News flash Thomas Edison comes back from the dead to sue modern day LED lightbulb manufacturers for stealing his idea. The iPhone is still the best phone you can buy but it is a mature product and competitors with quite good phones abound. I guess this is about pride.
All those light bulb patents Edison had, expired sometime in the early 1900's, when he was still alive. So Edison can't sue anyone for using his patents, after he died and if he were to come back to live.
But here's an article about what Edison thought about the US patent system and how they don't protect an inventor's invention, back when he was still inventing in the early 1900's. And surely if he came back to live today, he would side with Apple. Or least see than not much has changed since his time.
“There is no such thing in this country as an inventor’s monopoly. The
moment he invents something that is an epoch-maker in the world of
science and commerce, there will be pirates to spring up on all sides
and contest his rights to his ideas."
Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Judy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions.
Yeah... we all have issues with the verdict. Samsung should have been forced to pay the original $1B verdict!
Either way, this is perfect. Samsung once again got smacked in the face. Now stop stalling and pay the damn judgement!
In the end, Samsung still laughed to the bank. It made billions of dollars off the iKnockoffs over the years. It's like robbing at bank, paying a fine with the stolen money, and getting to keep the rest of the stolen money.
To Samsung, this is just a business expense, a cost of doing business.
Yeah $500 Million is a lot, but in the end its still a bargain and the amount of time and money Apple's legal team spent on this is got to be in the millions of dollars alone. Samsung made out in the end. I still think they knew they were in the wrong and were purposely dragging the case on to make Apple lose as much money as possible on this.
Yeah, Samsung made out like a bandit and so did all of the other cloners whose entire smartphone future was based on switching over to the iPhone as the design archetype for their own products. Sure, most of them tweaked their designs just enough to avoid the obvious plagerism that took place, but in the end every successful smartphone shipped since the iPhone can trace its lineage to the iPhone. Behind the thin veneer, the marketing smoke and mirrors, and self serving deceptive claims to the contrary, every single builder of smartphones and accompanying iOS clones like Android was very intentionally and purposefully copying the iPhone. They knew it and the market knew it all along. As Apple fans we can lament the lost opportunity for 100% total world domination in a product segment, but at least the cloners and me-too designers avoided what probably would have resulted in intervention from governments had Apple refused to license its IP to others.
I view the iPhone as the HMS Dreadnought of the mobile phone market. Once it appeared on the scene all older designs were instantly obsoleted and all future designs that deviated from the archetype that it represented would not be viable. The motivation to clone and copy is irresistible - patents be damned, fines are better than total obliteration. However, missing out on a breakthrough design does not preclude other vendors from trying to leapfrog the current archetype and attempt to develop a product that may represent the next generation or improvement on the current archetype. That's a very difficult and costly endeavor made even harder when the IP for the current archetype is defined in a broad enough sense to preclude derivative designs. But it can be done. Historically, and certainly in the case of Samsung, they took the patents-be-damned approach and hired a team of lawyers to fend off the onslaught. In the end, if all it cost them is a little over $500 million USD their macro strategy was a spectacular success. They should slither back to their camp and try to use this payback to brush some of the dirt off their already messy reputation.
I don't believe you nor anyone would sign up for Apple owning 100% percent of a product category.
Since Apple is doing nothing much with money they have with their buggy, incomplete, outdated, cancelled products, maybe they could use that money to give their lowest paid workers a meaningful pay rise, not use all, then put the rest aside and use it to fund it ongoing.
Or if they are going to use it to make stupid TV shows, then give it back to Samsung.
So... give people more money for doing nothing? That’s not good business practice. People should be smart and buy Apple stock for themselves.
This was a trial from 2012, covering only Samsung handset models sold in the United States up to that point. While Samsung may have quickly changed the snap-back behavior and swipe-to-unlock to avoid infringing in future models, it doesn’t appear they changed, or even could have changed, their phones’ overall designs to avoid continuing to infringe the design patents that made up the vast majority of the damages in this case. And so it’s possible Apple could seek to add later models to this verdict, which would then potentially amount to a multiple of the current damages awards given the way the overall smartphone market, and Samsung’s unit volumes, expanded in the years since 2012. Food for thought.
