I understand what you are saying Gator Guy but the problem IS "cutoff." What if those who did license from Apple changed their minds and decided, "Samsung will get away with this because there's no boundaries. So we won't license either."
Samsung doesn't have superior lawyers we have stooges for judges and even bigger idiots who make laws and don't anticipate the "downside" like a Samsung lawyer will.
Our judicial system really does suck but then we should look at the head litigator too, that nincompoop Holder. Is it really that easy to get a law degree these days not to mention the vast majority in Congress having a law degree?
It's very satisfying to know that so many of the commentors on this website are so much more knowledgable on legal matters than these judges, and are so much better qualified to have informed, impartial opinions.
I understand what you are saying Gator Guy but the problem IS "cutoff." What if those who did license from Apple changed their minds and decided, "Samsung will get away with this because there's no boundaries. So we won't license either."
Samsung doesn't have superior lawyers we have stooges for judges and even bigger idiots who make laws and don't anticipate the "downside" like a Samsung lawyer will.
Our judicial system really does suck but then we should look at the head litigator too, that nincompoop Holder. Is it really that easy to get a law degree these days not to mention the vast majority in Congress having a law degr
The licensees are paying for the use of Apple IP. Samsung too will pay for their past use. It's not as tho they'll get off for free, but no one pays damages as long as their cases are under appeal, not even Apple.
There's still questions about how many of the asserted patents (claims) are even valid at this point, much less finalizing the proper monetary damages which could have even come out to Apple's advantage tho with the state of the IP Apple asserted and the rulings so far that's now become fairly unlikely. Anyway there's still a lot of legal work and judicial hearings before the final tab gets presented and Samsung has to pull out a checkbook. Even Apple's own appeals are delaying things. This won't settle for a long time
It's very satisfying to know that so many of the commentors on this website are so much more knowledgable on legal matters than these judges, and are so much better qualified to have informed, impartial opinions.
Remember Denise Cote? She "emotes" an opinion about Apple before the case even started on the BOOK business. She then pretends to go through the motions while basically handing Apple their head and then she appoints that loser to babysit Apple AS IF he knew ANYTHING about Apple's operations at all.
Now we have 3 "judges" acting like a coffee klatch in presenting THEIR "legal" arguments instead of asking themselves the simple question: WTF is wrong with this idea? No, they will attempt to "quote" law when it's convenient and ignore it when it's convenient.
About the people who read AI frequently, they seem to have a better idea of what is FAIR than the judiciary in California which is so far removed from Oliver Wendell Holmes that it is more like "making law" in lieu of getting down to what's right. In abortion, gay rights, etc. everything is UNCONSTITUTIONAL but when it comes to patent infringement, and getting Apple to "roll over" it really depends on which side of the bed they crawled out of that morning.
Apple is from California. Remember that old saying about a prophet being screwed over in his home town. This is what we have. If you are being attacked and a "local" that automatically colors your actions in a negative way. In Judge Koh's case since she is Korean-American she should have recused herself.
Because the people on this site are seldom lawyers, that doesn't minimize our concept of fair play, it only asks that the opponents have to have a legitimate reason for deciding for the "out-of-towners."
So i can punch this judge in the face and i wont get punished?
Since the harm done to her wont be irreparable?
“Your honor, since Apple will simply earn back the estimated value we stole from them in the next, oh… three weeks or so, you can see the damage we did isn’t irreparable. And as such we should not be punished.”
See, THIS is why they should have granted Apple $25,000,000,000 in the original lawsuit.
I can't imagine how one defines irreparable harm in a legal sense.
It's actually not that hard (setting aside certain weird exceptions). Basically it means that the hurt cannot be cured by applying money.
Seems to me the judges are essentially saying to Apple—look at you, you've made huge profits and couldn't be healthier; clearly, this infringement by Samsung isn't going to hurt you.
Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the harm cannot be "irreparable". Money can cure it, so no injunction is required.
I see no good reason why Samsung should not be liable for a very large sum of damages to Apple as a consequence.
