Supreme Court Sides With Samsung, Against Apple

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You have to wonder how much money has been spent so far in a case that is essentially about rounded corners and square icons. By the time the award is knocked down to a "reasonable amount" both companies will have more than likely spent more than that on legal fees.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on a patent battle between Samsung and Apple, siding with Samsung by declaring that the patent infringement for an element of a design should be treated differently from the infringement of an entire design. The dispute between the two tech giants isn't about whether Samsung violated Apple's patents, but rather about how much money it's reasonable for Samsung to pay for the infringement.
 
Depends on how much they rely on internal counsel vs. hiring external megabuck lawfirms.

For a small company or individual without a legal department this would almost certainly be HUGE money spent on legal fees, but budgeting becomes different when you have internal lawyers who are employees and already on the payroll anyway.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Depends on how much they rely on internal counsel vs. hiring external megabuck lawfirms.

For a small company or individual without a legal department this would almost certainly be HUGE money spent on legal fees, but budgeting becomes different when you have internal lawyers who are employees and already on the payroll anyway.
Click to expand...

Samsung is using Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Apple is now using WilmerHale, although they were using Morrison & Foerster at the beginning.
 
Both companies are gunning to set precedence, so this is more than just the money. The drama's finally about to end though.
 
Reimu said:
The drama's finally about to end though.
Click to expand...
Not really. If the Supreme Court rules in Samsung's favor (that the current damages are too high), the case goes back to a lower court so they can start fighting on what damages are actually reasonable.
 
lironmiron said:
Samsung is using Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Apple is now using WilmerHale, although they were using Morrison & Foerster at the beginning.
Click to expand...

They should have called Robinowitz Robinowitz and Robinowitz..

50 internets if you know that reference.
 
Not sure how you can patent rounded corners. Square icons have been around since at least Windows 3.1. Rounded corners have been around for who knows how long? Do my grandfather's round-over router bits now violate an Apple patent?
 
Well this is VERY strange. I have been assured multiple times that the Supreme Court is unable to function right now because it only has 8 members.

Well they certainly didn't tie on this decision.
 
/usr/sbin said:
Not sure how you can patent rounded corners. Square icons have been around since at least Windows 3.1. Rounded corners have been around for who knows how long? Do my grandfather's round-over router bits now violate an Apple patent?
Click to expand...
In the United States one can patent designs, which are different for patents granted based on utility (the kind people probably have in mind when they think of patents).

One type of patent is how something works.
A completely different type of patent is how something looks.
 
mope54 said:
In the United States one can patent designs, which are different for patents granted based on utility (the kind people probably have in mind when they think of patents).

One type of patent is how something works.
A completely different type of patent is how something looks.
Click to expand...

That's patently true.
 
Wish a judge would just throw this case out and laugh at both Apple/Samsung. These types of patent disputes are stupid, and is a prime example as to why we need to reform the outdated system. Elon Musk showed a better way when he released all of Tesla's patents related to electric vehicles and solar. If this was done through all industries, designers could simply just use what's best without having to worry about some patent infringements and be able to create the best product available. It's ridiculous that a company can patent and hold back the future for years just to fill their greedy pockets, especially in the energy/medical fields. Thankfully the researchers who made vaccines for diseases such as polio gave their research to the world (gotta love socialized medicine). Otherwise, that disease will still be running rampant around the world, while only a select few countries would be able to afford to be vaccinated, but at least shareholders would be happy.
 
Chunder said:
Elon Musk showed a better way when he released all of Tesla's patents related to electric vehicles and solar.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this, which is why I'm asking. Could that decision have been a condition of them receiving public subsidy?
 
I have a telegraph repeater that probably dates from early last century. It has rounded corners on its cast iron base that look pretty much like the rounded corners on the phones in question. Does it count as prior art? It IS a communications device.
 
Chunder said:
Wish a judge would just throw this case out and laugh at both Apple/Samsung. These types of patent disputes are stupid, and is a prime example as to why we need to reform the outdated system. Elon Musk showed a better way when he released all of Tesla's patents related to electric vehicles and solar. If this was done through all industries, designers could simply just use what's best without having to worry about some patent infringements and be able to create the best product available. It's ridiculous that a company can patent and hold back the future for years just to fill their greedy pockets, especially in the energy/medical fields. Thankfully the researchers who made vaccines for diseases such as polio gave their research to the world (gotta love socialized medicine). Otherwise, that disease will still be running rampant around the world, while only a select few countries would be able to afford to be vaccinated, but at least shareholders would be happy.
Click to expand...
Once again, this case is about design patents and you are talking about utility patents. Besides that, I suggest you not rely on Musk too heavily since he clearly patents at least some of his technology if you bother to look it up.
 
westrock2000 said:
I don't know the answer to this, which is why I'm asking. Could that decision have been a condition of them receiving public subsidy?
Click to expand...
Musk released Tesla's patents as part of an open-source movement to spur EV development but retains the lucrative solar city patents.

Dead Parrot said:
I have a telegraph repeater that probably dates from early last century. It has rounded corners on its cast iron base that look pretty much like the rounded corners on the phones in question. Does it count as prior art? It IS a communications device.
Click to expand...
Does this telegraph repeater have enough elements to it that would lead a consumer to confuse it with the patented design (in this case, I suppose you are concerned about an iPhone)?

People continue to truncate the entire case to "rounded corners" but that was not the entirety of the case.
 
Chunder said:
It's ridiculous that a company can patent and hold back the future for years just to fill their greedy pockets, especially in the energy/medical fields. Thankfully the researchers who made vaccines for diseases such as polio gave their research to the world (gotta love socialized medicine). Otherwise, that disease will still be running rampant around the world, while only a select few countries would be able to afford to be vaccinated, but at least shareholders would be happy.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong.

1) Salk was at The University of Pittsburgh which was not in a socialized medicine society at the time.
2) Salk and his employers lawyers worked through the patent proceedings but ended up not filling because prior art and lack of novelty that prevailed in the patent system at the time. They were convinced the patent would fail. Salk's comment to Murrow was pure BS after they figured it was patentable that made for a nice story for the news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top