Supreme Court sides with Samsung over Apple, says payments shouldn't cover whole device profits [u]

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 62
    The New American Way. No monopolies but.... defend the new world law -- the rich get richer. Someone in America is making money (Wall St). Wall St makes money, these DB tech companies make money. Should we as the consumer care? Apple loyalist since 1978 here. When Apple puts cheaper modems in high end iPhones to create more profit? That isn't IP, thats GREED. Think like the 1% and don't get emotional about money. The more you have, the more power you have. Oh I hate that I wrote all that especially after one cup of coffee but, I miss the old days.

    If you are speaking about the Intel modems, than you can be assured they didn't do it for pure greed. They need to have a second source to control costs as well as to ensure adequate quantities for production if issues arrive with either vendor. It is likely also part of a plan to move even more of the modems to Intel going forward as their modems improve in capability. If you don't want the Intel modem, but a model that has the Qualcomm modem in it. Manufacturers do this stuff all the time, but even more so when they build larger unit volumes. The more you build, the more you need to do this sort of stuff. It isn't all about money, but it sure it all comes back to that.
    watto_cobracaliration al
  • Reply 22 of 62
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    sog35 said:
    just. want. this . to end.
    For once we agree. 

    In five years, what's left of Samsung Mobile will hand Apple a cheque for $26.43 and we can finally draw a line under the whole sorry business. 


    edited December 2016
  • Reply 23 of 62
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,849member
    Rayz2016 said:
    sog35 said:
    just. want. this . to end.
    For once we agree. 

    In in five years, what's left of Samsung Mobile will hand Apple a cheque for $26.43 and we can finally draw a line under the whole sorry business. 


    I'll second that....the amount of money Apple could get in the end is nothing compared to the money they've spent on this case. I think Samsung purposely dragged this case out to waste Apple's money so even Samsung lost, Apple didn't gain financially. It still sucks though that Apple isn't going to prevail in the end after all of this. 
    edited December 2016 palominewatto_cobraboltsfan17
  • Reply 24 of 62
    rob53 said:
    I used to be able to tell cars apart but nowadays, almost all of them look the same.
    I heard that same argument from a codger in 1992. Now, as then, I retain ability to discern different makes and models, as well as differentiating design from year to year. Maybe I'm just a stuporgenius though.
  • Reply 25 of 62
    holyoneholyone Posts: 398member
    gatorguy said:
    berndog said:
    So let me get this straight. If you are contracted to build something for someone and you think it's a good idea and will make a fortune. It's okay by the US Supreme Court to set up a parallel production line and put you logo on the products?
    No you do not have it straight. 
    Actually this was a very good decision, as much as I loath Sammy this verdict benefits Apple of any corporation today. To explain : the patent system protects implementation not ideas (which is good) because if ideas where what the protection covered then Apple would be bankrupt by now, sure this sucks as it lets sucky Sammy off the hook and Sammy didnt steal just an idea but road on Apple's trand settings, but again sumsung isn't sued as much as Apple if Apple was found infringing on some dumb patent that probably shouldn't have never been granted the holder can ask for all the billions of profits Apple made on the entirety of a device, imagine some one claimed violation on a patent that affected a tiny part of an iPhone, chamfered edgies for an example, Apple would have to pay on all profits made on every device with said edges, that's not a accurate if though that way. Sammy gets to dodge a bullet this time around but, Apple is the richest company in the world that's not too bad I think, Sammy will get what's coming to her, if she'll still be around in the next 10years
    watto_cobradoozydozen
  • Reply 26 of 62
    damonfdamonf Posts: 229member
    gatorguy said:
    When the reason for the sales appeal of the whole device to the consumer is stolen, what then?
    Then the jury is free to award the total profits. The difference is that the Federal Court interpreted the law as mandating that the entire profits be awarded with no option for a lesser amount no matter how minor the design infringement was. TBH Apple should be happy it went this way ( and probably are in some regard IMHO). It could have been a penny saved and a pound wasted in some future design patent award if they were on the hook instead. 

