This trial doesn't really matter anymore. Most of all the patents have been invalidated anyways and the rest will be soon. Apple needs to get on with making great phones and drop all this. Apple hasn't filed patent infringement cases against a Android OEM in almost over 3 years. Apple won in the long run anyways.
Regardless of morals or ethics, it was a bold, calculated... and might I add, successful... tactical business decision by Samsung and their lawyers after the fact.
As far as I can ascertain, Apple has and will always have a difficult time playing down the "patented rounded corners" bogus summary of their decision to sue Samsung.
In essence: Samsung won the short PR battle... but in the long-term and end will have lost the war.
Mainly... and I'll catch some flak over this statement I'm sure... but because of the unfortunate situation and circumstances surrounding Steve Jobs' illness and death, that put a far better tactician... namely Tim Cook... at the helm of Apple to take over the war effort known as going Thermonuclear". TC was the one that ramped up all efforts at Apple to make a smart-phone that Samsung could only copy from appearance (rounded corners? Take 'em who cares! Icons? Knock yourself out!)), but would NEVER be able to equal or reach technically from the insides looking out, or match the ecosystem that Apple cohesively wrapped all of their devices with.
The above tactic and strategy is what will go down in business schools as a case study to learn by, not the original Apple suit. Samsung moving for the short term gain will be seen as near-sighted and foolish in comparison, not because what they may eventually have to pay in dollars.... but in the sense of it all in regards to the big picture AKA Next Big Thing they bet the house on... and lost... Big Time!
All of course IMHO....
Thanks for the well thought out and written response! I agree with you 100%!! Tim Cook changed the dynamics of the battle. As Apple has risen Samsung has fallen. Matching Tim Cook's Apple has been impossible for Samsung as can be seen for the past two years in the smartphone and tablet earnings and profits. Even now Samsung has been reduced to paying Apple's iPhone customers up to $200 to make the switch from the iPhone to a Samsung smartphone. With 73% of iPhone customers getting closer to upgrading their iPhones, the future is looking bright for Apple. (Don't tell Wall Street)
Nothing bogus about how Samsung copied every aspect of the iPhone and called it there own design. The proof is in the profits after Samsung could no longer copy Apple designs and ever since then they have been losing sales like no tomorrow. Because they don't know anything about designing a great product they only know how to copy one.
@spamsandwich : not sure how that's going to fly, in light of the fact that most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung have been invalidated. Of course, Judge Koh could allow Apple to argue that the USPTO never makes any mistakes and, therefore, their patents are still valid, as she did in the last Apple-Samsung trial.
Samsung continue to do this until the damage is $0. Shameless company.
@fallenjt : Sure, and everyone does, and should, this. In fact, in 2012, in a separate complaint, Apple explicitly stated that they were not willing to pay Samsung any GSM/UTM licensing fees until all legal appeals were exhausted -- and that became the basis for which the USITC condemned Apple as an "unwilling licensee," or "reverse hold-up"
It does not appear that Apple has suffered damages over any of these patents.
Apple continues to sell more product than they can make, and are on top of the world for good reason. They simply make great products that people want to buy and use.
So at the end of the day, patents be damned. This has all been a huge exercise in wasting taxpayer money.
@techlover : that's what usually happens in patent lawsuits -- USPTO patent examiners can't look at all prior arts the first time, but they eventually get it right, however costly and time-consuming. Remember also that Apple's R&D spending and the number of patents granted prior to 2012 were paltry -- their patent portfolio wasn't that strong or large. I'm surprised that Apple got this far -- and ended up with a lopsided decision that awarded an unprecedented, absurd amount for the type of patents Apple was asserting. Perhaps it was only possible because Samsung is a foreign company.
It's all up to Judge Koh's discretion at this point, and she's made blatantly lopsided procedural rulings in the past (some reversed by the higher courts), so I won't be too surprised if she makes some more crazy decisions in favor of Apple again.
@techlover : that's what usually happens in patent lawsuits -- USPTO patent examiners can't look at all prior arts the first time, but they eventually get it right, however costly and time-consuming. Remember also that Apple's R&D spending and the number of patents granted prior to 2012 was paltry -- their patent portfolio wasn't that strong or large. I'm surprised that Apple got this far -- and ended up with a lopsided decision that awarded an unprecedented, absurd amount for the type of patents Apple was asserting. Perhaps it was only possible because Samsung is a foreign company.
Nope. Unless it's changed this is going to be the next goldmine for NPE's. Lawsuits are already in the works. Based on the law as it's been interpreted if a single icon out of hundreds on Apple's MacBook Air were found to be infringing on someone's lawfully awarded design patent the owner would be entitled to Apple's entire profit on MacBook Airs. Not simply a portion attributable to the interface. All of it. According to the Appeals Court ruling there would be no choice but to do so. It's out of their hands.
Actually I don't think Apple was "hoping" for anything other than to get Samsung and any other manufacturers with similar ideas to quit stealing their designs. The monetary reward was secondary and I doubt ever counted on receiving a substantial amount any time soon.
