It should work but no one will use it because they either don't own Samsung device or don't trust android enough for protecting their financial info in the phone.
Pay up, sucker. 400M is not a big amount, but the truth behind it: Samsung is a copycat! I just love this decision and will see how it reflexes on AAPL tomorrow.
The way I see it, Samsung can/should count their blessings for having to pay pennies for making billions by copying Apple.
Sammy should have been hung, drawn and quartered. Simple.
This whole debacle essentially makes a mockery of the patent system and the American judicial system. If you've got the money you can defend your actions and limit damage. Never mind that you're guilty as sin and already been adjudged to be so. Sad.
What's the bet the Supreme Court soft cocks out of taking a hard stance and awards Apple the win but reduces damages to ohh, I dunno - say 300 mill ? Any takers ?
The Friends of the Court shouldn't have included Google, which is a close partner with Samsung in Android OS products, but it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, and this case isn't precedent setting as some have argued.
The Appeals Court stood with the Jury. It was and continues to be a case of egregious copying by Samsung, based on the evidence in the original trial, and the Jury was able to make an award based on that.
Samsung is free to petition the Supreme Court, but I doubt that it will go anywhere. Apple will likely ask for a retrial on the carved out portion of the award, now that this is (mostly) settled.
The Friends of the Court shouldn't have included Google, which is a close partner with Samsung in Android OS products
Here's a dumb question for you:
If a company had no interests in a court case why would they spend time and money to file an amicus brief? Common sense can still win the day sir. Ask yourself why a patent-trollish acting company like the remnants of Nokia would file one on Apple's behalf.
Every company filing one has a dog in the fight.
*Google's interest would not have to do with Android since that's not involved at all. This is about design elements.
If a company had no interests in a court case why would they spend time and money to file an amicus brief? Common sense can still win the day sir. Ask yourself why a patent-trollish acting company like the remnants of Nokia would file one on Apple's behalf.
Every company filing one has a dog in the fight.
*Google's interest would not have to do with Android since that's not involved at all. This is about design elements.
Apple's response:
“Google has a strong interest in this particular case, is not an impartial ‘friend of the court,’ and should not be permitted to expand Samsung’s word limit under the guise of an amicus brief,” Apple told the court.
I don't know that Apple's response made any difference, but one would be hard pressed not to see Google's close relationship with its largest and most profitable smartphone partner.
I think it's far too soon to insist that software patents "don't work". This is but one case. In many cases licensing agreements are the result, not litigation.
@SpamSandwich : except that this is not a software patent case. This is a design patent case.
Sammy should have been hung, drawn and quartered. Simple.
This whole debacle essentially makes a mockery of the patent system and the American judicial system.
If you've got the money you can defend your actions and limit damage. Never mind that you're guilty as sin and already been adjudged to be so.
Sad.
What's the bet the Supreme Court soft cocks out of taking a hard stance and awards Apple the win but reduces damages to ohh, I dunno - say 300 mill ?
Any takers ?
The Supreme Court addresses constitutional issues, they don't get involved in the amount of damages, AFAIK.
“Google has a strong interest in this particular case, is not an impartial ‘friend of the court,’ and should not be permitted to expand Samsung’s word limit under the guise of an amicus brief,” Apple told the court.
I don't know that Apple's response made any difference, but one would be hard pressed not to see Google's close relationship with its largest and most profitable smartphone partner.
Apple's attorneys wouldn't be very good it they didn't try to be dismissive of anything not favorable to Apple's point of view. Why would expect anything different? They have a dog in the fight too and of would rather the court not give much weight to any amicus briefs that don't support them.
Of course Apple said that. Why would expect anything different? They have a dog in the fight too and would rather the court not give much weight to any amicus briefs that don't support them.
Apple's legal team won, Samsung's legal team lost.
Is it because of the Amicus Brief? Almost certainly not, Is it because of Apple's response? Again, almost certainly not.
The Jury award was within the legal framework based on the facts in the case. That's sufficient in itself for the Court to deny the appeal.
I don't see this case as any sort of precedent. Would you be so adamant about the result if the Google wasn't involved? Perhaps Google is, as some suggest, a de facto party in the case, but I don't agree with that. I just think that the brief would have been stronger without Google's participation, but that was for the Court to decide, and it appears as if it wasn't a factor.
1) The phrase 'justice system' in the U.S. is an oxymoron.
2) Apple should donate the money to a S. Korean charity, and visibly so.
Apple is entitled to recover the profits they would have made if Samsung had not created the opportunity to buy non-Apple phones that satisfied demand for features Apple invented.
Apple is entitled to recover the profits they would have made if Samsung had not created the opportunity to buy non-Apple phones that satisfied demand for features Apple invented.
Um... who said they're not?
I was commenting about this measly $400 million, and a genuine opportunity to shame Samsung.
Predictions: Samsung lawyers will almost certainly try to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, constructing some flimsy and far-fetched constitutional argument. The Supreme Court justices in due course will utter a loud belch by declining to hear the case, in effect kicking Samsung's lawyers into oblivion and off the court's front steps. Done and done.
