Google agreed to pick up tab for some Samsung legal fees, take on liability in case of loss

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 93
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member

    My guess is Apple will sue again if both Apple-Samsung I and Apple-Samsung II don't result in an injunction against Samsung, and if the legal decisions don't make it nearly impossible to get one.  (Apple-Samsung I is on appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)  It would probably take an injunction to get Samsung to agree to any settlement acceptable to Apple. 

     

    If there is another lawsuit, Apple would choose its infringed claims/patents that it thought had the best chance of winning an injunction against the set of Samsung products currently being sold, and not necessarily those that were previously dropped.  Some of the claims/patents from I/II may have expired by then, or are no longer infringed in newer Samsung products.  Since Apple wants an injunction and not money, it may not be worth suing over older products.

  • Reply 82 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    mark2005 wrote: »
    My guess is Apple will sue again if both Apple-Samsung I and Apple-Samsung II don't result in an injunction against Samsung, and if the legal decisions don't make it nearly impossible to get one.  (Apple-Samsung I is on appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)  It would probably take an injunction to get Samsung to agree to any settlement acceptable to Apple. 

    If there is another lawsuit, Apple would choose its infringed claims/patents that it thought had the best chance of winning an injunction against the set of Samsung products currently being sold, and not necessarily those that were previously dropped.  Some of the claims/patents from I/II may have expired by then, or are no longer infringed in newer Samsung products.  Since Apple wants an injunction and not money, it may not be worth suing over older products.

    That was exactly Apple's intent with Apple/Samsung II. Technology changes way too fast and the courts move much too slowly for timely lawsuits that would seriously impact current products. Personally I think the best Apple can hope for is monetary damages. Effective injunctions are gonna be tough unless the litigation is in Germany and even there they seem to fail over patent validity more often than not.
  • Reply 83 of 93
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    mark2005 wrote: »
    My guess is Apple will sue again if both Apple-Samsung I and Apple-Samsung II don't result in an injunction against Samsung, and if the legal decisions don't make it nearly impossible to get one.  (Apple-Samsung I is on appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)  It would probably take an injunction to get Samsung to agree to any settlement acceptable to Apple. 

    If there is another lawsuit, Apple would choose its infringed claims/patents that it thought had the best chance of winning an injunction against the set of Samsung products currently being sold, and not necessarily those that were previously dropped.  Some of the claims/patents from I/II may have expired by then, or are no longer infringed in newer Samsung products.  Since Apple wants an injunction and not money, it may not be worth suing over older products.

    That's not how it works. If Apple continues to file further suits for past infringement, Samsung (possibly also Google) would be on the hook for damages if Apple wins. As long as Apple's patents are valid they can continue to sue and seek damages.
  • Reply 84 of 93
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member

    As you say and I agree, Apple certainly has the right to sue regarding past infringements but as I already said, Apple would likely choose not to go after older products as Apple is not after money (damages), they're seeking an injunction. If our legal system ever grants Apple an injunction on some Samsung product, it would also apply to other Samsung products that are not "colorably different".

  • Reply 85 of 93
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    mark2005 wrote: »
    As you say and I agree, Apple certainly has the right to sue regarding past infringements but as I already said, Apple would likely choose not to go after older products as Apple is not after money (damages), they're seeking an injunction. If our legal system ever grants Apple an injunction on some Samsung product, it would also apply to other Samsung products that are not "colorably different".

    Oh, I think they're after the money also. Whatever damages Samsung the most.
  • Reply 86 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    An Appeals Court ruling from today will have a major impact on Apple/Samsung II. Rather than make another post on it you can read it here:
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178820/apple-samsung-dispute-tentative-juror-verdict-form-in-california-patent-trial#post_2522784
  • Reply 87 of 93
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    Apple was unable to push email to iPhones in Germany because of injunction Motorola and Google enforced over a software patent.



    Ignorance, obfuscation or a lie?



    Which do you choose to hide behind?

    I'm sorry, but I still disagree with you, and saying "I hide behind obfuscation, lies or ignorance" makes you agressive.  A judge decided an injunction was the correct way to proceed.

    By dichotomy:

    - If you believe that a legal system is a bad solution, then violence is the only other option. Oooookaaaay.

    - If you do believe a legal system is a correct solution, then you have to trust the judges. If the judge rules Apple wrong, that's too and. If the judge rules Apple right, then Apple can sue over the lost revenue.

     

    That seems pretty normal and correct to me. I'm sorry you seem to not see that.

