“The years-long legal battle between Samsung and Apple over smartphone patents plods on, but Apple on Friday submitted to the US Supreme Court the legal equivalent of ‘we’ve had enough,'” Tom Brant reports for PC Magaizne.
“A jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple nearly $1 billion in 2012 for copying parts of Apple’s iPhone and iPad design. Through multiple appeals, Samsung has succeeded in getting various courts to reduce the amount it must pay to $548 million, though it argued that even that amount was excessive,” Brant reports. “In Friday’s legal brief, Apple indicated that it is tired of Samsung’s multiple appeals, and wants the Korean giant to pay up.”
Brant reports, “‘Samsung cobbles together out-of-context citations to out-of-record materials in an attempt to paint itself as a thought leader in the smartphone industry,’ Apple’s lawyers wrote in Friday’s brief. ‘But the real record — as played out in the actual marketplace and in this litigation — tells a very different story. Apple innovated; Samsung copied.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Pay up, slavish copiers!
Do the right thing, U.S. Supreme Court. Give Apple some modicum of justice finally.
The main reason why Samsung et al. were able to sell phones and tablets at all was because they made fake iPhones and fake iPads designed to fool the unwitting (who are now finally waking up in droves, by the way, and upgrading to iPhones in ever-increasing numbers) in much the same way as how Microsoft et al. profited wildly from upside-down and backwards fake Macs at the end of the 20th century. Google, Samsung, HTC, Xiaomi, et al. are the Microsofts, HPs, Dells, and eMachines of the new century.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.
SEE ALSO:
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Samsung’s appeal of Apple design patent case on October 11th – July 14, 2016
U.S. DOJ asks Supreme Court to overturn ruling that favored Apple over Samsung’s iPhone copying – June 9, 2016
Apple suggests Federal Circuit panel violated U.S. Constitution in patent fight with Samsung – March 30, 2016
Supreme Court to hear Samsung appeal in Apple patent case – March 21, 2016
A picture is worth a thousand words……
Make it hurt.
To this day I still haven’t bought a product that has Samsung displayed on it. No TV’s, electronics, appliances, etc. I can’t help if other products have Samsung parts in them but I can control some purchases.
I can only hope that will hurt them worse.
You should also stop using anything google related then.. Search -utube and all……
Google , Erick Mole Schidth and team are the biggest swindlers !
You wanna REALLY hurt Samsung? Vote Trump, impose tariffs on South Korean imports and we can start making our own tv’s…since we invented the damn things.
(Philo Farnsworth)
Who invented the damn things? Was it the Brits along with the phone and the microchip and the…you think everything was invented in the states? Couldn’t be more wrong.
el wrongo grandé.
Born in Beaver, Utah, on August 19, 1906, Philo T. Farnsworth was a talented scientist and inventor from a young age. In 1938, he unveiled a prototype of the first all-electric television, and went on to lead research in nuclear fusion.
True, but not relevant to your stupidity.
moo.
You seem to be unaware that in 1936, in England, the BBC were already transmitting a scheduled electronic television service in 1936 ( note, not merely a laboratory prototype of an imaging device, but a fully featured transmission system, from camera, through a transmitter and to receivers situated all over London ).
The initial trials involved transmitting Baird’s new 240 line system ( not to be confused with Baird’s original 30 line mechanical system ) on one week, alternating with EMI’s 405 line system on the other weeks for the three month trial. At the end of the trial, it was decided that EMI’s 405 line system was far superior and was chosen to be transmitted thereafter.
Baird’s “tv”was a mechanical monstrosity.
http://www.bairdtelevision.com
Nobody is suggesting that Baird’s mechanical system had a future. The BBC were transmitting it from 1932, but were never impressed by the results. It didn’t even have a reliable synchronisation system to make the receiving disk run in sync with the one in the camera. I’ve messed about with reproduction Baird systems and they’re certainly extremely crude, however they must have seemed quite magical at the time.
Baird did also experimental broadcast 120 line TV signals in 1934, which were received by all-electronic television sets, but the picture was originated using mechanical scanning.
My reason for mentioning the mechanical systems was that the BBC were already transmitting them, but recognised a need to replace it. By 1936 the BBC had quietly developed an entire studio and broadcasting system and started broadcasting all-electronic television with scheduled programming, available for anybody in the London area ( 30 mile radius ) to tune into if they owned a suitable receiver.
Incidentally Baird was never one to give up lightly. He developed a system where something more like a conventional movie camera had the 17.5mm film ( 35mm film, split down the middle ) rapidly processed within the camera and then scanned by a 240 line spinning disk, allowing it to be transmitted electronically within sixty seconds. The prototypes were actually massive, fixed devices, but he recognised how important it was to have a moveable camera.
That portable camera was ridiculously impractical and had an unbelievable number of safety hazards all packaged into one housing. The camera contained extremely high voltages, corrosive liquids, flammable cellulose nitrate film, rapidly spinning mechanical components and very high temperatures. It’s probably a very good thing that this system was rejected soon after it was invented.
Baird had no shortage of ideas, enthusiasm and projects. In 1939, he was near to completing a 600 line television system, intended to be shown on cinema screens throughout London. He was on the point of launching the world’s first all-news television station when WWII broke out and all television transmissions in the UK were banned.