@kibitzer : well, technically, it's the young fresh-out-of-law-school law clerks who review and decide what gets to be heard in the SCOTUS. Considering that Samsung has the support of the legal community / academics and the industry, they do have a good chance (to be heard) here. Apple has no such support, but has considerable political influence over policy-making (and policy-makers -- eg, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 introduced in August 2012). I think that partly explains the district court judges lopsided rulings so far and the appeals court's silence on Samsung's appeal for appropriate apportionment.
Comments
Can't they just pay and shut up and move on?
They can even pay with Samsung Pay, if it works
It should work but no one will use it because they either don't own Samsung device or don't trust android enough for protecting their financial info in the phone.
This whole debacle essentially makes a mockery of the patent system and the American judicial system.
If you've got the money you can defend your actions and limit damage. Never mind that you're guilty as sin and already been adjudged to be so.
Sad.
What's the bet the Supreme Court soft cocks out of taking a hard stance and awards Apple the win but reduces damages to ohh, I dunno - say 300 mill ?
Any takers ?
The Friends of the Court shouldn't have included Google, which is a close partner with Samsung in Android OS products, but it wouldn't have made any difference anyway, and this case isn't precedent setting as some have argued.
The Appeals Court stood with the Jury. It was and continues to be a case of egregious copying by Samsung, based on the evidence in the original trial, and the Jury was able to make an award based on that.
Samsung is free to petition the Supreme Court, but I doubt that it will go anywhere. Apple will likely ask for a retrial on the carved out portion of the award, now that this is (mostly) settled.
If a company had no interests in a court case why would they spend time and money to file an amicus brief? Common sense can still win the day sir. Ask yourself why a patent-trollish acting company like the remnants of Nokia would file one on Apple's behalf.
Every company filing one has a dog in the fight.
*Google's interest would not have to do with Android since that's not involved at all. This is about design elements.
Here's a dumb question for you:
If a company had no interests in a court case why would they spend time and money to file an amicus brief? Common sense can still win the day sir. Ask yourself why a patent-trollish acting company like the remnants of Nokia would file one on Apple's behalf.
Every company filing one has a dog in the fight.
*Google's interest would not have to do with Android since that's not involved at all. This is about design elements.
Apple's response:
“Google has a strong interest in this particular case, is not an impartial ‘friend of the court,’ and should not be permitted to expand Samsung’s word limit under the guise of an amicus brief,” Apple told the court.
I don't know that Apple's response made any difference, but one would be hard pressed not to see Google's close relationship with its largest and most profitable smartphone partner.
Pay up dumbass Samsung. Though they probably made 20B in sales and market development from this, so the penalty is ridiculously small.
@foggyhill : yep, that's a ridiculous paltry sum, especially compared to what Apple will have to pay Ericsson in royalty.
I think it's far too soon to insist that software patents "don't work". This is but one case. In many cases licensing agreements are the result, not litigation.
@SpamSandwich : except that this is not a software patent case. This is a design patent case.
The Supreme Court addresses constitutional issues, they don't get involved in the amount of damages, AFAIK.
Samsung will wiggle its way out of this. They always do.
2) Apple should donate the money to a S. Korean charity, and visibly so.
Of course Apple said that. Why would expect anything different? They have a dog in the fight too and would rather the court not give much weight to any amicus briefs that don't support them.
Apple's legal team won, Samsung's legal team lost.
Is it because of the Amicus Brief? Almost certainly not, Is it because of Apple's response? Again, almost certainly not.
The Jury award was within the legal framework based on the facts in the case. That's sufficient in itself for the Court to deny the appeal.
I don't see this case as any sort of precedent. Would you be so adamant about the result if the Google wasn't involved? Perhaps Google is, as some suggest, a de facto party in the case, but I don't agree with that. I just think that the brief would have been stronger without Google's participation, but that was for the Court to decide, and it appears as if it wasn't a factor.
Adamant about the result? What result did I say I expected?
Point taken. I should not have stated what I thought your arguments from a previous pass at this implied.
1) The phrase 'justice system' in the U.S. is an oxymoron.
2) Apple should donate the money to a S. Korean charity, and visibly so.
Apple is entitled to recover the profits they would have made if Samsung had not created the opportunity to buy non-Apple phones that satisfied demand for features Apple invented.
Apple is entitled to recover the profits they would have made if Samsung had not created the opportunity to buy non-Apple phones that satisfied demand for features Apple invented.
Um... who said they're not?
I was commenting about this measly $400 million, and a genuine opportunity to shame Samsung.
Predictions: Samsung lawyers will almost certainly try to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, constructing some flimsy and far-fetched constitutional argument. The Supreme Court justices in due course will utter a loud belch by declining to hear the case, in effect kicking Samsung's lawyers into oblivion and off the court's front steps. Done and done.
@kibitzer : well, technically, it's the young fresh-out-of-law-school law clerks who review and decide what gets to be heard in the SCOTUS. Considering that Samsung has the support of the legal community / academics and the industry, they do have a good chance (to be heard) here. Apple has no such support, but has considerable political influence over policy-making (and policy-makers -- eg, the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 introduced in August 2012). I think that partly explains the district court judges lopsided rulings so far and the appeals court's silence on Samsung's appeal for appropriate apportionment.