3 ms·

> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly

by 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.
kurtisc 8y ago
That's exactly how the legal system works in most of the non-American world.
- arcticfox 8y ago
  The incentive would always be to intentionally ignore and violate patents then, as you'd be guaranteed to profit from doing so (even in the rare case that you are caught and convicted, you'd pay a maximum of the amount you benefitted from it). Punitive damages try to make that expected value negative - it makes sense.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  so which patent legal system allows punitive damage award without willful infringement?
tooltalk 8y ago
>You're completely losing the plot here here. You are not only losing the plot, but you are also clearly unfamiliar with this particular case, much less patent lawsuits in general. There is no punitive damage in patent trials, unless there is very clear evidence of willful infringement, in which case, the final damage can be tripled. The legal standards for awarding triple damage likewise is very high in this country and that was rejected years ago. Leaving aside your ignorance in patent litigations, most don't believe that frivolous minor patent violation should enable patent holders to disgorge infringers' entire profit. There are over 120+K active patents in any given mobile devices today, and the courts have over the years developed legal theories limiting the scope of damage to the infringed component only. This is precisely why SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower courts and instructed them to re-define what that proper infringed component, or "article of manufacture," on which damage can be calculated ought to be. It seems like Apple's judge willfully botched the jury instruction again, rather than help the jury define and award damage more inline with the SCOTUS decision. Do you know who else believes in this? Apple has over 90 pending patent litigation today (as defendant)and has consistently argued the same for apportionment in cases where Apple is defendant, while asking for the whole kitchen sink against a foreign company.

by avar 8y ago

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.

kurtisc 8y ago

That's exactly how the legal system works in most of the non-American world.

arcticfox 8y ago
The incentive would always be to intentionally ignore and violate patents then, as you'd be guaranteed to profit from doing so (even in the rare case that you are caught and convicted, you'd pay a maximum of the amount you benefitted from it). Punitive damages try to make that expected value negative - it makes sense.
tooltalk 8y ago
so which patent legal system allows punitive damage award without willful infringement?

tooltalk 8y ago

>You're completely losing the plot here here. You are not only losing the plot, but you are also clearly unfamiliar with this particular case, much less patent lawsuits in general. There is no punitive damage in patent trials, unless there is very clear evidence of willful infringement, in which case, the final damage can be tripled. The legal standards for awarding triple damage likewise is very high in this country and that was rejected years ago. Leaving aside your ignorance in patent litigations, most don't believe that frivolous minor patent violation should enable patent holders to disgorge infringers' entire profit. There are over 120+K active patents in any given mobile devices today, and the courts have over the years developed legal theories limiting the scope of damage to the infringed component only. This is precisely why SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower courts and instructed them to re-define what that proper infringed component, or "article of manufacture," on which damage can be calculated ought to be. It seems like Apple's judge willfully botched the jury instruction again, rather than help the jury define and award damage more inline with the SCOTUS decision. Do you know who else believes in this? Apple has over 90 pending patent litigation today (as defendant)and has consistently argued the same for apportionment in cases where Apple is defendant, while asking for the whole kitchen sink against a foreign company.