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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 62
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
     I can't believe some of you idiots fell for the "cupholder" crap. 

     iPhone is not a cupholder. Remove all of Apples patents and you wouldn't even be able to turn a Samsung iKnockoff on. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 62
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    Just wow, what a bad message this sends.  
  • Reply 43 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,357member
    Just wow, what a bad message this sends.  
    Why?
    gwydion
  • Reply 44 of 62
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    linkman said:
    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).

     And something like that is closer to a "cupholder". An iPhone case is comparable to a cupholder, but the entire design/concept/tech?

     You can throw a couple older women still drive the car.

    ( I know this is a "design" case but I'm just sick of Samsung stealing and pretending they only took a small part of someone else's hard work while laughing to the bank. )

    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.

     Doesn't Apple still make profit from licensing tech to iKnockoffs? 

     Some companies like Samsung just don't want to play fair. 

  • Reply 45 of 62
    @gatorguy: I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, although there are plenty of examples in the past where sales of a product were stopped for infringement (the most recent I can think of is the iPhone sliding keyboard that Ryan Seacrest had invested in). I guess this had to do with the core of the product, whereas the litigated patents in Apple case are very specific details, such as the slide-to-open switch, which would make the cupholder analogy pretty relevant.
    From an Apple fan point of view, Samsung simply ripped off the iPhone (shape, size, look, home screen look, etc...) but the only standing points Apple's lawyers were able to keep standing were very limited, which would explain the perspective of the decision. Am I making sense?
  • Reply 46 of 62
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    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!!! 
    Has it occurred to you that they might not have been able to get enough modems from a single supplier?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 62
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    snappsny said:
    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. "
    You know what? I'm sure you're right, but I'm not really sure it would be in Apple's best interest to win this. If this sets a precedent then the next time Apple is in court then wouldn't that mean all their iPhone profits are at risk?
    gwydion
  • Reply 48 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,357member
    Rayz2016 said:

    snappsny said:
    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. "
    You know what? I'm sure you're right, but I'm not really sure it would be in Apple's best interest to win this. If this sets a precedent then the next time Apple is in court then wouldn't that mean all their iPhone profits are at risk?
    With this ruling Apple profits would be less at risk today than they were yesterday if a design patent claim were lodged against them. 
    gwydion
  • Reply 49 of 62
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    So I guess Samsung could just slap the Apple logo on their phones now if they want to, just like the counterfeit iPhones coming out of China these days?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 62
    This is an unwinnable situation for Apple:
      1. You can't patent the entire phone; you have to patent the many (unique) components.
      2. So Apple originally sued with a long list of these many (unique) components.
      3. But the judge said, "That's too many components.  I want a short list.  Choose 5." (I think)
      4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court said, "Your damages will only be based on the specific components in your complaint.  You included only a small number of specific components, so your damages will be small."

    So Apple's potential winnings are categorically -- and drastically -- reduced by the earlier judge's requirement that they choose a very small subset of the issues to include in a streamlined trial.  Are those Apple's only issues?  No, of course not... but the judge forced Apple to choose s subset that drastically under-represents their claim of infringement.
    propodSpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,357member

    So Apple's potential winnings are categorically -- and drastically -- reduced by the earlier judge's requirement that they choose a very small subset of the issues to include in a streamlined trial.  Are those Apple's only issues?  No, of course not... but the judge forced Apple to choose s subset that drastically under-represents their claim of infringement.
    No she didn't.

    She gave Apple the choice of sticking with the originally scheduled trial dates if they would limit the number of patent claims which had continuously ballooned since the case was initially filed, or asserting all of them but rescheduling for a later time when the court had more time available for what would be a much longer trial than was originally planned for. It was always Apple's choice to make on which way to go, not the judge's.