Apple lost a design patent claim in this lawsuit against Samsung's tablet. I think the ship has sailed on trying to sue for a design patent violation.
Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Judy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions.
Yeah... we all have issues with the verdict. Samsung should have been forced to pay the original $1B verdict!
Either way, this is perfect. Samsung once again got smacked in the face. Now stop stalling and pay the damn judgement!
In the end, Samsung still laughed to the bank. It made billions of dollars off the iKnockoffs over the years. It's like robbing at bank, paying a fine with the stolen money, and getting to keep the rest of the stolen money.
To Samsung, this is just a business expense, a cost of doing business.
Yeah $500 Million is a lot, but in the end its still a bargain and the amount of time and money Apple's legal team spent on this is got to be in the millions of dollars alone. Samsung made out in the end. I still think they knew they were in the wrong and were purposely dragging the case on to make Apple lose as much money as possible on this.
Yeah, Samsung made out like a bandit and so did all of the other cloners whose entire smartphone future was based on switching over to the iPhone as the design archetype for their own products. Sure, most of them tweaked their designs just enough to avoid the obvious plagerism that took place, but in the end every successful smartphone shipped since the iPhone can trace its lineage to the iPhone. Behind the thin veneer, the marketing smoke and mirrors, and self serving deceptive claims to the contrary, every single builder of smartphones and accompanying iOS clones like Android was very intentionally and purposefully copying the iPhone. They knew it and the market knew it all along. As Apple fans we can lament the lost opportunity for 100% total world domination in a product segment, but at least the cloners and me-too designers avoided what probably would have resulted in intervention from governments had Apple refused to license its IP to others.
I view the iPhone as the HMS Dreadnought of the mobile phone market. Once it appeared on the scene all older designs were instantly obsoleted and all future designs that deviated from the archetype that it represented would not be viable. The motivation to clone and copy is irresistible - patents be damned, fines are better than total obliteration. However, missing out on a breakthrough design does not preclude other vendors from trying to leapfrog the current archetype and attempt to develop a product that may represent the next generation or improvement on the current archetype. That's a very difficult and costly endeavor made even harder when the IP for the current archetype is defined in a broad enough sense to preclude derivative designs. But it can be done. Historically, and certainly in the case of Samsung, they took the patents-be-damned approach and hired a team of lawyers to fend off the onslaught. In the end, if all it cost them is a little over $500 million USD their macro strategy was a spectacular success. They should slither back to their camp and try to use this payback to brush some of the dirt off their already messy reputation.
I don't believe you nor anyone would sign up for Apple owning 100% percent of a product category.
I agree, but nobody really "signs up" for how history unfolds.
Using the battleship analogy again, while the HMS Dreadnought forever changed battleship design and rendered all earlier designs obsolete, the battleship category as a whole was obsoleted in a fairly short period of time by the aircraft carrier. So even if the other phone makers believed that they had no choice other than to copy the iPhone they could have conceivably come up with the successor to the iPhone that would blow the iPhone out of the water. But they didn't even try - and are still not trying.
I don't know why we don't hear more about that. From what I remember a while back, damages could be tripled if 'willful intent' to copy could be proven. In this case, I don't know how much more obvious it can get. samsung created an entire gd presentation on how they were going to copy the iphone's UI, including diagrams and screen grabs!
On top of that, didn't google (of all companies..) send and email to them warning not to copy so closely? And yet they kept going.
Don't see how it could get more 'willful' than that.
I don't know why we don't hear more about that. From what I remember a while back, damages could be tripled if 'willful intent' to copy could be proven. In this case, I don't know how much more obvious it can get. samsung created an entire gd presentation on how they were going to copy the iphone's UI, including diagrams and screen grabs!
On top of that, didn't google (of all companies..) send and email to them warning not to copy so closely? And yet they kept going.
Don't see how it could get more 'willful' than that.
I don't know why we don't hear more about that. From what I remember a while back, damages could be tripled if 'willful intent' to copy could be proven. In this case, I don't know how much more obvious it can get. samsung created an entire gd presentation on how they were going to copy the iphone's UI, including diagrams and screen grabs!
