoft proved you CAN at least design a mobile OS that doesn't look like iOS. I actually liked their interface for the phone. Its a shame they waited way to late in the game to create this.
Funny thing...Samsung ("samesung") got The inspiration for their phones or "copied" from Blackberry or RIM before they got The inspiration for their phones or "copied" Apple...
BTW samsumg is 80% crap, and 20% genius. It is Only the Genius in SSDs and memory though... (And possibly TV's and monitors)
I added some of the text from the amicus brief in my response before you posted. It is relevant to your statement.
It doesn't change the fact that if Corel is found to be infringing on Microsoft's design patent for a graphical slider the ONLY financial cure and the one that will be awarded is 100% of Corel's profits garnered from selling the "infringing" product. Corel's version need not be exactly the same either, it's whether a jury thinks the two versions are at least very similar. That slider is no iconic iPhone nor as likely to lead to a sale of Corel's product and does not deserve the same reward does it? Yet it does.
My thoughts in such discussions always turn to VisiCorp. What a shame they didn't get awarded every cent Microsoft ever made from MultiPlan and are making from Excel not to mention Lotus 123 in its day, and a few others, the names of which I now forget. Don't even get me started on poor old Gary Kildall, given MS DOS as it was basically a clone of Digital Research's CP/M.
Hmm...it seems that all smartphones these days look similar. How many different ways can you design a smartphone or tablet? It's mostly a rectangular piece of glass.
You sound like Samsung. I think its more of the software rather than the hardware, however that doesn't mean you can't design a phone differently. Who says it always has to be a rectangle with glass over it? Apple certainly didn't think all phones should have a screen with a hardware keyboard under it when they designed the iPhone. This is just silly thinking.
While it wasn't wildly successful, Microsoft proved you CAN at least design a mobile OS that doesn't look like iOS. I actually liked their interface for the phone. Its a shame they waited way to late in the game to create this.
Samsung devotees and defenders of the 'iPhone design is obvious therefore cannot be protected' never explain why all the phone from Samsung before the iPhone, look the way they did if it is so obvious how a phone should look, do they? LOL.
Utility patents such as those for Apple's Siri or A9 chips, long considered to be more valuable, have no such entitlement.
Yep. It is time that Utility patents had the same rights as design patents.
Since google "makes no money" from android, Apple is entitled to the *entire* profits of their search business. Going back to the point of infringement in 2008.
I added some of the text from the amicus brief in my response before you posted. It is relevant to your statement.
It doesn't change the fact that if Corel is found to be infringing on Microsoft's design patent for a graphical slider the ONLY financial cure and the one that will be awarded is 100% of Corel's profits garnered from selling the "infringing" product. Corel's version need not be exactly the same either, it's whether a jury thinks the two versions are at least very similar. That slider is no iconic iPhone and does not deserve the same reward does it?
So the test would be the jurors examination as consumers, to see if the commonality of the original and the copy would effect their selection. between the products.
If it did, then MS could get 100% of the profits awarded; if not, then MS may still get a lower amount.
Seems straightforward.
Nope. it's whether the "protected design" of that slider is similar to the one Corel uses in it's office suite. It matters not whether someone would choose one product over another because of it. In fact the patent holder does not even need to be currently selling a commercial product to assert a claim on another companies profits.
I added some of the text from the amicus brief in my response before you posted. It is relevant to your statement.
It doesn't change the fact that if Corel is found to be infringing on Microsoft's design patent for a graphical slider the ONLY financial cure and the one that will be awarded is 100% of Corel's profits garnered from selling the "infringing" product. Corel's version need not be exactly the same either, it's whether a jury thinks the two versions are at least very similar. That slider is no iconic iPhone nor as likely to lead to a sale of Corel's product and does not deserve the same reward does it? Yet it does.
When is someone going to go after Xiaomi and the other similar thieves?
Unless an infringing product is sold in the US it doesn't matter. The only financial penalty offered by US design patent law is 100% of the infringer's profits on an item sold in the US market. But not 1% or 10% or 50%, all of it so there's that.
So is this going to be decided before Apple releases its Galaxy Note clone this fall?
This will never get sorted. Samsung will just keep doing appeal after appeal. They're just purposely wasting Apple's money at this point. In the end, it will cost Apple far more than they're going to gain from any lawsuit unless Apple ends up getting its original $1 Billion payout (which I highly doubt). This will go on for years...
Apple already received the court ordered award from Samsung.
This will never get sorted. Samsung will just keep doing appeal after appeal. They're just purposely wasting Apple's money at this point. In the end, it will cost Apple far more than they're going to gain from any lawsuit unless Apple ends up getting its original $1 Billion payout (which I highly doubt). This will go on for years...
Apple already received the court ordered award from Samsung.
This will never get sorted. Samsung will just keep doing appeal after appeal. They're just purposely wasting Apple's money at this point. In the end, it will cost Apple far more than they're going to gain from any lawsuit unless Apple ends up getting its original $1 Billion payout (which I highly doubt). This will go on for years...
Apple already received the court ordered award from Samsung.
You sound like Samsung. I think its more of the software rather than the hardware, however that doesn't mean you can't design a phone differently. Who says it always has to be a rectangle with glass over it? Apple certainly didn't think all phones should have a screen with a hardware keyboard under it when they designed the iPhone. This is just silly thinking.
While it wasn't wildly successful, Microsoft proved you CAN at least design a mobile OS that doesn't look like iOS. I actually liked their interface for the phone. Its a shame they waited way to late in the game to create this.
Samsung devotees and defenders of the 'iPhone design is obvious therefore cannot be protected' never explain why all the phone from Samsung before the iPhone, look the way they did if it is so obvious how a phone should look, do they? LOL.
Because sometimes one company changes the design of a product and the other companies in that industry follow suit. It happens all the time, and Apple wasn't the first and won't be the last that happens to. I wish people would stop crying about it already.
Comments
They copy and if taken to court start filing counter patents which effectively bury the whole process under a pile of paper work.
It worked with small opponents like Dyson but hopefully they can get a good slap in the face versus Apple this time around.
In a just world, they wouldn't be able to sell any of their phones in the US until they finally pay Apple.
If one day, god forbid, I do switch to Android or Windows, Samsung products will be at the very bottom of my list.
If it did, then MS could get 100% of the profits awarded; if not, then MS may still get a lower amount.
Seems straightforward.
This will never get sorted. Samsung will just keep doing appeal after appeal. They're just purposely wasting Apple's money at this point. In the end, it will cost Apple far more than they're going to gain from any lawsuit unless Apple ends up getting its original $1 Billion payout (which I highly doubt). This will go on for years...
While it wasn't wildly successful, Microsoft proved you CAN at least design a mobile OS that doesn't look like iOS. I actually liked their interface for the phone. Its a shame they waited way to late in the game to create this.
BTW samsumg is 80% crap, and 20% genius. It is Only the Genius in SSDs and memory though... (And possibly TV's and monitors)
Samsung devotees and defenders of the 'iPhone design is obvious therefore cannot be protected' never explain why all the phone from Samsung before the iPhone, look the way they did if it is so obvious how a phone should look, do they? LOL.
Since google "makes no money" from android, Apple is entitled to the *entire* profits of their search business. Going back to the point of infringement in 2008.
With interest.
That would be justice.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/12/05/this-week-on-appleinsider-samsung-pays-out-4-inch-iphone-rumors-world-aids-day-more
The actual payment was reportedly made sometime prior to or on Dec. 14th last year.