I really hate how Samsung have gotten away with such blatant infringement on Apple's patents.
It's denial for an injunction on devices that probably aren't for sale anymore, or no longer infringe.
An injunction even on past products, may establish an important precedent for future infringement rulings. The delay in the courts made sure that there were no current products. Good strategy for spineless judges - wait long enough and it all becomes irrelevant.
I can't imagine how one defines irreparable harm in a legal sense.
Seems to me the judges are essentially saying to Apple—look at you, you've made huge profits and couldn't be healthier; clearly, this infringement by Samsung isn't going to hurt you.
I think that's a bad argument, as it suggests that unless you can show reduced profits or sales, then you can't win. What about the millions of extra sales that Samsung have probably made as a result of their infringement? It would be probably impossible to say with surety that they are as a result of their infringement, but one can certainly say that it is a reasonable assumption, as they are the only competitor to Apple to garner significant sales. I see no good reason why Samsung should not be liable for a very large sum of damages to Apple as a consequence.
I really hate how Samsung have gotten away with such blatant infringement on Apple's patents. I think that the judges' prevarication demonstrates a weakness in their thinking, which bodes ill for all inventors and, ultimately, innovation.
Yes, Samsung made millions using the slide-to-unlock patent. Pretty amazing considering pretty much all Galaxy phones since the S3 just have you drag your finger on the lock screen in any direction from any starting point with no track.
An injunction even on past products, may establish an important precedent for future infringement rulings. The delay in the courts made sure that there were no current products. Good strategy for spineless judges - wait long enough and it all becomes irrelevant.
Because of course there are no other cases going on, so they purposely dragged their feet.
This isn't about whether Samsung can use Apple's IP without repercussions They cannot .In this part of the appeal it's all about Apple's demand for a sales injunction which is only granted when specific requirements are met. It's really easy to look it up for yourself. Just Google "injunction eBay test". Irreparable harm is one of those requirements. IMHO the judges are rightfully doubtful of harm to Apple that can't be cured with a monetary award. That's why the judges, and not just one of them, reference the licensing Apple has already done. Fair or not that's the law of the land at the moment. If you take the time to search and read for 5-10 minutes you might well come to the same conclusion.
Well said, and you are asking a lot from these people here at AI. They read one sentence and then go ballistic without reading the rest of the article. They apparently didn't read this part of the article, "You've already licensed these patents up the wazoo!" Judge Moore said, adding later, ""You've licensed them to everyone. So why is it irreparable harm if Samsung uses the patents?""
Apple has not suffered any irreparable harm because the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus broke all sales records. How has Apple been harmed? They haven't...now they are just trying to be greedy. They need to stop wasting millions on this stupid lawsuit and end all of it. It is a phone, and all phones have similar operational functions. If Apple does build a car, next thing they will do is sue everyone over wheels, tires, steering wheels, seats, etc.
Yes, Samsung made millions using the slide-to-unlock patent. Pretty amazing considering pretty much all Galaxy phones since the S3 just have you drag your finger on the lock screen in any direction from any starting point with no track.
Sammy made BILLIONS ripping off Apple. They should pay back every penny they made if their iPhoneys.
If this reasoning slides and Samsung is let off easy, it sets a bad precedent for and patent holder turning a profit.
Anyone can then infringe on patents and if the person they are stealing sales from sues they can just reference this case. Basically if you turn a decent profit, your patents will be fair game for everyone simply using this precedent.
Hey, who wants to start a company making iOS clones and selling them for half the price apple does? Apple isn't going to be irreparably harmed after all, and we will be able to use the Samsung defense to get off scott free! Then we simply extend the platform and let the market decide.
Our patent system and its enforcement has been irrevocably broken for quite sometime. If someone harms you in a car crash you are usually awarded up to triple damages with any competent lawyer and a solid case. But here it looks like you are lucky if you get 10%. That means it is cheaper to rip off a patent and pay an insignificant penalty then to create your own patents or license anyone%u2019s. Look at what happened to Sun: Java shamelessly copied and extended. Sun sued, lost and went bankrupt.