  • Reply 88 of 93
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    I'm sorry, but I still disagree with you, and saying "I hide behind obfuscation, lies or ignorance" makes you agressive.  A judge decided an injunction was the correct way to proceed.
    By dichotomy:
    - If you believe that a legal system is a bad solution, then violence is the only other option. Oooookaaaay.
    - If you do believe a legal system is a correct solution, then you have to trust the judges. If the judge rules Apple wrong, that's too and. If the judge rules Apple right, then Apple can sue over the lost revenue.

    That seems pretty normal and correct to me. I'm sorry you seem to not see that.

    A European court imposed an injunction based on a software patent.

    So run by me why software patents are only used in this way in the US?

    When the statement I responded to was not true.

    The context

    Peterbob

    Most of the patents covered in his trial should not have been patented as they cover an idea and not an execution.

    The difference is that we have an understaffed under funded patent system, where all you need to get a patent is a worth smith. Throw in a few "apparatus" and "hierarchy" make it 20 pages and you could get a patent for anything.

    see this masterful patent on toast: http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436

    In the rest of the develop world these patents would be laughed out of court and they have.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram

    Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst.

    As to the rest of the developed world, I'll take the tech innovation leadership of the US any day, by a long shot. No one else comes even close. So, I'll assume we must be doing something right despite all the 'laughter'
    elsewhere.

    Lightknight

    Germany and France are doing a good job there, and the US patent system has a serious issue. Unless I am very mistaken, the legal part of the system is not really broken, but the administration is, either for lack of agents or lack of highly specific skills. Then again, I am not Obamabush.
  • Reply 89 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    hill60 wrote: »
    A European court imposed an injunction based on a software patent.

    So run by me why software patents are only used in this way in the US?


    That injunction came because of a silly (IMO) "Orange Book" rule unique to Germany. How did the injunction end up going away? The German courts decided the Software patent claim(s) was invalid, just as they have with nearly every other Apple, Microsoft, Moto etc. software patent claim against a competitor there in recent history. I think the days of software patents being so broadly available, particularly in the US, are too slowly coming to an end.
  • Reply 90 of 93
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    That injunction came because of a silly (IMO) "Orange Book" rule unique to Germany. How did the injunction end up going away? The German courts decided the Software patent claim(s) was invalid, just as they have with nearly every other Apple, Microsoft, Moto etc. software patent claim against a competitor there in recent history. I think the days of software patents being so broadly available, particularly in the US, are too slowly coming to an end.

    Germany has very different ideas on patents. Just look at the nonsense Florian Muller has been spouting during this latest trial.
  • Reply 91 of 93
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Germany has very different ideas on patents. Just look at the nonsense Florian Muller has been spouting during this latest trial.

    ...and yet, iPhones in Germany were not allowed to receive push email because of a software patent.

    Which strikes out the argument that the US is alone in granting and supporting software patents.
  • Reply 92 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    Germany has very different ideas on patents. Just look at the nonsense Florian Muller has been spouting during this latest trial.

    I imagine you might also be interested in the EU's newly-stated stance on injunctive relief for Standard-essential patents.
    http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/234/2014/04/2014-04-29-EU-Memo-re-antitrust-decisions-on-SEPs.pdf
  • Reply 93 of 93
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post





    A European court imposed an injunction based on a software patent.



    So run by me why software patents are only used in this way in the US?



    When the statement I responded to was not true.



    The context



    Peterbob



    Most of the patents covered in his trial should not have been patented as they cover an idea and not an execution.



    The difference is that we have an understaffed under funded patent system, where all you need to get a patent is a worth smith. Throw in a few "apparatus" and "hierarchy" make it 20 pages and you could get a patent for anything.



    see this masterful patent on toast: http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436



    In the rest of the develop world these patents would be laughed out of court and they have.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram



    Oh wow, we have an IP law genius in our midst.



    As to the rest of the developed world, I'll take the tech innovation leadership of the US any day, by a long shot. No one else comes even close. So, I'll assume we must be doing something right despite all the 'laughter'

    elsewhere.



    Lightknight



    Germany and France are doing a good job there, and the US patent system has a serious issue. Unless I am very mistaken, the legal part of the system is not really broken, but the administration is, either for lack of agents or lack of highly specific skills. Then again, I am not Obamabush.

    I think I understand what you meant, but the way you worded it was pretty agressive. No worries, we all have our bad days ^^

Sign In or Register to comment.