4 ms·

There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debat

There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsung's infringed device almost single-handedly - not their brilliants displays, battery, or even wireless radio functionality. Needlessly to say, not only is it ridiculous to say that those frivolous few design components amounts to almost all of Samsung's profit, this also sets extremely dangerous legal precedence. I could only imagine what future patent trolls with absurd design patents are going to look like now -- and, of course, Apple won't be immune to this either. I can't imagine any sane mind wanting this outcome (and yes that includes Apple's own counsel).

bitmapbrother 8y ago
Today’s decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages This case is far from over and will be quickly appealed as the award makes absolutely no sense and goes against the Supreme Court ruling.
- bb611 8y ago
  The supreme court simply ruled that such a case COULD take into account only the patents/parts, rather than the entire device. They did not suggest a legal framework for doing so, and they did not mandate that the award must do so. They will certainly attempt an appeal, that doesn't mean anyone will accept it.
mpweiher 8y ago
Totally agree with the other commenters (importance of design, punitive nature of damages,...), but there's one additional aspect: > entire profit .. demand .. single-handedly You are conflating/confusing profit with overall sales/demand. The overall sales are driven by all the things you wrote: the "brilliant displays", the battery, etc. However, even with all of that, you may not have any profit whatsoever, as the rest of the mobile industry shows. Particularly because design, by itself, doesn't have any additional production costs, unlike batteries and displays, though it may lead to higher cost manufacturing.
avar 8y ago
> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly - not their brilliants > displays, battery, or even wireless radio > functionality. You're completely losing the plot here here. The reason for the high amount of damages is not because it's believed that Samsung phones wouldn't have sold as well without rounded corners or whatever other Apple patent they infringed, but that they infringed patents and Apple should thus be awarded punitive damages. Leaving aside this specific case, that's a very reasonable thing to do in a world where you have patents. If companies could violate patents and only have to pay damages in the amount that they supposedly gained from violating the patent if they got caught they'd violate them with impunity. That would turn the patent system into some system of enforced license fees without having to ask for permission, which it's not, it's meant to grant exclusivity in the market for a limited time period.
- bsaul 8y ago
  i found this comment interesting, could the person who downvoted it explain what's wrong in its reasoning ?
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    I didn't downvote it (don't have enough karma's yet), but see my reply above. avar is wrong because he has no idea how patent litigation works in this country and made false assertions (eg, punitive damage). Further, the main issue here is not whether companies like Samsung should get away with patent infringement, but whether Apple's frivolous design patents deserve most of the infringed devices' revenue/profit. Apple had previously managed to disgorge Samsung's entire profit based on a 19th century old, estoeric design patent law that rewards entire profit on infringement. This law was introduced when most consumer goods were single-component and sales/profit were driven largely by one single design pattern (eg, carpets, furniture). Enter the 20th century. Most electronics devices we use today have highly technical and multiple-components (over 120+K active patents in a smartphone device for instance). And our legal system over the the past three, four decades has evolved and developed various frameworks to limit the damage award to the intrinsic/additional value a specific patent brings to an infringed product. SCOTUS agreed with this, reversed the lower courts decisions and sent the case back to the lower courts to re-define what the proper damage ought to be. But it looks like Judge Koh screwed up on the procedural (jury instruction) again.
simonh 8y ago
If design is so irrelevant to profits, how come Apple’s phones capture almost all of the profits in the mobile industry? Surely if your company has at great expense developed a legally protected advantage in the market that gains you the majority of the profit share, someone else copying your legally protected advantage and churning out products using all the same design features you spent years on must be pretty sickening? Especially when it turns out your rival produced a 132 page design analysis detailing exactly how to copy your product design and UI, with photos, comparing it to their product and specifying “directions for improvement”[1]. Not all 132 pages are about rounded corners. [1]https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui-interface-improvement https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp...
- vidarh 8y ago
  I don't think design is irrelevant to profits, but I also think tying it to Apple's position as the most profitable mobile manufacturer is weak. While Apple has competition, it is at the same time in a position where it's competition can't sell iOS phones. That gives it a substantial buffer against price pressure that none of the Android manufacturers face. If you're agnostic to the OS, then, yes, Apple needs to convince you to buy theirs. But if you've decided on a platform - and design may certainly be part of that -, Apple has no competition, while every Android manufacturer is competing in an environment where people aren't only competing with unique devices but where they're also facing clones of clones of clones (e.g. my current Android phone is a Vernee Mix 2; Google recognises it as a Xiaomi Mix 2... there's at least half a dozen Mix 2 "clones" on the market, copying anything from just the exterior case to being near perfect copies including copying aspects of Xiaomi's UI) So Apple has a much more sheltered position, especially as users get entrenched with large investments in apps and the overall ecosystem. Most of the Android competitors are competing in price segments Apple are uninterested in, but for most Android manufacturers at any price point has to deal with competitors selling phones that look and feel almost as theirs but costs 10% or 20% or 30% less - close enough to have near feature parity and attract the same customer segments -, which affects their margins substantially. Couple that with Apple's logistics and manufacturing and integration and it's not surprising that Apple is so much more profitable.