Well said, and you are asking a lot from these people here at AI. They read one sentence and then go ballistic without reading the rest of the article. They apparently didn't read this part of the article, "You've already licensed these patents up the wazoo!" Judge Moore said, adding later, ""You've licensed them to everyone. So why is it irreparable harm if Samsung uses the patents?""
Apple has not suffered any irreparable harm because the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus broke all sales records. How has Apple been harmed? They haven't...now they are just trying to be greedy. They need to stop wasting millions on this stupid lawsuit and end all of it. It is a phone, and all phones have similar operational functions. If Apple does build a car, next thing they will do is sue everyone over wheels, tires, steering wheels, seats, etc.
So you're justifying Sammy's scumbag attitude by iPhone 6 sales?
Who cares if I chop off your pinky. You still have 9 more derp !!
Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the harm cannot be "irreparable". Money can cure it, so no injunction is required.
Isn't that like saying that the movie industry can't have sites, that pirate their movies, shut down since the movie industry offer licenses of their movies to others? Therefore, their only recourse is to seek monetary compensation, if they can find out who own these sites (that pirate their movies), as no "irreparable" damage had occurred.
Comments
Did Apple disappear? No, so yes really.
I understand what you are saying Gator Guy but the problem IS "cutoff." What if those who did license from Apple changed their minds and decided, "Samsung will get away with this because there's no boundaries. So we won't license either."
Samsung doesn't have superior lawyers we have stooges for judges and even bigger idiots who make laws and don't anticipate the "downside" like a Samsung lawyer will.
Our judicial system really does suck but then we should look at the head litigator too, that nincompoop Holder. Is it really that easy to get a law degree these days not to mention the vast majority in Congress having a law degree?
There's still questions about how many of the asserted patents (claims) are even valid at this point, much less finalizing the proper monetary damages which could have even come out to Apple's advantage tho with the state of the IP Apple asserted and the rulings so far that's now become fairly unlikely. Anyway there's still a lot of legal work and judicial hearings before the final tab gets presented and Samsung has to pull out a checkbook. Even Apple's own appeals are delaying things. This won't settle for a long time
Agreed.
Remember Denise Cote? She "emotes" an opinion about Apple before the case even started on the BOOK business. She then pretends to go through the motions while basically handing Apple their head and then she appoints that loser to babysit Apple AS IF he knew ANYTHING about Apple's operations at all.
Now we have 3 "judges" acting like a coffee klatch in presenting THEIR "legal" arguments instead of asking themselves the simple question: WTF is wrong with this idea? No, they will attempt to "quote" law when it's convenient and ignore it when it's convenient.
About the people who read AI frequently, they seem to have a better idea of what is FAIR than the judiciary in California which is so far removed from Oliver Wendell Holmes that it is more like "making law" in lieu of getting down to what's right. In abortion, gay rights, etc. everything is UNCONSTITUTIONAL but when it comes to patent infringement, and getting Apple to "roll over" it really depends on which side of the bed they crawled out of that morning.
Apple is from California. Remember that old saying about a prophet being screwed over in his home town. This is what we have. If you are being attacked and a "local" that automatically colors your actions in a negative way. In Judge Koh's case since she is Korean-American she should have recused herself.
Because the people on this site are seldom lawyers, that doesn't minimize our concept of fair play, it only asks that the opponents have to have a legitimate reason for deciding for the "out-of-towners."
Since the harm done to her wont be irreparable?
“Your honor, since Apple will simply earn back the estimated value we stole from them in the next, oh… three weeks or so, you can see the damage we did isn’t irreparable. And as such we should not be punished.”
See, THIS is why they should have granted Apple $25,000,000,000 in the original lawsuit.
I can't imagine how one defines irreparable harm in a legal sense.
It's actually not that hard (setting aside certain weird exceptions). Basically it means that the hurt cannot be cured by applying money.
Seems to me the judges are essentially saying to Apple—look at you, you've made huge profits and couldn't be healthier; clearly, this infringement by Samsung isn't going to hurt you.
Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the harm cannot be "irreparable". Money can cure it, so no injunction is required.
I see no good reason why Samsung should not be liable for a very large sum of damages to Apple as a consequence.
I really hate how Samsung have gotten away with such blatant infringement on Apple's patents.
I agree 100%.
It's denial for an injunction on devices that probably aren't for sale anymore, or no longer infringe.
An injunction even on past products, may establish an important precedent for future infringement rulings. The delay in the courts made sure that there were no current products. Good strategy for spineless judges - wait long enough and it all becomes irrelevant.
Yes, Samsung made millions using the slide-to-unlock patent. Pretty amazing considering pretty much all Galaxy phones since the S3 just have you drag your finger on the lock screen in any direction from any starting point with no track.
Because of course there are no other cases going on, so they purposely dragged their feet.
This isn't about whether Samsung can use Apple's IP without repercussions They cannot .In this part of the appeal it's all about Apple's demand for a sales injunction which is only granted when specific requirements are met. It's really easy to look it up for yourself. Just Google "injunction eBay test". Irreparable harm is one of those requirements. IMHO the judges are rightfully doubtful of harm to Apple that can't be cured with a monetary award. That's why the judges, and not just one of them, reference the licensing Apple has already done. Fair or not that's the law of the land at the moment. If you take the time to search and read for 5-10 minutes you might well come to the same conclusion.
Well said, and you are asking a lot from these people here at AI. They read one sentence and then go ballistic without reading the rest of the article. They apparently didn't read this part of the article, "You've already licensed these patents up the wazoo!" Judge Moore said, adding later, ""You've licensed them to everyone. So why is it irreparable harm if Samsung uses the patents?""
Apple has not suffered any irreparable harm because the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus broke all sales records. How has Apple been harmed? They haven't...now they are just trying to be greedy. They need to stop wasting millions on this stupid lawsuit and end all of it. It is a phone, and all phones have similar operational functions. If Apple does build a car, next thing they will do is sue everyone over wheels, tires, steering wheels, seats, etc.
You have people mad at judges when a company loses a lawsuit(they should have won) then cheer on police when they kill a child.
I'm ashamed to be American.
Sammy made BILLIONS ripping off Apple. They should pay back every penny they made if their iPhoneys.
Anyone can then infringe on patents and if the person they are stealing sales from sues they can just reference this case. Basically if you turn a decent profit, your patents will be fair game for everyone simply using this precedent.
Hey, who wants to start a company making iOS clones and selling them for half the price apple does? Apple isn't going to be irreparably harmed after all, and we will be able to use the Samsung defense to get off scott free! Then we simply extend the platform and let the market decide.
Our patent system and its enforcement has been irrevocably broken for quite sometime. If someone harms you in a car crash you are usually awarded up to triple damages with any competent lawyer and a solid case. But here it looks like you are lucky if you get 10%. That means it is cheaper to rip off a patent and pay an insignificant penalty then to create your own patents or license anyone%u2019s. Look at what happened to Sun: Java shamelessly copied and extended. Sun sued, lost and went bankrupt.
Whomever first used use the term "irreparable harm" needs to be slapped a few times.
Not too hard, lest you cause irreparable harm!
So you're justifying Sammy's scumbag attitude by iPhone 6 sales?
Who cares if I chop off your pinky. You still have 9 more derp !!
Because of course there are no other cases going on, so they purposely dragged their feet.
IMO, yes.
Actually that's not what they're saying. It is that the infringement by Samsung can be compensated for by Samsung paying money. They can logically reach that conclusion because Apple has licensed the patents to other companies for some compensation (money, patent usage in exchange, whatever). So if Apple has licensed to others, then the harm cannot be "irreparable". Money can cure it, so no injunction is required.
Isn't that like saying that the movie industry can't have sites, that pirate their movies, shut down since the movie industry offer licenses of their movies to others? Therefore, their only recourse is to seek monetary compensation, if they can find out who own these sites (that pirate their movies), as no "irreparable" damage had occurred.