@ThePixelDoc : well, if the USPTO keeps invalidating Apple's patents, there won't be anything to protect, right? Maybe Apple needs to stop patenting things like "rounded corners," and hope that they could litigate their competitors to death to keep them out of the market, until it gets invalidated.
As much as I appreciate their design aesthetics, I'd like to see Apple make some breakthrough techs in battery, display, or mobile communication; no more of these BS derivative design patents.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/41655/ThePixelDoc" style="display:inline-block;">@ThePixelDoc</a>
: well, if the USPTO keeps invalidating Apple's patents, there won't be anything to protect, right? Maybe Apple needs to stop patenting things like "rounded corners," and hope that they could litigate their competitors to death to keep them out of the market, until it gets invalidated.
As much as I appreciate their design aesthetics, I'd like to see Apple make some breakthrough techs in battery, display, or mobile communication; no more of these BS derivative design patents.
So would you completely do away with design patents? Should designs be protected at all, or poosibly by copyright? Since batteries, displays and mobile communications radios are all at one time just a "design", should they also not be allowed to be patented? Also since the aforementioned contains processes that use basically math, physics and chemistry, what if any should be protected?
Nice story, unfortunately it is not based on reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot
Nothing bogus about how Samsung copied every aspect of the iPhone and called it there own design. The proof is in the profits after Samsung could no longer copy Apple designs and ever since then they have been losing sales like no tomorrow. Because they don't know anything about designing a great product they only know how to copy one.
Nice story, unfortunately it is not based on facts but on emotions. Samsung do still sell the most phones of any manufacturer.
: well, if the USPTO keeps invalidating Apple's patents, there won't be anything to protect, right? Maybe Apple needs to stop patenting things like "rounded corners," and hope that they could litigate their competitors to death to keep them out of the market, until it gets invalidated.
As much as I appreciate their design aesthetics, I'd like to see Apple make some breakthrough techs in battery, display, or mobile communication; no more of these BS derivative design patents.
So would you completely do away with design patents? Should designs be protected at all, or poosibly by copyright? Since batteries, displays and mobile communications radios are all at one time just a "design", should they also not be allowed to be patented? Also since the aforementioned contains processes that use basically math, physics and chemistry, what if any should be protected?
Good question.
What should be allowed to be protected under trade dress, patents, or copyright?
It's no wonder these things drag on for years and the lawyers involved get paid oodles of money.
Sometimes I think I need to unblock all the people I have blocked on this forum and enjoy the silliness. Then I feel that life is too short for all that crap.
So would you completely do away with design patents? Should designs be protected at all, or poosibly by copyright? Since batteries, displays and mobile communications radios are all at one time just a "design", should they also not be allowed to be patented? Also since the aforementioned contains processes that use basically math, physics and chemistry, what if any should be protected?
@ThePixelDoc : Sure, but why throw away the baby with the bathwater? We do want to keep new, non-obvious technical method patents, or "design" if you prefer to use that vague term liberally, but certainly don't want to confuse that with visual "fashion design," that you are referring to here.
Comments
Regardless of morals or ethics, it was a bold, calculated... and might I add, successful... tactical business decision by Samsung and their lawyers after the fact.
As far as I can ascertain, Apple has and will always have a difficult time playing down the "patented rounded corners" bogus summary of their decision to sue Samsung.
In essence: Samsung won the short PR battle... but in the long-term and end will have lost the war.
Mainly... and I'll catch some flak over this statement I'm sure... but because of the unfortunate situation and circumstances surrounding Steve Jobs' illness and death, that put a far better tactician... namely Tim Cook... at the helm of Apple to take over the war effort known as going Thermonuclear". TC was the one that ramped up all efforts at Apple to make a smart-phone that Samsung could only copy from appearance (rounded corners? Take 'em who cares! Icons? Knock yourself out!)), but would NEVER be able to equal or reach technically from the insides looking out, or match the ecosystem that Apple cohesively wrapped all of their devices with.
The above tactic and strategy is what will go down in business schools as a case study to learn by, not the original Apple suit. Samsung moving for the short term gain will be seen as near-sighted and foolish in comparison, not because what they may eventually have to pay in dollars.... but in the sense of it all in regards to the big picture AKA Next Big Thing they bet the house on... and lost... Big Time!
All of course IMHO....
Thanks for the well thought out and written response! I agree with you 100%!! Tim Cook changed the dynamics of the battle. As Apple has risen Samsung has fallen. Matching Tim Cook's Apple has been impossible for Samsung as can be seen for the past two years in the smartphone and tablet earnings and profits. Even now Samsung has been reduced to paying Apple's iPhone customers up to $200 to make the switch from the iPhone to a Samsung smartphone. With 73% of iPhone customers getting closer to upgrading their iPhones, the future is looking bright for Apple. (Don't tell Wall Street)
Nothing bogus about how Samsung copied every aspect of the iPhone and called it there own design. The proof is in the profits after Samsung could no longer copy Apple designs and ever since then they have been losing sales like no tomorrow. Because they don't know anything about designing a great product they only know how to copy one.
Add more bass to the treble damages!
