Apple Denied Sales Ban on Samsung Devices From Second Patent Trial

[PocketSand11]

Like giving Samsung more business. Guess you're going to swap out those Samsung made chips from your iPhone 6 that you just bought?
Funny how people can bash Samsung yet you're giving money to the company that's keeping the very same company that you're bashing in business.

Just because Apple buys from Samsung doesn't mean that they need Samsung. Without Samsung, they'd switch to another chip supplier. Without Apple, Samsung would be stuck copying Motorola.

----------

I don't have proof. But you'd have to be utterly stupid to think it wasn't happening on a vast scale - ISP's buying out politicians to secure massive monopolies (US broadband is slow and hugely overpriced) - Koch brothers bribing politicians so as to not challenge them regarding climate change - massive defence contracts that should long ago have been cancelled for being s*** and overpriced like Lockhead Martin and the F-35, I'm certain the latter two I've seen evidence on Ars Technica talking explicitly about politicians who've received money for this. Big banks bribing politicians to twist the system to suit their wishes (rent seeking) and we all know how well that worked. You like to call it lobbying, I call it bare faced bribery and it would be illegal in much of Europe.

I would say the US is the most corrupt country in the wealthy western world.

You hear a few stories about what might be bribery, and you assume not only that it's happening on a vast scale but that the U.S. is the most corrupt western country. That takes a lot of faith in your native land.

 

[kdarling]

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/

Find a better link. Every item in that particular list has been debunked.

(P.S. Anyone who wants to parrot the old Xerox story should look up what Apple actually added--all the things you THINK those old Xerox screenshots could do, but they could not. Then look up that Apple paid Xerox. I know there are trolls itching to parrot what was fun to bring up in the 90s )

Pretty sleazy to pre-paint anyone who corrects you as a troll.

Apple didn't pay Xerox anything. Xerox invested in Apple.

Apple never got permission to copy what Xerox had done. Not even in the later trial could they produce such a license.

Apple's Lisa UI, before going to Xerox, was keyboard driven. That they added more UI features later on, does not change the fact that their switch to a GUI was hugely driven by what they saw at Xerox in late 1979:



And btw, yes Xerox had popup menus and overlapping windows in 1981, two and a half years before the Mac came out in 1984:



Compare that to the first simplistic Apple Finder from 1982:

 

[Jess13]

Lucy Koh is of Korean descent, and Scamsung is Korean, doesn't that create potential conflict of interest? I ask because it seems many of Koh's judgements and rulings in Apple & Scamsung trials, that are pro-Scamsung, are very questionable.

 

[apolloa]

Oh Good! I am very glad. Apple should never be allowed to simply 'ban' from sale it's competitors products on totally bogus claims just to get market share because it lacks any innovation in the mobile space anymore.

----------

Find a better link. Every item in that particular list has been debunked.

I love your posts, every time someone attempts to re-write history on how Apple behaved and what it does/ did, you come and slam dunk them back into reality! Love it

 

[kdarling]

Lucy Koh is of Korean descent, and Scamsung is Korean, doesn't that create potential conflict of interest? I ask because it seems many of Koh's judgements and rulings in Apple & Scamsung trials, that are pro-Scamsung, are very questionable.

I'm cranky today, so watch out

1. People who use silly nicknames don't come off as very mature. Especially when it's not even anything original.

2. Koh was born in Washington DC and raised in Oklahoma. Where were you born, and what's your ancestry?

3. Koh's court is in California. So is Apple HQ. If anything, that's been seen as a much bigger conflict of interest.

Koh has had little choice in these injunction rulings. Higher courts than hers have both given strict precedents to follow, and have knocked down her previous rulings for not obeying those precedents. She had to what she did.

If you're looking for less defendable rulings, look at her Samsung decisions. From blocking prior art evidence, to issuing a preliminary injunction on their tablets that later turned out to be incorrect according to the jury, to not throwing out the first jury verdict after it became clear the jury didn't even bother to read her instructions, she has often sided with Apple, and against Samsung, where it really hurt the most.

 

[donnaw]

How about they stop trying to sue and counter she each other into oblivion and actually compete? Just imagine if the car or combustion engine or aircraft had been invented today. The patent system is not fit for purpose and stifles innovation and competition.

Once again reaffirming my belief that reasonable length copyrights, not patents should exist. And of course demonstrating that Americans still haven't learnt to resolve anything outside of a courtroom. Major corporations buying US politicians will bring the US to it's knees.

Not saying Samsung didn't copy Apple, but so what? Without the Galaxy series of smartphones would Apple have been so aggressive in it's iPhone development?

Actually Henry Ford did run into patent issues when he first tried to build his car. Apparently the 'automotive' industry had patented the 'automobile'. And unless you tip-toed to their line they could prevent you from manufacturing autos. Ford went in front of the patent board and won. It's a very interesting story.

 

[827538]

Actually Henry Ford did run into patent issues when he first tried to build his car. Apparently the 'automotive' industry had patented the 'automobile'. And unless you tip-toed to their line they could prevent you from manufacturing autos. Ford went in front of the patent board and won. It's a very interesting story.

