US Supreme Court to tackle money owed in Apple v. Samsung patent fight
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a Samsung appeal in the legal battle over how much it owes Apple for infringing iPhone patents, it was revealed on Monday.
The nation's highest court issued a written order saying they would review a lower court's ruling that Samsung must pay Apple millions of dollars for patent infringement, as noted by The Wall Street Journal. The decision is a win for Samsung, which had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of reducing its damages.
Apple had hoped the Supreme Court would not review the case. In its own filings, it argued that the lower court had appropriately assessed fines against Samsung for its infringing products. The company went as far as calling the case "legally unexceptional."
In question is a $548 million patent infringement settlement that Samsung was slapped with. Samsung formally appealed that decision in December of last year. The ongoing legal battle first began five years ago before the settlement was reached.
For its part, Samsung has argued that modern devices like smartphones are not dependent on design for their functionality. According to Samsung, electronic devices "contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design."
The nation's highest court issued a written order saying they would review a lower court's ruling that Samsung must pay Apple millions of dollars for patent infringement, as noted by The Wall Street Journal. The decision is a win for Samsung, which had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of reducing its damages.
Apple had hoped the Supreme Court would not review the case. In its own filings, it argued that the lower court had appropriately assessed fines against Samsung for its infringing products. The company went as far as calling the case "legally unexceptional."
In question is a $548 million patent infringement settlement that Samsung was slapped with. Samsung formally appealed that decision in December of last year. The ongoing legal battle first began five years ago before the settlement was reached.
For its part, Samsung has argued that modern devices like smartphones are not dependent on design for their functionality. According to Samsung, electronic devices "contain countless other features that give them remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their design."
Comments
The problem is Samsung was caught copying the "look and feel" of the iPhone off of a literal roadmap of Apple UI, but the laws are weak on trade dress and design. Even though I believe that Apple has an "identity" that Samsung has attempted to copy, in hardware, software, Ui, even advertising, the SC will probably come down on existing precedent.
Why did Samsung copy the "look and feel"? Because it gave them an advantage in the Android market. The only punishment they will receive is a continued decline in smartphone profits.
The market has taken care of this, not the legal system, but it doesn't change my opinion of Samsung as blatant copiers, not just of Apple, but other leaders in consumer products.
The US government, all branches, is upset with Apple because Apple has more power than the government does (in their puny minds). South Korea and Samsung have their lobbyists and I'm sure they're stuffing the pockets of every politician and judge in the US. Apple's documented lobbyist contributions (payoffs) are minuscule to that of other companies so they just don't get the support of anyone in the government. With the stupid FBI issue going on, it doesn't surprise me that the Supreme Court will hear anything against Apple. I also see the obvious left coast bias against Apple. Apple doesn't play by the old white-man's rules, which are required if you want to do business in DC. Am I being rude, yes. Am I wrong, don't think so.
disclaimer: I bought a crappy Samsung TV a few years ago. I can't change until it finally dies because I paid too much for it. Other than that, there isn't a Samsung device in my house.
Who is "they" in your second sentence? If you mean liberals on the Court, give some examples of decisions showing hatred of business.
If you mean anyone on the left, remember that Apple itself is on the left, and it could not be more pro-business.