Is there a matter of Constitionality being raised in the filing?
Its not the SC's role to fix a broken patent system unless there is a possible Constitutinal infringement that warrants a review. It's up to Legislative and executive branch to write and pass the laws, or changes to laws. NOT THE COURTS.
Is there a matter of Constitionality being raised in the filing?
Its not the SC's role to fix a broken patent system unless there is a possible Constitutinal infringement that warrants a review. It's up to Legislative and executive branch to write and pass the laws, or changes to laws. NOT THE COURTS.
Agreed.
Sadly for some, legislative action won't help Samsung, so getting on the docket of the SC is really a Hail Mary Pass, and I don't buy the FUD wrt to precedence of wide application.
IMHO even the most die-hard Apple fan should hope SCOTUS accepts this one. Based on the law as it's been interpreted a "patent troll" armed with the right design patent could legally lay claim to every penny of profit Apple has seen from the Apple Watch for instance (or God-forbid one of the iPhone models). A court finding Apple to be infringing would have no choice but to award 100% of the profits to the patent holder. Not just some portion but 100%. In essence design patents would wield more power and thus much more valuable to non-practicing entities than any utility/technical patent if the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.
Personally I think Apple is taking a chance of cutting off its nose to spite its face. I simply don't understand why they're taking the position they are regarding design patent claims against Samsung. A few hundred million now may come back to bite them in the butt.
Pages marked 23 and 26 (or 37 and 41 in the PDF) begin what I would see as particularly meritorious arguments.
Yeah, but the US Supreme Court is notably a corrupt one (Thomas, Scalia) leaning strongly towards right-wing politics and making fairly regular "political" decisions in that same vein. Scalia in particular makes most of his decisions based on his personal animus. It would be a total crap shoot to take the case there. Literally *anything* could happen and you can be sure it won't have much to do with the actual law on the subject.
How is it corrupt? Because it doesn't have enough liberal ls? ---
Are you fracking for real buddy, Georgie boy the moron prince loaded the place with right wing POS? IF anything, the Supreme court is teaming right wing ideologues forging the law as they see fit.
Are you going to defend Citizen United, a decision thaty undoubtably one of the worse ever and will have to be overturned eventually or the even more stupid Hobby lobby crap which makes no sense no matter how often you read the decision (and has been commented ad nauseum with utter disbelief by the legal community) and will have many long term collateral damages.
W added Alito and Roberts. Hardly stacking the court. In fact the court is evenly split. The "corrupt" court also legalized Obamacare. So I see you have a point.
Can't say that I necessarily disagree that Samsung got what they deserved. In fact I would not be opposed to Apple getting more than they did in all fairness. BUT....
If SCOTUS doesn't accept the appeal it results in the Federal Court decision being precedent-setting. Future design patent infringers will be required to pay 100% of the profits derived on a handset, tablet or whatever for something as simple as using a protected icon whether by intent or accident. It won't matter. Even worse a company could surrender their entire product profit and still be sued by yet other company for some other design patent and pay out that same amount again. For even a huge company like Apple or Google it could potentially destroy them if only found to infringe just 2 or 3 design patents. A handset might use hundreds of design elements between the interface and shell, any one of which might be claimed in some design patent somewhere.
Wait for an NPE to acquire one to use against Apple and others (and one will if SCOTUS doesn't weigh in on the side of limits) and comment again on how fair the interpretation of the law is in your opinion. With the billions in profits the techs are pocketing they'll be in every patent trolls crosshairs. Just one win could turn one of them into the planet's richest company. 100% disgorgement for using one infringing icon out of hundreds will hardly be seen as fair IMHO.
EDIT: This Amicus Brief filed with the Federal Court in support of Samsung's position in this specific case explains it better than I could. Thanks to @anantksundaram and his mention of FossPatents I see that three law professors who previously sided with Apple in other matters support Samsung in this one. They could hardly be considered anti-Apple. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8xYsG-VkgXNXzdDSF9RNS04cFE/edit?pli=1
Nothing precludes SCOTUS from declining to hear this case, but then accepting the next appealed one, particularly if it involved a NPE.
Can't say that I necessarily disagree that Samsung got what they deserved. In fact I would not be opposed to Apple getting more than they did in all fairness. BUT....
