US Supreme Court shows flexibility in first day of Apple v. Samsung case
In hearing initial arguments from Apple and Samsung, justices for the U.S. Supreme Court hinted at some willingness to consider Samsung's position as it fights for reduced damages in a case over infringed iPhone design patents.
Out of the court's eight justices, several expressed skepticism that they could create a test for lower courts and juries that could be used to calculate damages based on design patents, according to Reuters.
"If I were a juror, I wouldn't know what to do," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Another justice, Elena Kagan, used the analogy of a Volkswagen Beetle, commenting that it might be difficult for a jury to decide what to award in a case based on the car's unique shape, even if it might be main reason some shoppers were buying it.
That view is similar to one expressed by Samsung, which is challenging $399 million out of the $548.2 million it has already paid out to Apple in the lawsuit -- the first figure being for violating three patents on the bezel, front face, and homescreen of the iPhone. That sum was based on all of the profits from infringing phones, but Samsung is contending that should've only paid a smaller amount, likening the situation to forfeiting all of the profits from a car because the cupholder is infringing.
Apple has claimed that the infringed patents were closer to the design of an entire car, and that in lower courts Samsung failed to show that the patents were relevant to just parts of its devices.
The Supreme Court should issue a final ruling by the end of June. The outcome could have serious ramifications for Apple and Samsung, for instance affecting Apple's attempts to collect another $180 million, and theoretically a federal appeals court ruling which reinstated $119.6 million in damages against Samsung for violating a "slide-to-unlock" patent.
Out of the court's eight justices, several expressed skepticism that they could create a test for lower courts and juries that could be used to calculate damages based on design patents, according to Reuters.
"If I were a juror, I wouldn't know what to do," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Another justice, Elena Kagan, used the analogy of a Volkswagen Beetle, commenting that it might be difficult for a jury to decide what to award in a case based on the car's unique shape, even if it might be main reason some shoppers were buying it.
That view is similar to one expressed by Samsung, which is challenging $399 million out of the $548.2 million it has already paid out to Apple in the lawsuit -- the first figure being for violating three patents on the bezel, front face, and homescreen of the iPhone. That sum was based on all of the profits from infringing phones, but Samsung is contending that should've only paid a smaller amount, likening the situation to forfeiting all of the profits from a car because the cupholder is infringing.
Apple has claimed that the infringed patents were closer to the design of an entire car, and that in lower courts Samsung failed to show that the patents were relevant to just parts of its devices.
The Supreme Court should issue a final ruling by the end of June. The outcome could have serious ramifications for Apple and Samsung, for instance affecting Apple's attempts to collect another $180 million, and theoretically a federal appeals court ruling which reinstated $119.6 million in damages against Samsung for violating a "slide-to-unlock" patent.
Comments
Bingo. Just because a device is complex and made up of many parts doesn't mean that's the reason consumers buy it. First impressions, looks and design are important as well.
A better way for the Supreme Court to address this would be to go back and look at what mobile devices looked like before Apple released the iPhone and iPod. We've all seen the photos showing Samsung, and other's, feature(less) phones before the first iPhone and we've all seen what Samsung in particular did after the iPhone was released. It doesn't take a Supreme Court justice to realize that Samsung copied just about everything Apple did and benefited greatly from it. The design was everything. If Apple had released a typical flip-phone would anyone have bought it? Some but not nearly as many as lined up for the iPhone. The iPhone changed everything and they should have received a whole lot more than they have. Without the iPhone, we'd still be using flip-phones. I can't see where any company would have made the impact Apple did by releasing something totally different. Yes, there were attempts at a similar device maybe even before the iPhone but those products failed. The iPhone determined where mobile systems would go and everyone copied Apple. Justice Kennedy, is this clear enough for you or have you been locked up in the court room trying to figure out how antiquated laws fit this situation? Open your eyes (and demand that the other justices open theirs) and see the obvious.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-777_1b82.pdf
My cursory reading of the transcript looks like Samsung is really flailing. If the design of the iPhone is unimportant, why did they copy it? That's the questions as simply as one may ask it.
The real issue now now is Samsung and their ignoring their own hardware issues that will cost them way more than this case ever would have. Call it just desserts, karma, whatever. They have shown that they will risk lives for profit. That is criminal. I doubt Apple would point it out, but they may advise the court about good faith and Samsung rarely acts in good faith.
If you believe in conspiracies, Samsung could have bought Viv to bargain with Apple over the result of this case. Who knows.
Samsung is done for at least another year.
Let's hope Apple can capitalize on it. Although it's going to be tough when your enemy helps make your product.
“It seems to me that the design is applied to the exterior case of the phone,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “It’s not applied to all the chips and wires.”
It followed, he said, that “there shouldn’t be profits awarded based on the entire price of the phone.”
Two big points that he seems to be missing here are:1) Yes, in many ways, all smartphones are fairly similar, but that's why the few characteristics that distinguish products from each other are that much more important. If Samsung has to copy certain patented elements to be competitive in the marketplace, then these elements are much more important than, say, the 4G chips that both phones share. If Samsung can make a generic phone that's like a hundred others on the market, and then add a few illegally patented technologies to compete with the innovative market leader, they don't deserve to be any more successful than anyone whose phone is essentially the same except for the illegally copied features.
2) The penalty shouldn't just try to calculate the damage done--there is zero disincentive to keep doing the same thing if the worst case scenario is that you end up with what you would have had if you had respected the law. The damages sought should be punitive, so Samsung is worse off than if they had just stuck to their own designs. Which would be a whole lot of money. Otherwise, it's like punishing someone who steals billions of dollars from the bank by laboriously trying to calculate the exact amount of money he stole, and then making him return exactly that amount, with no other punishment. Frankly, it would be next to impossible to calculate all the different benefits that Samsung gleaned from being seen as the top competitor to iPhone, which is probably in large part due to the various ways they copied Apple's designs and technologies, and they are still riding that wave now, as they probably will for years to come. Anybody want to guess how much that is worth?
------------
So if they can't decide on the value of design in driving phone sales, then reduce the amount to 150 million or whatever Samsung is arguing BUT increase the amount for willful infringement to 10X the amount of the award. 1.5 billion sounds more right. Samsung thought they could rip off the design BECAUSE this was a gray area and that there would be a 'fine' that they afford AND still make a lot of money. Total disregard for the intent of patents and US law. Now we see how they regard consumer safety with their phone that catches fire and intentional delays in a recall. They should be taught a lesson. A big lesson.
Anyway as for this case it really REALLY has absolutely nothing to do with Samsung, Apple or the iPhone. They just happen to be the names involved. There's only one single issue SCOTUS will be opining on and the sole question granted cert by the court:
Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?
That's it. Absolutely nothing to do with whether Samsung "copied" the iPhone. That's a settled issue that the Supreme Court is not revisiting.