Supreme Court to hear Samsung appeal in Apple patent case

“The Supreme Court has agreed to referee a pricy patent dispute between Samsung and Apple,” The Associated Press reports.

“The justices said Monday they will review a $399 million judgment against South Korea-based Samsung for illegally copying patented aspects of the look of Apple’s iPhone,” AP reports. “The justices will decide whether a court can order Samsung to pay Apple every penny it made from the phones at issue, even though the disputed features are a tiny part of the product.”

“The federal appeals court in Washington that hears patent cases ruled for Apple,” AP reports. “The case involved common smartphone features for which Apple holds patents: the flat screen, the rectangular shape with rounded corners, a rim and a screen of icons.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The AP’s characterizations that “the disputed features are a tiny part of the product” and that smartphone features are “common” reveal inherent bias against Apple.

The features are “common” because Apple invented useful things that people wanted to use. Google, Samsung et al. stole them and continue to peddle them to the ignorant.

What happens when a company like Apple enters a market an totally disrupts it? Either the law is applied justly or the entire industry that faces annihilation bands together to steal Apple’s IP while working protect each other (buying patents for defense, filing amicus briefs, denial, running PR campaigns, buying advertising to create complicit media outlets, clouding the issue with specious claims, hatching legal maneuvers to draw out the process, etc.). This is what happened with the Mac. This is what happened with the iPhone. And, get ready, this is what will likely happen if and when Apple enters the vehicle market, too.

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) 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:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.

18 Comments

  1. As an answer to MDN’s obsessional compulsive behavior… Here are some other “proofs”

    Apple purposely cheating on ratios

    Apple’s iPhone first prototype:

    1. Sorry, buddy, it is well documented, even by Google, that Android had to go back to the drawing board once the iPhone was introduced. Samsung may have mocked some stuff; you could even argue that a Palm device had a screen with icons; however, it was NOTHING like an iPhone or Android phone. Trying to say it was inevitable for phones to end up as touchable-panel bricks whether or not the iPhone appeared is disingenuous. Before iPhone, companies emphasized how their phones differed from one another; after, they emphasized how similar to the iPhone theirs was.

      1. Never said nobody copied from Apple. I’m just tired of the biased opinions here on MDN.

        Sometimes it’s funny but when it’s ALWAYS the same crap that comes at EACH single article where the name Samsung shows up it’s just lame.

        Does Apple also steal (Sorry… get inspired) from others???

        iOS9:
        http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/apple-features-copied-from-windows-android

        iOS8:
        http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/great-artists-steal-the-ios-8-features-inspired-by-android/

        iOS7:
        http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/06/11/7-ios-7-features-stolen-from-android/

      2. Also want to add that I find it quite disturbing (if not schizophrenic) when people here defend the fact IP laws protect the “what” and not the “How” when it’s at the advantage of Apple but consider it as a scandal when it’s applied against Apple?

        Kudelski? eBooks? wifi Patents?

        Most of them being MUCH more relevant than rounded corners or size.

        1. In the UK, Samsung are running a TV advert where they show a succession of old cellphones, ending up with their newest one.

          Initially I assumed that they were featuring some notable cellphones from other manufacturers dating back over the last 30 years or so, but I was curious and started doing a little research. That’s when I realised that Samsung has been copying EVERY market leading cellphone design for the last 30 years, not just Apple’s designs.

    2. Novad,

      And how many of Samsung’s so-called “smart phone designs” were confirmed independently to have been completed _before_ the Apple iPhone? As distinct from design concepts pulled out of their collective asses as “justification” that they should not be sued for blatantly copying the Apple iPhone? That includes trade dress and software icons, and everything else.

      Frankly, once people recognize someone is a confirmed liar, most people would doubt anything and everything they say.

      Samsung is the corporate and cultural equivalent of a narcissistic sociopath. Or is it psychopath? They will say and do anything necessary to get what they want.

      I don’t buy it.

      The sad part about our Justice System is that it must assume parties are trustworthy when they take oaths on the bible to tell the truth. Even though some parties are simply not trustworthy. This is why I am disappointed Judge Koh did not come down hard on Samsung when the Court learned that confidential Apple commercial information was leaked to Samsung by their lawyers even after the court warned them the info was confidential. She could have revealed to the world what a group of lying sleaze bags Samsung was. (Instead, she chose to chastise Apple’s lawyer.) But Koh is a whole other story.

      Anyway: A pox on your house, Samsung!

  2. Hopefully this will either:

    A) Cost Samsung EVEN MORE CA$H! 💥💰💰💰💥
    OR
    B) Aim a vicious bolt of lightning ⚡ at the USTPO (US Trademark and Patent Office) and make them to DO THEIR JOB RIGHT! ⚡⚡⚡

  3. Remember the Supreme Court is now a politically divided court. If the decision comes down to a 4-4 split the decision reverts to the next lower court.

    Oh, and novad, this site is MacDailyNews, it’s all Apple. Just go troll elsewhere if you don’t enjoy bias.

    1. The eBooks case was _against_ Apple and *for* the DOJ + Amazon. (So refusing the case screwed Apple.)

      The IP infringement case was settled _for_ Apple and *against* Samsung, so taking the case gives the court the chance to reverse it (ie, screwing Apple).

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.