If SCOTUS doesn't accept the appeal it results in the Federal Court decision being precedent-setting. Future design patent infringers will be required to pay 100% of the profits derived on a handset, tablet or whatever for something as simple as using a protected icon whether by intent or accident. It won't matter. Even worse a company could surrender their entire product profit and still be sued by yet other company for some other design patent and pay out that same amount again. For even a huge company like Apple or Google it could potentially destroy them if only found to infringe just 2 or 3 design patents. A handset might use hundreds of design elements between the interface and shell, any one of which might be claimed in some design patent somewhere.
Wait for an NPE to acquire one to use against Apple and others (and one will if SCOTUS doesn't weigh in on the side of limits) and comment again on how fair the interpretation of the law is in your opinion. With the billions in profits the techs are pocketing they'll be in every patent trolls crosshairs. Just one win could turn one of them into the planet's richest company. 100% disgorgement for using one infringing icon out of hundreds will hardly be seen as fair IMHO.
EDIT: This Amicus Brief filed with the Federal Court in support of Samsung's position in this specific case explains it better than I could. Thanks to @anantksundaram and his mention of FossPatents I see that three law professors who previously sided with Apple in other matters support Samsung in this one. They could hardly be considered anti-Apple. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8xYsG-VkgXNXzdDSF9RNS04cFE/edit?pli=1
Nothing precludes SCOTUS from declining to hear this case, but then accepting the next appealed one, particularly if it involved a NPE.
So you do see this one as a worthy appeal, but because Samsung deserves the punishment this one should be overlooked and instead take the next one?? Seems chancy if your company is the one getting the next design patent infringement claim.
Thanks to @anantksundaram and his mention of FossPatents I see that three law professors who previously sided with Apple in other matters support Samsung in this one. They could hardly be considered anti-Apple.
Thanks to @anantksundaram and his mention of FossPatents I see that three law professors who previously sided with Apple in other matters support Samsung in this one. They could hardly be considered anti-Apple.
Hey that was me! Not anan.
OOPS!. Sorry. . . And Thanks! (BTW his name is Anant )
On a side-note I often wonder when someone "dislikes" a comment is it because it isn't true or because they'd just prefer it wasn't?
OOPS!. Sorry. . . And Thanks! (BTW his name is Anant )
On a side-note I often wonder when someone "dislikes" a comment is it because it isn't true or because they'd just prefer it wasn't?
Man, I always read Anant's name as Anan T. K. Sundaram. For some reason I read it like TK were two middle initials. Whoops! and thanks for the correction. Sorry @anantksundaram ;
I don't want to derail the thread, but to answer your question I think that my dislikes are more that people just don't like me very much around here. Maybe I am taking it too personally. No, scratch that, I am definitely taking it waaaaaaaay too personally.
Back to reality, you are likely right on both counts. Sometimes things that are said are simply wrong, and sometimes it's hard to let facts and reason get in the way of clicking that "dislike" button.
I am still getting used to the new commenting system. It seems to still be evolving. It was a little rough at first, now I don't mind it. But I do wonder why the need for the change. I must have missed something about the reason they overhauled it.
OOPS!. Sorry. . . And Thanks! (BTW his name is Anant )
On a side-note I often wonder when someone "dislikes" a comment is it because it isn't true or because they'd just prefer it wasn't?
I don't want to derail the thread, but to answer your question I think that my dislikes are more that people just don't like me very much around here. Maybe I am taking it too personally. No, scratch that, I am definitely taking it waaaaaaaay too personally.
People who put being "liked" at the top of their list won't put posting an honest opinion up their with it as the two are mutually exclusive IMO. If you're consistently honest there's gonna be a lot of "dislikes". I wouldn't worry about it.
Comments
Its not the SC's role to fix a broken patent system unless there is a possible Constitutinal infringement that warrants a review. It's up to Legislative and executive branch to write and pass the laws, or changes to laws. NOT THE COURTS.
Sadly for some, legislative action won't help Samsung, so getting on the docket of the SC is really a Hail Mary Pass, and I don't buy the FUD wrt to precedence of wide application.
And Thanks! (BTW his name is Anant
On a side-note I often wonder when someone "dislikes" a comment is it because it isn't true or because they'd just prefer it wasn't?
I don't want to derail the thread, but to answer your question I think that my dislikes are more that people just don't like me very much around here. Maybe I am taking it too personally. No, scratch that, I am definitely taking it waaaaaaaay too personally.
Back to reality, you are likely right on both counts. Sometimes things that are said are simply wrong, and sometimes it's hard to let facts and reason get in the way of clicking that "dislike" button.
I am still getting used to the new commenting system. It seems to still be evolving. It was a little rough at first, now I don't mind it. But I do wonder why the need for the change. I must have missed something about the reason they overhauled it.