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 also wonder about the issue of apportionment. For utility patents proportionality is supposed to be determined according to fuzzy ideas involving the "entire market value rule", and "base royalty for multi-component products", further differing for "standards-essential" patents (fodder aplenty for search engines here).
But it's scary when these things go before juries, and this could all come back to bite Apple, so they have to be careful what they wish for. Viz. the VirnetX case is an egregious example of proportionality gone crazy. VHC, for a moment there, landed an award against Apple even larger than the Samsung one -- $625M before a possible trebling, for supposedly treading upon patents (declared "expired" by PTAB!) for a single feature out of thousands in the iPhone. Apple has been known to pay dozens of millions for entire baskets of standards-essential patents (e.g. to Ericsson, including royalties), but damned if they are going to pay megamillions for a Tyler, Texas judgment on a single issue.
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.
With interest.
That would be justice.
Absolutely spot on. If Apple has a design patent that they can assert against Google's search they have a perfect right to do so, just as any company that might have a design patent that seems to be similar to an icon, graphic, item or device that Apple markets can.
As for your suggestion that utility patents are relatively worthless unless there's "profits" you are 100% incorrect. Apple could sue Google anytime they wish, and with a strong enough case be awarded $Billions upon $Billions whether Google ever made a penny on Android or not. I've no idea where you and some others got the idea that the only reason Apple hasn't moved against "stolen Android" is because Google hasn't made much profit with it. That's a bogus reason that holds no water. The law is that utility patent damages must be adequate to compensate theclaimant (Apple) irrespective of the benefit gained by the defendant (Google).
So while a design patent asserted against Google Android might not be worth a whole lot there's no limit to the potential damages from proving utility patent claims against them.
Coca Cola tastes better from a glass bottle. Period. Don't know why people drink it from a can. Or a soda fountain.
I don't know why people drink it period.
Pretty funny, but also pretty much hyperbolic "truthiness" rather than truth. Ranges from outright incorrect to wildly exaggerated. "Physically the same way heroin works, by the way"--yeah sure, if massively different dose and concentration do not matter in the organic chemistry of your world. Also, a Ford Pinto works the same way as a Ford GT (not including the exploding gas tanks, of course). And other such issues.
Tim Cook: "Why don't you get an iPhone if you like the design?" Student: "Oh crap, I thought I bought an iPhone. It looks almost identical and price identical, except with the logo Samsung, but Samsung makes iPhone right?" Tim Cook: "...."
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.
Really? The Samsung smartphone design before iPhone looks very different with iPhone. I just pointed out to you that other designs exist.
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
If "rectangles with curved edges" were so obvious where's all the prior art? Where are all of Samsung's previous designs which prove the patents ridiculous? Patents don't stifle creativity because plagiarism isn't creativity. If anything patents force designers to innovate - the real kind not the copying someone else kind.
I totally agree that people shouldn't just blatantly copy or amend anyone's patented designs, wherever they are in the world, however for some things it's incredibly difficult to come up with something new or varied enough to not be like it's competitors. Who can design; a tyre that looks like no other, a tablet pc, chainsaw, touchscreen buttons or a sensible shaped smart phone in a world where where people want what they want? Products following the same or similar purposes WILL look similar when the companies are all looking to make sales in that particular market. A product is the sum of it's parts. Change one or more of products parts and it becomes a new product e.g. a major tech company altering it's display size, memory capacity or weight. Who invented the first flat screen, LED display or TV? Are those companies the only ones who now make those products? No, but the competition helps to make better products and gives the public a better deal. Greed and power are great motivators when it comes to multinationals and conglomerates, what they would really like, is for theirs to be the only product on the market, so that could charge what they like and not have to spend as much on continuous development. They don't care about customers, only people willing to hand over their money, and stifling any viable threats.
Comments
But it's scary when these things go before juries, and this could all come back to bite Apple, so they have to be careful what they wish for. Viz. the VirnetX case is an egregious example of proportionality gone crazy. VHC, for a moment there, landed an award against Apple even larger than the Samsung one -- $625M before a possible trebling, for supposedly treading upon patents (declared "expired" by PTAB!) for a single feature out of thousands in the iPhone. Apple has been known to pay dozens of millions for entire baskets of standards-essential patents (e.g. to Ericsson, including royalties), but damned if they are going to pay megamillions for a Tyler, Texas judgment on a single issue.
As for your suggestion that utility patents are relatively worthless unless there's "profits" you are 100% incorrect. Apple could sue Google anytime they wish, and with a strong enough case be awarded $Billions upon $Billions whether Google ever made a penny on Android or not. I've no idea where you and some others got the idea that the only reason Apple hasn't moved against "stolen Android" is because Google hasn't made much profit with it. That's a bogus reason that holds no water. The law is that utility patent damages must be adequate to compensate the claimant (Apple) irrespective of the benefit gained by the defendant (Google).
So while a design patent asserted against Google Android might not be worth a whole lot there's no limit to the potential damages from proving utility patent claims against them.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2016/08/samsung-caught-using-apple-watch-design-figures-in-a-recent-patent-filing.html
Student: "Oh crap, I thought I bought an iPhone. It looks almost identical and price identical, except with the logo Samsung, but Samsung makes iPhone right?"
Tim Cook: "...."
Patents don't stifle creativity because plagiarism isn't creativity. If anything patents force designers to innovate - the real kind not the copying someone else kind.
Point 4 means that I can get the same hit as heroin, but in a safer way and point 6 says that I'll be pissing it all away anyway.
So if I drink a glass of water (based on point 7), I should be fine!!
Who can design; a tyre that looks like no other, a tablet pc, chainsaw, touchscreen buttons or a sensible shaped smart phone in a world where where people want what they want? Products following the same or similar purposes WILL look similar when the companies are all looking to make sales in that particular market. A product is the sum of it's parts. Change one or more of products parts and it becomes a new product e.g. a major tech company altering it's display size, memory capacity or weight. Who invented the first flat screen, LED display or TV? Are those companies the only ones who now make those products? No, but the competition helps to make better products and gives the public a better deal. Greed and power are great motivators when it comes to multinationals and conglomerates, what they would really like, is for theirs to be the only product on the market, so that could charge what they like and not have to spend as much on continuous development. They don't care about customers, only people willing to hand over their money, and stifling any viable threats.