There's a simple principle in US law about the profits of illegal activity, and I'll steal the example from Judge Milian to explain: If you sell me a bag of cocaine and I give you a bad check, you can't sue me for the value of the bag of cocaine, not even for the value of the empty plastic baggie. If you're involved in an illegal activity, you cannot use the law to protect the profits of that activity.
Samsung is now challenging for the cost of that baggie, demanding that though the sale of their products was illegal, they should be entitled to protect the profits of that sale that weren't stolen from Apple. The justice system doesn't allow for that because crime can not be encouraged this way. The precedent Samsung wants to set is that as long as 50.1% of a product is not infringing a patent, the law can still be broken for profit. It's laughable, but that's literally the business model that allowed their growth to outpace the billion dollar judgement that should have killed them had it not sat in appeals for years and years. Now they want the Supreme Court to legitimize that model. It's insanity and completely contrary to good order.
While it's true that Samsung's cupholder analogy doesn't hold in this case, I'm inclined to think they have a point in general: Apple has on occasion lost patent disputes with other companies, and it would be unfortunate indeed for Apple and us as its supporters if that were to result in the loss of Apple's profits for a whole product line. It's definitely hard to say how much a particular patent affects consumers' decisions to buy one phone or another, but it makes more sense to try to figure that out (on the average) than to say that any violation forfeits all profits.
Think of it another way: what if Samsung violated not just Apple's patent on a product, but somebody else's patent, too (ha, I bet they do)? Would Samsung owe all the profits to Apple, the other company, or some proportion between them? Surely the latter would make the most sense, so similar logic ought to apply to intellectual property's contribution as between Apple's intellectual property and Samsung's own.
Samsung of all companies shouldn't be talking about abuse of patents as they are the kings in that department. Supreme court needs to go with Apple on this one.
The copying of just about every aspect of the iPhone, down to the charger design and the packaging design including the font used, was so egregious that it is an insult to one's intelligence that this is the same as copying an automobile's cup holder.
The copying of just about every aspect of the iPhone, down to the charger design and the packaging design including the font used, was so egregious that it is an insult to one's intelligence that this is the same as copying an automobile's cup holder.
Comments
https://www.yahoo.com/news/philips-infineon-samsung-face-eu-antitrust-fines-050110597--finance.html?ref=gs
https://www.engadget.com/2012/12/05/eu-tv-cartel-fine/
Samsung is now challenging for the cost of that baggie, demanding that though the sale of their products was illegal, they should be entitled to protect the profits of that sale that weren't stolen from Apple. The justice system doesn't allow for that because crime can not be encouraged this way. The precedent Samsung wants to set is that as long as 50.1% of a product is not infringing a patent, the law can still be broken for profit. It's laughable, but that's literally the business model that allowed their growth to outpace the billion dollar judgement that should have killed them had it not sat in appeals for years and years. Now they want the Supreme Court to legitimize that model. It's insanity and completely contrary to good order.
Think of it another way: what if Samsung violated not just Apple's patent on a product, but somebody else's patent, too (ha, I bet they do)? Would Samsung owe all the profits to Apple, the other company, or some proportion between them? Surely the latter would make the most sense, so similar logic ought to apply to intellectual property's contribution as between Apple's intellectual property and Samsung's own.