Samsung to petition Supreme Court over Apple patent fight

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 49
    A Corey Hart reference in a Samsung/Apple dispute? Now I've seen everything.
  • Reply 22 of 49

    covering the original iPhone on multiple counts of prior art, at least two of which involved Apple's own patents.

     

    It's really a strange patent system when your OWN patents invalidate a subsequent patent. They say this as if it isn't totally absurd.

  • Reply 23 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ImperialForces View Post



    These guys don't just know when to quit. Every time I hear about this case I'm reminded that Samsung plagiarized an American company. Only a narcissist would take the case this far. The damage to their brand caused by these constant reminders more than outweighs the fine they could have paid four(?) years ago.



    Well Samsung stayed in the game by copying Apple -- while other companies that didn't fell by the wayside. HTC and a few others are still in the game, but MOST, only make a few pennies on a smart phone. They brought in something like $20 B in revenue. So paying $.5 B is a pure example to all companies that it pays to steal.

     

    Most people who hate whatever is popular, or just anyone, applaud Samsung. A large nearly state sponsored winner, using sweat shops and copying the choice technology that uses their manufacturing plants. Smaller companies probably have little recourse. And it's not even a US company so what the heck is everyone cheering about?

     

    Misinformed people call Apple a litigious thief -- the same company that didn't bother to copyright thousands of unique features that Bill gates took advantage of along with other companies for nearly a decade. They learned their lesson and realized they needed to have preemptive lawsuits or else abandon their rights (obviously, this is necessary part of US patent law to guarantee that ONLY deep pocket companies an protect IP).

     

    Apple is kind of unique because they do their own thing based on what they think is the most elegant and useful thing. They don't bother to go into a market unless they can be the best. I'm not saying that as a fan -- that was Steve Jobs strategy and religion. If he couldn't be the best, he didn't want to do it. Sometimes that leaves them myopic and it takes them a while to "borrow" features that make a lot of sense from other platforms. Like copying and pasting files in Windows. But overall, they just aren't a company that follows and takes. 

     

    Apple is on top by NOT forcing deals with distributors like Microsoft, and by not stealing designs but spending years before going into market and perfecting a new product before release -- forcing other companies to play catchup. With their large cash reserves they can guarantee prices and lock up necessary resources for years -- the only company that can challenge that is of course Samsung.

     

    It pays to play the game, however. They might spend a $ million on legal fees and save $200 million and because they cheated, they made billions. Why shouldn't large companies act like Banks or Samsung? It's not like the public seems to research beyond the headlines from a media ready to push any meme that gets the most attention.

  • Reply 24 of 49
    double post :(
  • Reply 25 of 49

    Well Samsung stayed in the game by copying Apple -- while other companies that didn't fell by the wayside. HTC and a few others are still in the game, but MOST, only make a few pennies on a smart phone. They brought in something like $20 B in revenue. So paying $.5 B is a pure example to all companies that it pays to steal.

    Most people who hate whatever is popular, or just anyone, applaud Samsung. A large nearly state sponsored winner, using sweat shops and copying the choice technology that uses their manufacturing plants. Smaller companies probably have little recourse. And it's not even a US company so what the heck is everyone cheering about?

    Misinformed people call Apple a litigious thief -- the same company that didn't bother to copyright thousands of unique features that Bill gates took advantage of along with other companies for nearly a decade. They learned their lesson and realized they needed to have preemptive lawsuits or else abandon their rights (obviously, this is necessary part of US patent law to guarantee that ONLY deep pocket companies an protect IP).

    Apple is kind of unique because they do their own thing based on what they think is the most elegant and useful thing. They don't bother to go into a market unless they can be the best. I'm not saying that as a fan -- that was Steve Jobs strategy and religion. If he couldn't be the best, he didn't want to do it. Sometimes that leaves them myopic and it takes them a while to "borrow" features that make a lot of sense from other platforms. Like copying and pasting files in Windows. But overall, they just aren't a company that follows and takes. 

    Apple is on top by NOT forcing deals with distributors like Microsoft, and by not stealing designs but spending years before going into market and perfecting a new product before release -- forcing other companies to play catchup. With their large cash reserves they can guarantee prices and lock up necessary resources for years -- the only company that can challenge that is of course Samsung.

    It pays to play the game, however. They might spend a $ million on legal fees and save $200 million and because they cheated, they made billions. Why shouldn't large companies act like Banks or Samsung? It's not like the public seems to research beyond the headlines from a media ready to push any meme that gets the most attention.

    You speak a sad truth, my friend.
  • Reply 26 of 49
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,053member
    POS Samsung got no shame. I hate this fucking company...seriously...
  • Reply 27 of 49
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,369member

    I hope that SCOTUS makes an example out of Samsung on this. Reward the triple damages and make them pay for all legal fees. I'm sorry, but I've watched this play out since the first iPhone was announced and then watched Android steal Apple's concepts and ideas. It's pathetic and needs to be stopped. Otherwise, why would anyone take the time to come up with a novel idea and patent something?

  • Reply 28 of 49

    Doesn't Samsung now have new ammo to fire in the SCOTUS, with the USPTO invalidating a couple of Apple's patents? Or is that something else?

     

    I'm wondering if Apple really is a US company, the way the US courts, government and all other official agencies are forever trying to bring it down, or cut it down to size. I thought everyone in the US loved a great US success story.

  • Reply 29 of 49
    Samsung. Give it up and pay your fine! Hopefully it will include costs and interest too.
  • Reply 30 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ImperialForces View Post



    These guys don't just know when to quit. ........

    It's part of their business model.  Rip people off, spin out the court case, appeal at every possible opportunity to drag it out for years.  Then if they do eventually have to pay a fine drag that out as far as they can.