    As we all know Apple choose the speedier trial while retaining that right to file a separate case over any other claims they wished to make.  They also choose not to pursue those other claims despite their original intentions. All Apple's choice, not the court's. 
    edited December 2016 singularitygwydion
  • Reply 52 of 62
    gatorguy said:
    It was always Apple's choice to make, not the judge's.
    Thanks for that reminder.
  • Reply 53 of 62
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    gatorguy said:
    Didn't Samsung have documentation saying they needed to copy the iPhone in order to compete? So if you infringe on design patents to make your product look and act like an Apple iPhone then it should involve the entire product. The only thing Samsung has done on its own is design their phones to catch fire and explode.
    No sir. They did a comparative analysis on where they were lacking in iPhone features and functions, then used it to develop those things that would make them more "iPhone-like". That's not an unusual process for companies in a competitive market. I don't think there was ever a mention of needing to outright copy the iPhone to compete, tho Sammy did go pretty far with it. In any event that claim came from commenters AFAIK. and not Samsung statements. 

    ...and no I still don't like Samsung. They're not ethical IMHO. Copying is not OK.
    Yes they did a comparison, but then they set out to copy EVERYTHING almost exactly, even down to the size, shape, color, total design of the charger - yes in EXACT detail. Even the package design including the typeface. This is far from the same as trying to achieve feature parity in a comparison chart. And it is obvious that they felt they needed to steal the total design to be able to compete. And there in lies the reason that total profits is justified. 
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 54 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,357member
    On a side-note don't be surprised if there's another Apple/Samsung patent case ruling by the Federal Circuit that's accepted by the Supreme Court on appeal. I'm leaning yes. 
  • Reply 55 of 62
    sog35 said:
    just. want. this . to end.

    Too right; especially since the Court of the Assizes of Instant Karma has already ruled against Samsung in a massive and clear manner.
    Rayz2016
  • Reply 56 of 62
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,077member
    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!!! 
    Yep,  Apple is playing with fire pulling crap like this.   There's an expectation of better quality when you pay for a premium product.   I guess we shouldn't be surprised that iPhone7 sales not even beating the iPhone6 sales (which should have been easy as a result of the Note exploding). I'm sure Cook will be able to happily boast higher profit margins despite the drop in sales, but I think the Bean Counter in Chief is slowly wrecking the company.   It will be interesting to see how Apple does and if google will release sales numbers for the Pixel in January
  • Reply 57 of 62
    rob53 said:
    What the stupid SCOTUS doesn't understand is that Samsung's statement about a cup holder actually does apply but it should have been interpreted as this:

    Apple had contended that Samsung should hand over the whole profits from infringing devices. Samsung, though, suggested that this was ridiculous, likening it to forfeiting the whole profits of a car because of an infringing entire car.

    Samsung copied more than one or two things, they copied the entire car. Apple wasn't allowed to bring all the infringements to trial but the SCOTUS is just a bunch of technically incompetent and socially inept group of old people who probably call all smartphones iPhones because they can't tell the difference between them. I used to be able to tell cars apart but nowadays, almost all of them look the same. The iPhone broke away from the me-to look of cell phones, everyone copied them, so we're now at the same point the auto industry is--nothing looks different (there are a few exceptions but these aren't marketed to the majority of people).
    However true that is, they can only decide on what's put before the court. Remove all prior knowledge and dropped cases and what they were left with was a few infringing patents on certain elements thus the cupholder vs car likeness held true, regardless of how absurd it seems when you know the full picture.
  • Reply 58 of 62
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    Now it's OK t steal, Apple can now simply take Google's PageRank and MS's Office APIs. YAY!

    Happily, in other news, SS's profit is falling into negative numbers while Japan Display and TSMC are seeing unprecedented revenues and profits! 
  • Reply 59 of 62
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,357member
    brakken said:
    Now it's OK t steal, Apple can now simply take Google's PageRank and MS's Office APIs. YAY!

     
    *sigh*
    You haven't a clue what this was about do you...
    singularity
  • Reply 60 of 62
    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 both the original trial judge and the Federal Court interpreted the law as mandating that the entire Galaxy (US only) smartphone 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. 
    This has already happened -- the original damages were over a BILLION USD $$$. Samsung whined to Judge Lucy Koh (who was already pissed cause figured they should settled this out of court but no joy there. She also proceeded to slash the scope of the lawsuit by Apple officially not giving them there day in court -- at least for those issues she lopped off.
Sign In or Register to comment.