Apple v. Samsung Patent Infringement Case
Ping!
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Posted on 12/06/2016 1:33:45 PM PST by Swordmaker
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled for Samsung in a dispute over damages related to Apple's iPhone design.
The ruling means that Samsung is not liable for all $399 million awarded to Apple in a previous lower court ruling for infringing on Apple's iPhone design. That figure represented profits from 11 Samsung smartphone models.
The dispute began in 2011, when Apple sued Samsung for copying design features of its devices, including, among other things, its colorful grid of app icons. Two lower courts ruled in Apple's favor on design-patent infringement.
That penalty is based on a federal law that says that a party copying and applying a patented design to "any article of manufacture" is liable "to the extent of his total profit."
Samsung countered that the penalty is disproportionate. Specifically, the South Korean giant says Apple is not entitled to total profits from the entire phone, but only the profit from the components that infringe.
The court agreed that focusing only on the end product sold to consumers was "too narrow." The terms of the law are broad enough to include either the profits of the final product sold to consumers, in the case of a simple product like a dinner plate, or a component of the product, in a more complicated product like an oven.
The justices in their 8-0 ruling sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
"The question before the Supreme Court was how to calculate the amount Samsung should pay for their copying," Apple told CNBC of the ruling. "Our case has always been about Samsung's blatant copying of our ideas, and that was never in dispute. We will continue to protect the years of hard work that has made iPhone the world's most innovative and beloved product. We remain optimistic that the lower courts will again send a powerful signal that stealing isn't right."
8-0.... Wow!
8 to zip..............hmmmm.........narrow decision..............
That'll include the flammable batteries, then... ;)
“You overreached”
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
ROFL!!!!
I bet he actually believes that ...
at what past date?
Marketing hyperbole doesn't have to make sense, or bear any particular relationship to reality.
What does a design patent give you, then?
"That penalty is based on a federal law that says that a party copying and applying a patented design to "any article of manufacture" is liable "to the extent of his total profit."
The court is REWRITING Federal Law. . . the Law is quite explicit in its wording and meaning. How can they say that it means something less than "to the extent of his total profit"?
Congress intended it to punitive to the infringer for the purpose of PREVENTING such behavior.
Now the Supreme Court is saying "Ah, no, we will permit something that looks like a complete copy of the design and someone has to figure out exactly what portion of the value is attributable the design, and the only that portion is punishable!" They want to merely slap the wrist of patent infringers, allowing them to profit from their crime, which is blatantly contrary to the intent of Congress. The Supreme Court is legislating from the Bench, once again.
When you consider that Apple makes over 100% of all the profits in the smart phone space... and Samsung’s exploding phone issues... if I’m Apple I start negotiating at 110% of the original award amount.
Not surprising, design patents are crap. So easy to get around.
including, among other things, its colorful grid of app icons. Two lower courts ruled in Apple's favor on design-patent infringement.
Good grief.
Cellular Phones before iPhone (right) v. Cellular Phones after iPhone (Left):
The degree of change in cellular phone design is indisputable and it was Apple's design patent that made that difference.
This is what Samsung's Design team came up with and was sued over. . . it was a direct rip off of Apple's designs and was intended to be so. One of the primary pieces of evidence in the trial was an internal Samsung 132 page memo from upper management to their engineers about how they wanted their new phone to mimic the iPhone, in detail. Each page had a specific instruction about how the new Samsung Galaxy model was to exactly copy a specific detail of the Apple iPhone.
Yeah ... you believe the marketing hype, too. You’re notorious for it.
Have a nice day.
Wow, justice in America
Get rid of these patent trolls
I designed a rectangular object with a door knob and hinges, I got a design patent on it.
Everyone now owes me a royalty for each installed and used
This is just patent trolling
A lot of work went into creating those icons and the design to make multitouch work with fingers. Samsung and Android stole all of it. . . without compensation.
Apple patented the look and appearance, placement, concept. These all said to the consumer "Apple iPhone." Samsung's top management specific in that 132 page memorandum to their design engineers they needed a screen that looked as much like the iPhone. . . and it had to work like an iPhone as closely as possible for marketing purposes so people would buy their Galaxy model instead of an iPhone!
The Supremes did not disagree those patent do not exist. They just re-wrote the Federal LAW that requires the infringer had to pay their entire profits on the infringing product to the patent holder, saying instead that the profits had to be apportioned according to what portion the design has on the entire device. But on that is a difficult thing to assign when the DESIGN is a lot of what makes the iPhone desirable. That was why Congress, in its wisdom, wrote the law the way they did and specified ALL profits for design patents. They understood the difference. These Eight justices obviously do not.
Please provide evidence that what I showed you above was NOT the case. Evidence, not your unsupported opinion. This has nothing to do with "marketing hype", which is what YOU are spouting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.