     

    By the time it catches up with them it's way too late for it to have any significant impact since the profits during that period probably far outweigh any fines they may have to pay. 

  • Reply 31 of 49
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

     

    Doesn't Samsung now have new ammo to fire in the SCOTUS, with the USPTO invalidating a couple of Apple's patents? Or is that something else?

     

    I'm wondering if Apple really is a US company, the way the US courts, government and all other official agencies are forever trying to bring it down, or cut it down to size. I thought everyone in the US loved a great US success story.




    The recent decision to invalidate certain Apple patents is not final. There’s more arguing before a final decree. But yes, Samsung will try to use this to stall once again.

  • Reply 32 of 49
    nousernouser Posts: 65member

    I just moved.  I needed new appliances, washer, dryer, refrigerator, range, microwave and a 60" flat screen TV.  I completely shunned Samsung.  They lost over $10k in sales from me, due entirely to their behavior. Samsung's unethical behavior is hurting them in other market segments, not just smartphones. Why support a company who is known to be a thief?

  • Reply 33 of 49
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Is this some Asian culture/honor thing? I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will take this appeal. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.

    Hopefully if this fails, the entire board fall on a sword.
  • Reply 34 of 49
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

    I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will take this appeal. They’ve got bigger fish to fry.


    Thomas loves to write screwy patent opinions. It's not a sure thing they won't take this one in an opportunity to be wrong again.

     

    Best of luck storming the castle!

  • Reply 35 of 49
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member

    According to F. Mueller, there are plenty more White Swans signing on to support Samsung in its bid to gain access to a Supremes ruling. Copying, it appears, is evidently not that big a deal to anyone but Black Swans. 

  • Reply 36 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    According to F. Mueller, there are plenty more White Swans signing on to support Samsung in its bid to gain access to a Supremes ruling. Copying, it appears, is evidently not that big a deal to anyone but Black Swans. 


     

    @tmay : the case at this stage isn't about the copying -- Apple's hometown jury already decided on that in 2012 -- but about appropriate apportionment and what can be design patented.

  • Reply 37 of 49
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

     

    I hope that SCOTUS makes an example out of Samsung on this. Reward the triple damages and make them pay for all legal fees. I'm sorry, but I've watched this play out since the first iPhone was announced and then watched Android steal Apple's concepts and ideas. It's pathetic and needs to be stopped. Otherwise, why would anyone take the time to come up with a novel idea and patent something?


     

    @jkichline : you've watched this play out and still believe the SCOTUS is going to triple damages and make them pay for all legal fees?  LOL

  • Reply 38 of 49
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    I truly hope the SCOTUS has the decency, good sense, and most importantly, wisdom to dismiss it outright. With a laugh.



    But I am doubtful.



    They don't have any of those things much of the time, but it's still not going to be heard by the Supreme Court.   The Supreme Court generally will only take on cases that have major constitutional ramifications.   This one doesn't.    

  • Reply 39 of 49
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

     

     

    @tmay : the case at this stage isn't about the copying -- Apple's hometown jury already decided on that in 2012 -- but about appropriate apportionment and what can be design patented.


    Not entirely.

     

    I read the amicus brief that Google supported. There was a paragraph in there about a study that indicated that features are important to buyers, which is probably true for the White Swans. For Black Swans like Apple, the ecosystem of hardware and software is what drives Apple sales, and that is exactly what Samsung was and is still attempting to copy, badly I might add.

     

    Even now, Apple has the industry flummoxed by its increasing ability to gain switchers, especially from first time Android owners. The problem for Apple is that there are no strong trade dress options, so Apple used the available legal system to derive a suitable penalty for Samsung.

     

    I get that the tech industry doesn't like that, but I also get that Apple wants the tech world on notice that it will use whatever means is available to stop blatant copiers as Samsung is.

     

    Apple wants design to be treated as first class IP; the industry, which is by and large devoid of design, does not side with Apple.

     

    edit;

     

    If you want to see what blatant copying looks on a large scale, watch the Android Wearables that hit the market. Want to bet that there will be a lot top tier traditional watchmakers that will see their design elements front and center for cheap smartwatches. Great for brand dilution.

  • Reply 40 of 49
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Not entirely.

     

    I read the amicus brief that Google supported. There was a paragraph in there about a study that indicated that features are important to buyers, which is probably true for the White Swans. For Black Swans like Apple, the ecosystem of hardware and software is what drives Apple sales, and that is exactly what Samsung was and is still attempting to copy, badly I might add.

     

    Even now, Apple has the industry flummoxed by its increasing ability to gain switchers, especially from first time Android owners. The problem for Apple is that there are no strong trade dress options, so Apple used the available legal system to derive a suitable penalty for Samsung.

     

    I get that the tech industry doesn't like that, but I also get that Apple wants the tech world on notice that it will use whatever means is available to stop blatant copiers as Samsung is.

     

    Apple wants design to be treated as first class IP; the industry, which is by and large devoid of design, does not side with Apple.


     

    @tmay : Let me repeat, this case at this point is all about Apple's design patents, or, specifically, their applicabilities and compensation.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple's hardware, software, or ecosystem, as you falsely insinuate here.

     

    There is no "not entirely."  Google's argument about multitude of features in its amicus brief is intended to dilute the importance of "design patent" on which Apple's 2012 victory is based, and to give rationale for (smaller) appropriate apportionment in favor of Samsung. You are now essentially agreeing with Google that Apple's design isn't the main driver for market demand -- it's their ecosystem and software that drive Apple sales.  This argument would help undermine Apple's case for a total disgorgement (or design patents in general), as it stands now, and in favor of Samsung. 

Sign In or Register to comment.