    It would've been a double-edged sword for Apple had it gone the other way: all these lawsuits against Apple for LTE, FaceTime, etc. patents would've been bad had it been the "based on entire profit" ruling and Apple lost or didn't settle those cases.  So on the bright site, this will give Apple great leverage in the patent infringement suits brought against it, as "profits" relating to individual infringing components / software code would amount to mere pennies (perhaps even fractions of pennies) per device, give then many, many features/functions that make up the iPhone.  Perhaps Apple will now go back to that FaceTime peer-to-peer patent holder and make an offer to license now under much more favorable terms, so that FaceTime could go back to the way it was in the iPhone 4 initially (peer-to-peer, no connection via Apple servers). 
    edited December 2016 gatorguy
  • Reply 27 of 62
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    ...and this court will become so much less "Supreme" in the near future.
    palomine
  • Reply 28 of 62
    This will be the end to patent protection for design. What Samsung appears to be arguing is that design has less value than technology, therefor what they owe for design infringement will be far less than what was awarded. In this case, however, I would argue that design value far eclipses that of the technology, because the design set the standard (that is now considered everyday), whereas the technologies inside have continued to change and evolve - therefor having less value.
    watto_cobracali
  • Reply 29 of 62
    I can't wait for this to finally be over. Took up way too much time. Funny that Steve Jobs said Apple needed to get over the notion that for Apple to win Microsoft had to lose, yet he was the one who vowed to go thermonuclear on Google and Android.
    gatorguydasanman69
  • Reply 30 of 62
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    macxpress said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    sog35 said:
    just. want. this . to end.
    For once we agree. 

    In in five years, what's left of Samsung Mobile will hand Apple a cheque for $26.43 and we can finally draw a line under the whole sorry business. 


    I'll second that....the amount of money Apple could get in the end is nothing compared to the money they've spent on this case. I think Samsung purposely dragged this case out to waste Apple's money so even Samsung lost, Apple didn't gain financially. It still sucks though that Apple isn't going to prevail in the end after all of this. 
    So true. Now they are going to spend millions more back in the lower courts. I'm sure the infringement award is going to drop significantly.  
  • Reply 31 of 62
    holyoneholyone Posts: 398member
    The point that some may be missing here is that a small number of features determine purchasing decisions for complex items. For example, if Apple was selling cars, and they held the patent for pneumatic rubber tires whereas everybody else was using wooden or metal wheels, how would you penalize a company that infringed Apple's patent to remain competitive? The penalty should be large enough that it is in their best interest to *not* infringe, it shouldn't just be the difference between what they made and what they would have made, because there would be no incentive to not break the law. And tires may be only one of many technologies in a car, but if a significant percentage of people would not have bought a car without the rubber tires, this needs to be factored in. It may seem like an exaggerated analogy, but I do believe that smartphone shopping can be difficult for the average consumer, so they end up looking for small concrete differences to help them differentiate between models and vendors. Samsung is one of the only vendors other than Apple who has made a lot of money from smartphones over the last 9 years, and they are also the biggest copier. If we can agree that this is not just a mysterious coincidence, it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that the copying is largely responsible for their relative success. 
    Good point and I agree to a degree but I think in this case this particular matter would have to be viewed as a completely special case as there is no other example I know off where one party so drastically changed an industry's trajectory as the iPhone did, I think on the grand scheme of the law that'll have tremendously fare reaching consequences some of which will affect Apple it self, this single instance could not be separated and viewed as the anomaly that it is by the Supreme Court, I'm not saying Sammy should not pay just that if they are made to pay this way then Apple some day too might have to, and no company profits on devices more than Apple, that's kinda their thing, how OK would we all be if the situation was reversed ?
    cali
  • Reply 32 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,361member
    This will be the end to patent protection for design. What Samsung appears to be arguing is that design has less value than technology, therefor what they owe for design infringement will be far less than what was awarded. In this case, however, I would argue that design value far eclipses that of the technology, because the design set the standard (that is now considered everyday), whereas the technologies inside have continued to change and evolve - therefor having less value.
    Nope.

    Design patents are perfectly valid and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. You don't understand what the question put to SCOTUS was meant to resolve, and what the ruling actually accomplishes. You should do a bit of research on what this was all about if you think it important enough. 
    singularitylordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 33 of 62
    hockeydeano92hockeydeano92 Posts: 5unconfirmed, member
    The New American Way. No monopolies but.... defend the new world law -- the rich get richer. Someone in America is making money (Wall St). Wall St makes money, these DB tech companies make money. Should we as the consumer care? Apple loyalist since 1978 here. When Apple puts cheaper modems in high end iPhones to create more profit? That isn't IP, thats GREED. Think like the 1% and don't get emotional about money. The more you have, the more power you have. Oh I hate that I wrote all that especially after one cup of coffee but, I miss the old days.