On top of that, didn't google (of all companies..) send and email to them warning not to copy so closely? And yet they kept going.
Don't see how it could get more 'willful' than that.
It’s because that document covered changes Samsung made to copy Apple’s UX. They were all software UI elements. And this trial, very early on, was limited by the judge to just a handful of patents. Apple, on the judge’s order, included only a couple software patents that Samsung’s document might have covered (I don’t recall, but I think they were in there). And so that document would provide evidence of willful intent only for the small amount ($5 million) applied against the two software patents in this case. The document would not have covered the hardware design patents that made up the vast majority of the damages, though there might have been evidence to present that would show willful intent on those patents. Just that the document Samsung created is not evidence against those patents.
I don't know why we don't hear more about that. From what I remember a while back, damages could be tripled if 'willful intent' to copy could be proven. In this case, I don't know how much more obvious it can get. samsung created an entire gd presentation on how they were going to copy the iphone's UI, including diagrams and screen grabs!
On top of that, didn't google (of all companies..) send and email to them warning not to copy so closely? And yet they kept going.
Don't see how it could get more 'willful' than that.
It’s because that document covered changes Samsung made to copy Apple’s UX. They were all software UI elements. And this trial, very early on, was limited by the judge to just a handful of patents. Apple, on the judge’s order, included only a couple software patents that Samsung’s document might have covered (I don’t recall, but I think they were in there). And so that document would provide evidence of willful intent only for the small amount ($5 million) applied against the two software patents in this case. The document would not have covered the hardware design patents that made up the vast majority of the damages, though there might have been evidence to present that would show willful intent on those patents. Just that the document Samsung created is not evidence against those patents.
Thanks for that info! This issue has been gnawing at the back of my mind since the first verdict came out.
A better comparison is the GDP of South Korea, $1.4B US in 2016 and I bet most of that came from Samsung products.
To trace it all the way back it came from US tax dollars rebuilding at the end of WWII, but hey. I guess we prefer our IP being stolen by the countries we created/defended/still defend to seeing American interests protected.
So before Samsung phones looked more like Nokia's and blackberry phones and after they looked like any smartphone for the past years after apple released the iPhone. However those don't look the same... I think they need some glasses coz there's carbon copies of iPhone in China and no one cares. Samsung phones aren't carbon copy. They just follow the same principle of a full screen phone like any other full screen phone design. If they call this a copy, then HTC should sue apple for copying the HTC design. Lol
Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Judy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions.
Yeah... we all have issues with the verdict. Samsung should have been forced to pay the original $1B verdict!
Either way, this is perfect. Samsung once again got smacked in the face. Now stop stalling and pay the damn judgement!
In the end, Samsung still laughed to the bank. It made billions of dollars off the iKnockoffs over the years. It's like robbing at bank, paying a fine with the stolen money, and getting to keep the rest of the stolen money.
To Samsung, this is just a business expense, a cost of doing business.
Yeah $500 Million is a lot, but in the end its still a bargain and the amount of time and money Apple's legal team spent on this is got to be in the millions of dollars alone. Samsung made out in the end. I still think they knew they were in the wrong and were purposely dragging the case on to make Apple lose as much money as possible on this.
Yeah, Samsung made out like a bandit and so did all of the other cloners whose entire smartphone future was based on switching over to the iPhone as the design archetype for their own products. Sure, most of them tweaked their designs just enough to avoid the obvious plagerism that took place, but in the end every successful smartphone shipped since the iPhone can trace its lineage to the iPhone. Behind the thin veneer, the marketing smoke and mirrors, and self serving deceptive claims to the contrary, every single builder of smartphones and accompanying iOS clones like Android was very intentionally and purposefully copying the iPhone. They knew it and the market knew it all along. As Apple fans we can lament the lost opportunity for 100% total world domination in a product segment, but at least the cloners and me-too designers avoided what probably would have resulted in intervention from governments had Apple refused to license its IP to others.
