Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been paid in damages for similar intellectual property infringements. So let's stop talking out of our azzez and look at some actual IP infringement cases, shall we?
"1. S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc." is relevant. Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sued the movie studio for copyright infringement. Warner's settled out-of-court.
"5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc." is salient and still ongoing. MGA copied Mattel's Barbie dolls according to the ruling. Good for $100 million. Now MGA is suing Mattel for stealing trade secrets.
"10. Adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc." Adidas successfully sued Payless for copying its internationally famous 3-stripe design. Adidas was awarded $305 million.
So who here thinks that Samsung has copied Apple's designs? Let me see those hands in the air.
Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been paid in damages for similar intellectual property infringements. So let's stop talking out of our azzez and look at some actual IP infringement cases, shall we?
"1. S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc." is relevant. Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sued the movie studio for copyright infringement. Warner's settled out-of-court.
"5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc." is salient and still ongoing. MGA copied Mattel's Barbie dolls according to the ruling. Good for $100 million. Now MGA is suing Mattel for stealing trade secrets.
"10. Adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc." Adidas successfully sued Payless for copying its internationally famous 3-stripe design. Adidas was awarded $305 million.
So who here thinks that Samsung has copied Apple's designs? Let me see those hands in the air.
You say Apple's case has merit and simply cite these 'irrelevant' cases.
The cited cases have distinct facts from current case between Samsung and Apple.
1. ... Price?s tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson...
5. ...accusing Bratz designer Carter Bryant for having designed the doll while on Mattel?s payroll...
10. ...But Payless was selling confusingly similar athletic shoes with two and four parallel stripes. The two companies hashed out a settlement, but by 2001, Payless was again selling the look-alikes...
I think case #10 is somewhat applicable in this case but then again, Payless seemingly infringed trademark, not patent or copyright, after it previously settled already.
I don't think these cases are strongly persuasive.
apple is asking for its actual damages from reduced sales, plus treble samsung’s infringing devices' profits, plus punitive damages, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees.
You are full of bullshit. Samsung doesn't own Korean government or the country. Where did you get that 50% thing from? Samsung contributes about 10% of the GDP of the country, to my knowledge. And who said Confucius is Korean? Actually Koreans were stunned to learn that Chinese media CLAIMED Korean claimed Confucius is Korean. Are you one of those bitter Chinese or his girlfriend?
And before you start spewing that I'm some nationalistic Korean bent on hating on Apple, I own 2 MBP, 2 iPod touchs and 1 iPad. Also, I hold some shares through a mutual fund in APPL.
What you own in Apple doesn't matter here... I own 1 BMP, 3 iphones, 3 ipads, 1 mini, 2 time capsules and own apple stocks (NOT via mutual fund)...
We are talking about a global company who is taking advantage of apple creativity and claiming its own.
This has nothing to do with being patriotic, if you are a Korean or not. Many Asian companies copied and got rimmed, but having audacity to claim originality is something else.
Don't get me wrong.. I have many Samsung products and had many of their SGH phones which I loved dearly... I thought they are very creative in their own right.
Samsung's mobile division has quite blatantly copied Apple in their devices, however, that doesn't mean Samsung as a whole does not do good work. Their component making divisions are top notch.
Btw, with Asian conglomerates, the difference between any 2 divisions can be night and day. They are essentially independently run companies under the same brand name.
I can see an Apple/Samsung deal in the near future where Samsung does not sue Apple for copyrights on televisions since Samsung holds most patents for apps on televisions.
Apple is asking for its actual damages from reduced sales, plus treble Samsung?s infringing devices' profits, plus punitive damages, plus court costs and attorneys? fees.
What reduced sales??
They sell everything they can produce from everything I read here.
I can see an Apple/Samsung deal in the near future where Samsung does not sue Apple for copyrights on televisions since Samsung holds most patents for apps on televisions.
I doubt that would be an issue, what is a digital television after all but a computer built into an LCD panel that can stream video. If samsung had anything devestating IP wise there they could sue the iMac.
Comments
Here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...vice=other&c=y
"1. S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc." is relevant. Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sued the movie studio for copyright infringement. Warner's settled out-of-court.