Even while the war was on, Baird continued to develop his systems and by 1941 was able to transmit 600 line stereoscopic ( 3D ), colour images, which were judged to be of pretty good quality.
An argument can also be made for Vladimir Zworykin’s pioneer work on television also.
Agreed. He is widely recognised for his pioneering work in using early CRTs for displaying television pictures in 1910, but there are a lot of others with valid claims too, such as Campbell Swinton, who in 1910 proposed an all-electronic television system using two CRTs for both image capture and image display. His proposals were technically brilliant and should have worked very well, but he didn’t have the means to put them into production.
After Zworykin left Russia as a result of the revolution, he went on to invent the image iconoscope, which became the imaging device for the first practical all-electronic television cameras, although the Hungarian engineer Kolomon Tihanyi also applied to patent a similar device before then, as did quite a number of other inventors.
As with many technical inventions, exactly who invented what and when is often surrounded in controversy, which roughly a century later brings us neatly back to the topic of this thread.
Please, botty, a blatant political troll post in the guise of being relevant to the topic at hand. It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic you can be. If the GOP had nominated a sack of crap for President, you would endlessly promote and praise that sack. Wait…you are.
Seriously, the GOP has long promoted itself as pro-business and free trade, and now you flip 180 degrees because your egomaniacal candidate says so? The particular trade deals in question may or may not be problematic. But the idea of walling off the global economy is crazy and antithetical to the traditional Republican platform. All Trump knows how to do is build walls, apparently.
I wish that Bernie had won. Maybe we can all back a minor party candidate for once and tell both major political parties to GFT.
Melvin, have I ever told you what an attractive man I think you are?
I refuse ever again to purchase anything Samsung makes.
Samsung is Korean, right? Since America absolutely destroyed the region in the 1950s with yet another illegal war, then I don’t see why they would dislike the US, and its products so much. Same thing happened to Hawaii in the 1890s. Not that I am supporting Samsung’s theft, just providing some facts that might shed some light on why Korea might not be so keen towards the US. Just some food for thought.
You forgot the sarcasm tags.
Yes, the US essentially stole Hawai’i, but in that war the US was the invader and the native people were the invaded. In 1950, North Korea, acting as a proxy for the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union, invaded the independent Republic of South Korea in an act of naked aggression. Had it been allowed to succeed, everyone on the peninsula would be living now under the conditions that prevail in North Korea… almost certainly the most totalitarian regime on earth now, and possibly the most totalitarian ever.
The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously (of those present) to authorize all UN members to assist South Korea in its defense. America was only involved in the war as part of the UN effort. It is hard to even imagine how a war could be any _less_ illegal.
If you think that any significant number of South Koreans are “not so keen towards the US” because we saved them from living under the Kim Dynasty, you must be smoking Maui Wowie.
@ Heir to the Throne: do you people in the USA no longer know your own history?
Trump supporters don’t.
Another useful lesson from the Korean Conflict:
In January, 1950, the new US Secretary of State (Dean Acheson) gave a speech to the National Press Club in which he listed some of the countries within the American defense perimeter. Although the US had in fact made private assurances of support to the South Korean government, that country was omitted from Acheson’s list. It seems to have been simply a casual mistake.
However, Stalin saw it as a green light to approve Kim’s plan to invade South Korea with Chinese and Russian assistance. Since the US had missed the opportunity to publicly affirm its commitment to South Korea, he assumed that he and the Communist Bloc would be given a free hand.
Stalin was confident enough to schedule the June invasion during a period that the Soviet Union was boycotting meetings of the UN Security Council, so it would not be able to veto a possible UN resolution authorizing the defense of South Korea. He did not expect any such resolution to be offered.
Among the consequences of Secretary Acheson’s “misspeaking” of US intentions were 36,574 American dead (not including 7926 missing in action) and 103,000 wounded. South Korea suffered over 600,000 military casualties, and our other allies about 10,000. North Korea and its allies had somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million military casualties. Estimated civilian casualties on both sides of the border during 1950-53 probably totaled in excess of 2.5 million.
That is why no subsequent American leader has EVER suggested that the US might not live up to its mutual defense obligations. To do so invites an invasion.
And why America maintains a military and defense capability also necessary to support its mutual defense obligations. These obligations and the global stability that emanates from them provide the basis for global markets to exist.
How about Samsung paying for Apple’s legal fees?
Stealing IP and tying up the opponents in courts is a Samsung corporate strategy. I lived in South Korea and many of my local lawyer friends told me that there are hundreds of cases against Samsung by small local companies, who eventually have to give up fights due to lack of funds to keep fighting Samsung.
Fortunately Apple has no such financial constraints. Samsung really does have to be punished HARD for this misbehavior. It needs to be de-incentivized. The Supreme Court would do the greatest of favors for all companies large and small by reinstating the original penalty amounts and adding a whopping punitive amount on top of that.
Funding these small local companies claims against Samsung would be an excellent use of Apple’s overseas cash. See how Samsung likes it…
It definitely appears that Banks sold the “E” of G&E to Samsung who then changed their name to Samesung…