“The first Apple v. Samsung case went all the way up to the Supreme Court and has meanwhile gone all the way back to the Northern District of California to take a new look at the question of design patent damages,” Florian Mueller writes for FOSS Patents. “But the steps to the Supreme Court are like a revolving door for this huge commercial dispute: a new petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) is already in the making!”
“This time around it’s about the second California Apple v. Samsung case (the one that went to trial in 2014, resulting in a $119 million verdict),” Mueller writes. “Samsung now has until March 29, 2017 to file its petition.”
“Right after the Federal Circuit decision had come down, I already outlined my thoughts on the prospects for another Apple v. Samsung Supreme Court appeal and discussed what kinds of issues might be raised in that event,” Mueller writes. “In a little more than a month, we’ll know what issue(s) Samsung’s attorneys have decided to bring up.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Thanks mostly to the glacial pace of legal proceedings, justice will never be served in these cases of obvious theft, patent infringement, and trade dress infringement.
The main reason why Samsung and the rest of the thieves are able to sell phones and tablets at all was because they made and continue to make fake iPhones and fake iPads designed to fool the ignorati in much the same way that 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.
If it’s not an iPhone, it’s not an iPhone.
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:
Apple took 92% of smartphone industry’s profits in Q416 – February 7, 2017
IDC: Apple iPad’s hold on the tablet market remains unchallenged – February 2, 2017
Sam is jailed Scum
When the process takes this long it’s makes the initial innovation seem less powerful and ubiquitous since everyone is now copying it. Like it’s always been here, so why is this case in court? Why is there even a patent for something that must’ve been invented at the beginning of time?
As somebody who practiced law for forty years, I can understand your frustration (and MDN’s) with how long a court case takes. However, I don’t know of a better practical alternative than the current system for dispute resolution, any more than I know of a better alternative to the inefficiencies of living in a constitutional republic.
Some of the delays are because there aren’t enough judges to hear all the cases without long waits. Part of that is due to the habitual refusal of the opposition party in the U.S. Senate to expedite the confirmation of presidential appointees, and part is simply that having enough judges (and clerks and bailiffs and courtrooms) would be too expensive. All that keeps the judicial system from breaking down completely is that the overwhelming majority of cases settle prior to trial.
The primary workaround for the shortage of judges is to require time-consuming pretrial procedures to resolve cases (or at least issues) without a formal trial. Settlement negotiations and even mediation are often mandatory. Both sides are required to disclose all of their evidence to the other side and provide all of their potential witnesses for depositions. All the legal questions that might predictably come up at trial must be presented and resolved through pretrial motions and orders. Magistrate Judges, rather than the District Judges, can handle many of these pretrial issues.
It unavoidably takes time to read thousands of documents and hundreds of witness statements. The judges do not regard the delays so much as a bug as a feature, because they provide extra incentives to settle.
Some courts have made efforts to speed things up. That is why the procedures in the Eastern District of Texas are called “the rocket docket.” I would argue that it has not improved the quality of justice to be found in those frequently-reversed proceedings.
So, I ask those who want these cases to be resolved faster to suggest a practical alternative.
Might I remind the author that the PDA was not apple’s invention and all apple did was add cell phone capability to it. PDAs also had apps before IPhone. Yes Apple tried to copy the PDA several times before it got it right with the IPhone but most ideas were poor sellers. Perhaps in future check the history books first before making wild claims about how great Apple is.
Samsung’s burning
Apple’s slavish copy
Those biased reporters at Macworld…
http://www.macworld.com/article/3174147/iphone-ipad/apple-is-investigating-an-iphone-7-plus-that-blew-up.html
They’re probably just trying to not overblow (pun not intended) the situation. But the situation does bring iPhone expectations a bit more down to earth.