"5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc." is salient and still ongoing. MGA copied Mattel's Barbie dolls according to the ruling. Good for $100 million. Now MGA is suing Mattel for stealing trade secrets.
"10. Adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc." Adidas successfully sued Payless for copying its internationally famous 3-stripe design. Adidas was awarded $305 million.
So who here thinks that Samsung has copied Apple's designs? Let me see those hands in the air.
Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been paid in damages for similar intellectual property infringements. So let's stop talking out of our azzez and look at some actual IP infringement cases, shall we?
Here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...vice=other&c=y
"1. S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc." is relevant. Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sued the movie studio for copyright infringement. Warner's settled out-of-court.
"5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc." is salient and still ongoing. MGA copied Mattel's Barbie dolls according to the ruling. Good for $100 million. Now MGA is suing Mattel for stealing trade secrets.
"10. Adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc." Adidas successfully sued Payless for copying its internationally famous 3-stripe design. Adidas was awarded $305 million.
So who here thinks that Samsung has copied Apple's designs? Let me see those hands in the air.
You say Apple's case has merit and simply cite these 'irrelevant' cases.
The cited cases have distinct facts from current case between Samsung and Apple.
1. ... Price?s tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson...
5. ...accusing Bratz designer Carter Bryant for having designed the doll while on Mattel?s payroll...
10. ...But Payless was selling confusingly similar athletic shoes with two and four parallel stripes. The two companies hashed out a settlement, but by 2001, Payless was again selling the look-alikes...
I think case #10 is somewhat applicable in this case but then again, Payless seemingly infringed trademark, not patent or copyright, after it previously settled already.
I don't think these cases are strongly persuasive.
apple is asking for its actual damages from reduced sales, plus treble samsung’s infringing devices' profits, plus punitive damages, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees.
again read the complaint filed in korea.
Which is different from the one filed in the us.
You are full of bullshit. Samsung doesn't own Korean government or the country. Where did you get that 50% thing from? Samsung contributes about 10% of the GDP of the country, to my knowledge. And who said Confucius is Korean? Actually Koreans were stunned to learn that Chinese media CLAIMED Korean claimed Confucius is Korean. Are you one of those bitter Chinese or his girlfriend?
There is absolutely no need for personal attacks!
There is absolutely no need for personal attacks!
You're absolutely right about that.
But so is he. Your points were quite wrong.
You are obviously Chinese and a troll.
If Samsung owns the government, why were they slapped with a fine by the government's courts to pay for the health problems by its former employees?
http://www.techeye.net/business/sams...death-families
And before you start spewing that I'm some nationalistic Korean bent on hating on Apple, I own 2 MBP, 2 iPod touchs and 1 iPad. Also, I hold some shares through a mutual fund in APPL.
What you own in Apple doesn't matter here... I own 1 BMP, 3 iphones, 3 ipads, 1 mini, 2 time capsules and own apple stocks (NOT via mutual fund)...
We are talking about a global company who is taking advantage of apple creativity and claiming its own.
This has nothing to do with being patriotic, if you are a Korean or not. Many Asian companies copied and got rimmed, but having audacity to claim originality is something else.
Don't get me wrong.. I have many Samsung products and had many of their SGH phones which I loved dearly... I thought they are very creative in their own right.
What nonsense.
Samsung's mobile division has quite blatantly copied Apple in their devices, however, that doesn't mean Samsung as a whole does not do good work. Their component making divisions are top notch.
Btw, with Asian conglomerates, the difference between any 2 divisions can be night and day. They are essentially independently run companies under the same brand name.
Why do so many people not realize this?
Apple is asking for its actual damages from reduced sales, plus treble Samsung?s infringing devices' profits, plus punitive damages, plus court costs and attorneys? fees.
What reduced sales??
They sell everything they can produce from everything I read here.
I can see an Apple/Samsung deal in the near future where Samsung does not sue Apple for copyrights on televisions since Samsung holds most patents for apps on televisions.
I doubt that would be an issue, what is a digital television after all but a computer built into an LCD panel that can stream video. If samsung had anything devestating IP wise there they could sue the iMac.