    If you are speaking about the Intel modems, than you can be assured they didn't do it for pure greed. They need to have a second source to control costs as well as to ensure adequate quantities for production if issues arrive with either vendor. It is likely also part of a plan to move even more of the modems to Intel going forward as their modems improve in capability. If you don't want the Intel modem, but a model that has the Qualcomm modem in it. Manufacturers do this stuff all the time, but even more so when they build larger unit volumes. The more you build, the more you need to do this sort of stuff. It isn't all about money, but it sure it all comes back to that.
    They put a less grade modem in the phone.  Apple, like other tech companies have "purchased down" for part.   It is about supply/demand and if supply is 2 module shitty modems vs 1 quality one that is about money.  Yes it is all about money!!! 
  • Reply 34 of 62
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Total BS. Sammy copied the iPhone completely. How can they get away with it?!
    caliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,361member
    jungmark said:
    Total BS. Sammy copied the iPhone completely. How can they get away with it?!
    They won't.  A jury will rule on how much they should pay now, but the guilt was already established.
    edited December 2016 ration al
  • Reply 36 of 62
    mr4jsmr4js Posts: 55member
    Another Brain Dead decision by SCOTUS. Samsung is an unethical company run by scum bags, just like Philips. Samsung only making 4% of smartphone profits. 

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2070180/samsung-philips-among-companies-raided-by-eu-antitrust-investigators.html

    http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-eu-fines-samsung-philips-smartcard.html


    cali
  • Reply 37 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,361member
    mr4js said:
    Another Brain Dead decision by SCOTUS. Samsung is an unethical company run by scum bags, just like Philips. Samsung only making 4% of smartphone profits. 

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2070180/samsung-philips-among-companies-raided-by-eu-antitrust-investigators.html

    http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-eu-fines-samsung-philips-smartcard.html


    Please do yourself a favor and read what it was all about before commenting on something you clearly do not understand at all. Samsung is surely guilty of copying Apple IP. That was not changed by SCOTUS. Now it's to be determined what portion of the Galaxy smartphones are subject to an award and what that amount should be rather than mandating that it is the entire smartphone and the profits derived from it.
    edited December 2016 lordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 38 of 62
    This article isn't correct. S Court simply said that the District Court must consider if the individual component can be considered for damages. Chances are the lower court will rule the same way it did before. Here is relevant text from the decision. "The only question we resolve today is whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” must always be the end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a component of that product. Under the former interpretation, a patent holder will always be entitled to the infringer’s total profit from the end product. Under the latter interpretation, a patent holder will sometimes be entitled to the infringer’s total profit from a component of the end product." "Thus, reading “article of manufacture” in §289 to cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the phrase." "The parties ask us to go further and resolve whether, for each of the design patents at issue here, the relevant article of manufacture is the smartphone, or a particular smartphone component...We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties. "
    ration al
  • Reply 39 of 62
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,036member
    This case just about proves that it is more valuable when suing to not have ever produced the product and merely have a concept for it on paper. Apple will get less than $200 million for real infringement and loss against a real product where Smartflash LLC gets $532.9 million for doing nothing (well, maybe sketching something on a paper napkin).
    cali
  • Reply 40 of 62
    Typical. Samsung gets to steal whatever IP they want.

    Remember Steve Jobs saying "and boy have we patented it !!!" on the original iPhone. I guess he had more faith in the patent system he should have.

    Latest news is S8 ditching 3.5mm headphone socket. And trying to beat Apple to the punch on a virtual home button. As usual Apple bears the brunt of "moving forward" with innovation and technology and Sammy just rides their coattails. I actually know people who've said, "you cannot play music on the new iPhone" until I patiently explained the situation.

    Thank Facebook, and other outlets of misinformation and sensationalism, for that (literally, so many people I know got in an uproar because of whatever ill-informed rubbish they read on StalkBook)
    Apple should establish a competing IP development company with the sole goal of working around Apple's own patents. This way they'd avoid the tunnel vision that tends to set in from working in a hermetic R&D environment and at the end of the day they'd own the rights to patents their competitors would otherwise use to undermine them.

    Think about it.
    edited December 2016 caliwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.