bitmapbrother 8y ago

Today’s decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages This case is far from over and will be quickly appealed as the award makes absolutely no sense and goes against the Supreme Court ruling.

bb611 8y ago
The supreme court simply ruled that such a case COULD take into account only the patents/parts, rather than the entire device. They did not suggest a legal framework for doing so, and they did not mandate that the award must do so. They will certainly attempt an appeal, that doesn't mean anyone will accept it.

mpweiher 8y ago

Totally agree with the other commenters (importance of design, punitive nature of damages,...), but there's one additional aspect: > entire profit .. demand .. single-handedly You are conflating/confusing profit with overall sales/demand. The overall sales are driven by all the things you wrote: the "brilliant displays", the battery, etc. However, even with all of that, you may not have any profit whatsoever, as the rest of the mobile industry shows. Particularly because design, by itself, doesn't have any additional production costs, unlike batteries and displays, though it may lead to higher cost manufacturing.

avar 8y ago

> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly - not their brilliants > displays, battery, or even wireless radio > functionality. You're completely losing the plot here here. The reason for the high amount of damages is not because it's believed that Samsung phones wouldn't have sold as well without rounded corners or whatever other Apple patent they infringed, but that they infringed patents and Apple should thus be awarded punitive damages. Leaving aside this specific case, that's a very reasonable thing to do in a world where you have patents. If companies could violate patents and only have to pay damages in the amount that they supposedly gained from violating the patent if they got caught they'd violate them with impunity. That would turn the patent system into some system of enforced license fees without having to ask for permission, which it's not, it's meant to grant exclusivity in the market for a limited time period.

bsaul 8y ago
i found this comment interesting, could the person who downvoted it explain what's wrong in its reasoning ?
- tooltalk 8y ago
  I didn't downvote it (don't have enough karma's yet), but see my reply above. avar is wrong because he has no idea how patent litigation works in this country and made false assertions (eg, punitive damage). Further, the main issue here is not whether companies like Samsung should get away with patent infringement, but whether Apple's frivolous design patents deserve most of the infringed devices' revenue/profit. Apple had previously managed to disgorge Samsung's entire profit based on a 19th century old, estoeric design patent law that rewards entire profit on infringement. This law was introduced when most consumer goods were single-component and sales/profit were driven largely by one single design pattern (eg, carpets, furniture). Enter the 20th century. Most electronics devices we use today have highly technical and multiple-components (over 120+K active patents in a smartphone device for instance). And our legal system over the the past three, four decades has evolved and developed various frameworks to limit the damage award to the intrinsic/additional value a specific patent brings to an infringed product. SCOTUS agreed with this, reversed the lower courts decisions and sent the case back to the lower courts to re-define what the proper damage ought to be. But it looks like Judge Koh screwed up on the procedural (jury instruction) again.

simonh 8y ago

If design is so irrelevant to profits, how come Apple’s phones capture almost all of the profits in the mobile industry? Surely if your company has at great expense developed a legally protected advantage in the market that gains you the majority of the profit share, someone else copying your legally protected advantage and churning out products using all the same design features you spent years on must be pretty sickening? Especially when it turns out your rival produced a 132 page design analysis detailing exactly how to copy your product design and UI, with photos, comparing it to their product and specifying “directions for improvement”[1]. Not all 132 pages are about rounded corners. [1]https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2012/8/8/3227289/samsung-apple-ux-ui-interface-improvement https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp...

vidarh 8y ago
I don't think design is irrelevant to profits, but I also think tying it to Apple's position as the most profitable mobile manufacturer is weak. While Apple has competition, it is at the same time in a position where it's competition can't sell iOS phones. That gives it a substantial buffer against price pressure that none of the Android manufacturers face. If you're agnostic to the OS, then, yes, Apple needs to convince you to buy theirs. But if you've decided on a platform - and design may certainly be part of that -, Apple has no competition, while every Android manufacturer is competing in an environment where people aren't only competing with unique devices but where they're also facing clones of clones of clones (e.g. my current Android phone is a Vernee Mix 2; Google recognises it as a Xiaomi Mix 2... there's at least half a dozen Mix 2 "clones" on the market, copying anything from just the exterior case to being near perfect copies including copying aspects of Xiaomi's UI) So Apple has a much more sheltered position, especially as users get entrenched with large investments in apps and the overall ecosystem. Most of the Android competitors are competing in price segments Apple are uninterested in, but for most Android manufacturers at any price point has to deal with competitors selling phones that look and feel almost as theirs but costs 10% or 20% or 30% less - close enough to have near feature parity and attract the same customer segments -, which affects their margins substantially. Couple that with Apple's logistics and manufacturing and integration and it's not surprising that Apple is so much more profitable.