Good, but today he would have been crushed by cooporate interests. That's my problem, big business can just buy influence. The head of the FCC is a frikin ex lobbyist for the telecoms companies - that's the very definition of vested interests. I'll have a look at that though, never knew, thanks.

 

[donnaw]

Good, but today he would have been crushed by cooporate interests. That's my problem, big business can just buy influence. The head of the FCC is a frikin ex lobbyist for the telecoms companies - that's the very definition of vested interests. I'll have a look at that though, never knew, thanks.

I fully agree with you but to be fair the FCC and the patent office are two different entities. I believe with the patent office one does have recourse in the courts. Of course, courts mean juries with little to no experience in the technical matters so that can go who-knows-where....

As for the FCC, there is little to no recourse except through the political process. But at times the 'court of public opinion' does carry the day.

Knowing a bit about the Ford incident I think he would have won today too. In fact, I think that changed the patent office. If I remember correctly they were issuing very, very broad patents, (such as the simple idea of an automobile) pushed by the corporate interests of the day. Remember, at the time the 'robber barons' were pretty much running the country, Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Melon, etc. I think Ford's win actually contributed to their demise. But it's been a while since I read anything on it. A pretty interesting read though. Have fun.

 

[Imhotep397]

Lucy Koh is of Korean descent, and Scamsung is Korean, doesn't that create potential conflict of interest? I ask because it seems many of Koh's judgements and rulings in Apple & Scamsung trials, that are pro-Scamsung, are very questionable.

While I wouldn't have worded it this way bias is and should be a concern in this case. While not excusable it's understandable that in many countries outside the U.S. multiple companies have been able to infringe Apple's patents with impunity just because there still a considerable amount of anti-America sentiment abroad. Koh's rulings at home smack of anti-Apple, pro-Samsung sentiment in that she's attempted to ignore jury rulings in an attempt to reduce damages to Samsung multiple times. The case is a juried case for good reason, impartiality, and she keeps moving to overrule the jury that stated in no uncertain terms, from their verdict, that Samsung's infringement was both real and damaging in their estimation. For Koh to constantly rule against Apple claiming damages are not significant reveals, contradicting juries, reveals her bias.

 

[69Mustang]

While I wouldn't have worded it this way bias is and should be a concern in this case. While not excusable it's understandable that in many countries outside the U.S. multiple companies have been able to infringe Apple's patents with impunity just because there still a considerable amount of anti-America sentiment abroad. Koh's rulings at home smack of anti-Apple, pro-Samsung sentiment in that she's attempted to ignore jury rulings in an attempt to reduce damages to Samsung multiple times. The case is a juried case for good reason, impartiality, and she keeps moving to overrule the jury that stated in no uncertain terms, from their verdict, that Samsung's infringement was both real and damaging in their estimation. For Koh to constantly rule against Apple claiming damages are not significant reveals, contradicting juries, reveals her bias.

You just completely re-wrote history. Either you are ignorant of the actual details of Koh's decisions or you willfully just made up stuff. Either way, sad post is sad. Do yourself a favor. Go look at post 30. Then go actually look at her decisions. Enlighten yourself.

 

[Oletros]

While I wouldn't have worded it this way bias is and should be a concern in this case. While not excusable it's understandable that in many countries outside the U.S. multiple companies have been able to infringe Apple's patents with impunity just because there still a considerable amount of anti-America sentiment abroad. Koh's rulings at home smack of anti-Apple, pro-Samsung sentiment in that she's attempted to ignore jury rulings in an attempt to reduce damages to Samsung multiple times. The case is a juried case for good reason, impartiality, and she keeps moving to overrule the jury that stated in no uncertain terms, from their verdict, that Samsung's infringement was both real and damaging in their estimation. For Koh to constantly rule against Apple claiming damages are not significant reveals, contradicting juries, reveals her bias.

Perhaps your post can win a short story Hugo award, it is ****ing good as science fiction alternate reality

 

[kdarling]

Koh's rulings at home smack of anti-Apple, pro-Samsung sentiment in that she's attempted to ignore jury rulings in an attempt to reduce damages to Samsung multiple times.

Judge Koh didn't reduce any damages from the jury (although she probably should've once it was found out that the jury was talking about punishment, which is NOT their job).

As for adding on extra fines, willful infringement requires both the jury and the judge to agree, but from different standpoints.

She had to follow legal precedent. The Federal Circuit has laid out the relevant standard for the willfulness inquiry for patent infringement:

“A patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.

"If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”

"Thus, the willfulness inquiry is a two-prong analysis,requiring an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry. The objective inquiry is a question for the Court, and the subjective inquiry is a question for the jury."

In this case, the judge acknowledged that anyone with a knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents might be invalid. Thus there could be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.

The case is a juried case for good reason, impartiality, and she keeps moving to overrule the jury that stated in no uncertain terms, from their verdict, that Samsung's infringement was both real and damaging in their estimation. For Koh to constantly rule against Apple claiming damages are not significant reveals, contradicting juries, reveals her bias.

Koh never overruled the jury's infringement findings (which personally I think she should've after we found out that they were swayed by a biased jury foreman -- so much for the impartiality argument).