I view the iPhone as the HMS Dreadnought of the mobile phone market. Once it appeared on the scene all older designs were instantly obsoleted and all future designs that deviated from the archetype that it represented would not be viable. The motivation to clone and copy is irresistible - patents be damned, fines are better than total obliteration. However, missing out on a breakthrough design does not preclude other vendors from trying to leapfrog the current archetype and attempt to develop a product that may represent the next generation or improvement on the current archetype. That's a very difficult and costly endeavor made even harder when the IP for the current archetype is defined in a broad enough sense to preclude derivative designs. But it can be done. Historically, and certainly in the case of Samsung, they took the patents-be-damned approach and hired a team of lawyers to fend off the onslaught. In the end, if all it cost them is a little over $500 million USD their macro strategy was a spectacular success. They should slither back to their camp and try to use this payback to brush some of the dirt off their already messy reputation.
I don't believe you nor anyone would sign up for Apple owning 100% percent of a product category.
I agree, but nobody really "signs up" for how history unfolds.
Using the battleship analogy again, while the HMS Dreadnought forever changed battleship design and rendered all earlier designs obsolete, the battleship category as a whole was obsoleted in a fairly short period of time by the aircraft carrier. So even if the other phone makers believed that they had no choice other than to copy the iPhone they could have conceivably come up with the successor to the iPhone that would blow the iPhone out of the water. But they didn't even try - and are still not trying.
You're asking for a lot. I don't think even Apple could come up with the successor to the iPhone or current smartphone design.
More often than not the company that creates a paradigm shift doesn't get to enjoy the fruits of its labor because other companies rush in not only to copy but to improve. Kudos to Apple for being able to stay on top.
So before Samsung phones looked more like Nokia's and blackberry phones and after they looked like any smartphone for the past years after apple released the iPhone. However those don't look the same... I think they need some glasses coz there's carbon copies of iPhone in China and no one cares. Samsung phones aren't carbon copy. They just follow the same principle of a full screen phone like any other full screen phone design. If they call this a copy, then HTC should sue apple for copying the HTC design. Lol
1.) People really have forgotten what the phone industry looked like in 2008. When the first galaxy with that steel rim came out, I did a double-take because I’d missed O2 offering the iPhone. On closer inspection, the shop window sticker was not an iPhone, but that Samsung thing. I was shocked.
2.) China is a special case. There is no enforceable IP law in China.
So before Samsung phones looked more like Nokia's and blackberry phones and after they looked like any smartphone for the past years after apple released the iPhone. However those don't look the same... I think they need some glasses coz there's carbon copies of iPhone in China and no one cares. Samsung phones aren't carbon copy. They just follow the same principle of a full screen phone like any other full screen phone design. If they call this a copy, then HTC should sue apple for copying the HTC design. Lol
The god damn jury has said differently twice... And Samsung's OWN DOCUMENTS also said they copied Apple.
Samsung seriously needs to get this sad phase of their history in the rear view mirror. Samsung - take your lumps, pay up, and move on.
Why would they? They have nothing to lose, if they drag the case. Besides, if they drag it for longer - they will have to pay a smaller sum due to the inflation, so at this point they are not losing anything...yet.
Since Apple is doing nothing much with money they have with their buggy, incomplete, outdated, cancelled products, maybe they could use that money to give their lowest paid workers a meaningful pay rise
Why the lowest? You mean, the best workers at Apple get paid the lowest, and yet somehow they still hold on to the job? Wouldn't it make sense for them, if they are so good at what they do - simply change the company and get a substantial raise?
Comments
Using the battleship analogy again, while the HMS Dreadnought forever changed battleship design and rendered all earlier designs obsolete, the battleship category as a whole was obsoleted in a fairly short period of time by the aircraft carrier. So even if the other phone makers believed that they had no choice other than to copy the iPhone they could have conceivably come up with the successor to the iPhone that would blow the iPhone out of the water. But they didn't even try - and are still not trying.
More often than not the company that creates a paradigm shift doesn't get to enjoy the fruits of its labor because other companies rush in not only to copy but to improve. Kudos to Apple for being able to stay on top.
2.) China is a special case. There is no enforceable IP law in China.
This judgement needs to be adjusted for inflation. By the time Samsung has to pay this minimum wage will be paying $500K (in Cupertino) a year.