@spamsandwich : not sure how that's going to fly, in light of the fact that most of Apple's patents asserted against Samsung have been invalidated. Of course, Judge Koh could allow Apple to argue that the USPTO never makes any mistakes and, therefore, their patents are still valid, as she did in the last Apple-Samsung trial.
Samsung continue to do this until the damage is $0. Shameless company.
@fallenjt : Sure, and everyone does, and should, this. In fact, in 2012, in a separate complaint, Apple explicitly stated that they were not willing to pay Samsung any GSM/UTM licensing fees until all legal appeals were exhausted -- and that became the basis for which the USITC condemned Apple as an "unwilling licensee," or "reverse hold-up"
Seems like the longer this drags on the amount of damages keeps dwindling.
This may not end nearly as well for Apple as they had hoped. One by one these patents are found to be invalid.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/before-apple-collects-dime-from-samsung.html
It does not appear that Apple has suffered damages over any of these patents.
Apple continues to sell more product than they can make, and are on top of the world for good reason. They simply make great products that people want to buy and use.
So at the end of the day, patents be damned. This has all been a huge exercise in wasting taxpayer money.
@techlover : that's what usually happens in patent lawsuits -- USPTO patent examiners can't look at all prior arts the first time, but they eventually get it right, however costly and time-consuming. Remember also that Apple's R&D spending and the number of patents granted prior to 2012 were paltry -- their patent portfolio wasn't that strong or large. I'm surprised that Apple got this far -- and ended up with a lopsided decision that awarded an unprecedented, absurd amount for the type of patents Apple was asserting. Perhaps it was only possible because Samsung is a foreign company.
It's all up to Judge Koh's discretion at this point, and she's made blatantly lopsided procedural rulings in the past (some reversed by the higher courts), so I won't be too surprised if she makes some more crazy decisions in favor of Apple again.
Nope. Unless it's changed this is going to be the next goldmine for NPE's. Lawsuits are already in the works. Based on the law as it's been interpreted if a single icon out of hundreds on Apple's MacBook Air were found to be infringing on someone's lawfully awarded design patent the owner would be entitled to Apple's entire profit on MacBook Airs. Not simply a portion attributable to the interface. All of it. According to the Appeals Court ruling there would be no choice but to do so. It's out of their hands.
Fact.
Actually I don't think Apple was "hoping" for anything other than to get Samsung and any other manufacturers with similar ideas to quit stealing their designs. The monetary reward was secondary and I doubt ever counted on receiving a substantial amount any time soon.
@ThePixelDoc : well, if the USPTO keeps invalidating Apple's patents, there won't be anything to protect, right? Maybe Apple needs to stop patenting things like "rounded corners," and hope that they could litigate their competitors to death to keep them out of the market, until it gets invalidated.
As much as I appreciate their design aesthetics, I'd like to see Apple make some breakthrough techs in battery, display, or mobile communication; no more of these BS derivative design patents.
So would you completely do away with design patents? Should designs be protected at all, or poosibly by copyright? Since batteries, displays and mobile communications radios are all at one time just a "design", should they also not be allowed to be patented? Also since the aforementioned contains processes that use basically math, physics and chemistry, what if any should be protected?
In all fairness it would appear that Apple did NOT have a patent until November 2008. Therefore there should not be a court case.
Nice story, unfortunately it is not based on reality.
Nothing bogus about how Samsung copied every aspect of the iPhone and called it there own design. The proof is in the profits after Samsung could no longer copy Apple designs and ever since then they have been losing sales like no tomorrow. Because they don't know anything about designing a great product they only know how to copy one.
Nice story, unfortunately it is not based on facts but on emotions. Samsung do still sell the most phones of any manufacturer.
@ThePixelDoc
: well, if the USPTO keeps invalidating Apple's patents, there won't be anything to protect, right? Maybe Apple needs to stop patenting things like "rounded corners," and hope that they could litigate their competitors to death to keep them out of the market, until it gets invalidated.
As much as I appreciate their design aesthetics, I'd like to see Apple make some breakthrough techs in battery, display, or mobile communication; no more of these BS derivative design patents.
So would you completely do away with design patents? Should designs be protected at all, or poosibly by copyright? Since batteries, displays and mobile communications radios are all at one time just a "design", should they also not be allowed to be patented? Also since the aforementioned contains processes that use basically math, physics and chemistry, what if any should be protected?
Good question.
What should be allowed to be protected under trade dress, patents, or copyright?
It's no wonder these things drag on for years and the lawyers involved get paid oodles of money.
Sometimes I think I need to unblock all the people I have blocked on this forum and enjoy the silliness. Then I feel that life is too short for all that crap.
So would you completely do away with design patents? Should designs be protected at all, or poosibly by copyright? Since batteries, displays and mobile communications radios are all at one time just a "design", should they also not be allowed to be patented? Also since the aforementioned contains processes that use basically math, physics and chemistry, what if any should be protected?
@ThePixelDoc : Sure, but why throw away the baby with the bathwater? We do want to keep new, non-obvious technical method patents, or "design" if you prefer to use that vague term liberally, but certainly don't want to confuse that with visual "fashion design," that you are referring to here.