Apple wins appeal reinstating $119.6 million verdict against patent-infringer Samsung

“Apple Inc. won an appeals court ruling that reinstates a patent-infringement verdict it won against Samsung Electronics Co., including for its slide-to-unlock feature for smartphones and tablets,” Susan Decker reports for Bloomberg. “In an 8-4 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said a three-judge panel was wrong to throw out the $119.6 million verdict in February. Instead, it ordered the trial judge to consider whether the judgment should be increased based on any intentional infringement by Samsung.”

“The decision Friday comes less than a week before the U.S. Supreme Court considers another case Apple had filed against Samsung,” Decker reports. “That case, to be argued Tuesday in Washington, focuses on how much Samsung should pay for copying patented designs for Apple’s iPhone.”

Decker reports, “The Federal Circuit handles all patent appeals in the U.S., so its decisions have broad ramifications for how cases are handled in the courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Having fun, yet, slavish copier?

It’s best not to mess with karma. – Steve Jobs

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:

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.

Beleaguered Samsung struggles to put out the fires caused by their exploding phones – October 6, 2016
Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and 100+ of the world’s top designers side with Apple in Samsung patent case – August 4, 2016
Apple to U.S. Supreme Court: Samsung stole our patents, should end its appeals and finally pay up – August 1, 2016
Obama nominates Lucy Koh for Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco – February 29, 2016


  1. So MDN, is your contempt limited to Samsung (for who I have no loyalty) and Google, or does it extend to LG, et. al., as well.

    Or… would you force us all to just buy Apple products?

    I actually would favor that because the resulting monopoly would be regulated.

    1. Samsung are the people who most closely copy Apple throughout every iteration.

      They’re the ones who recently offered an onyx black finish, just as soon as they heard about piano black iPhones and there are already reports about their next phone having a dual lens camera and no physical home button.

      Whatever Apple does, they follow soon after.

        1. “And this bothers you…”

          Patent laws are supposed to exist in order to stop companies simply copying rivals. Samsung’s entire business plan is to copy whatever products are the market leaders.

          Before they did a knock-off iPhone, which was packed in a knock-off of Apple’s packaging, they did a knock-off Motorola flip-phone, a knock-off Blackberry and they also did a knock-off Dyson vacuum cleaner amongst many other shamefully copied products.

          It’s a dishonourable company and those sorts of practices would be condemned by any rational person.

          1. Then if you’re going to be ideological about it, I would expect to see you treating Apple with contempt when they do it.

            In the meantime, you’re right about what you said. Personally I would revert it the way things were… no design, business, or software patents. Also, weren’t some of the subject patents subsequently nullified?

    2. This is a place where you commonly fall down applecynic and I have to disagree.

      There’s competition, which I constantly champion.

      Then there’s ripoff, which I constantly condemn.

      You need to comprehend that one is beneficial to business and the other is PARASITISM that ruins business.

      Specifically with regards to this court case:
      Samsung = Parasite
      Samsung ≠ Competition

      Read this again:
      “Instead, it ordered the trial judge to consider whether the judgment should be increased based on any intentional infringement by Samsung.”

      Meaning: The court not only found for Apple, but they are going to consider FURTHER damage payments due to Samsung’s willful infringement of Apple IP.

      1. Hi Derek. Sorry I didn’t see this sooner.

        My post was regarding MDN’s take specifically. Let’s just say there’s very little to no tolerance for anything non-Apple coming from them.

        Regarding Samsung. Eff them! But the notion that concepts such as rounded corners and shade of black is as old as the fashion industry. In tech it’s been everything from cars to TV’s.

        If the user of a product is offended at a cheap knockoff somehow cheapening their own taste, it’s paradoxical. Aren’t all iPhones identical after all? The only way that makes sense is if it’s seen by the user as being part of an elite club. A shallow concept…

        Meanwhile, regarding Apple, eff them too. Two of the patents were invalidated.

        Former NY Mayor Ed Koch once said “just because I’m a liberal does not mean I’m devoid of common sense”. By analogy fandom (esp. MDN) does not excuse one from objectivity.

        Let the companies fight it out, user’s shouldn’t care.

        1. MDN tends to have a black and white, bit-oriented way of thinking as demonstrated by their political bent. But it is, I find, the most fun place to chatter as well as seek and destroy trolls, a pleasure of mine.

          Your points about fashion, what’s patentable or not, what’s left, right, center or off the dimwitted 1 dimensional poliTard scale is well taken. On the other hand, Samsung blatantly and persistently ripped off Apple with no doubt in the mind of anyone who looks at the history of smartphones. That Samsung’s bad attitude has lead to ruin is inevitable and welcome by those of us who champion technological progress and demand quality. What’s shameful is that the US courts, as well as the rest of what I call #MyStupidGovernment is so technologically illiterate and slow to catch up.

  2. Hey MDN Take, your “Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:” phone images are wrong. Where is the wafting smoke rising from the Samsung device, or the gentle orange glow prior to battery combustion??? Need to fix that.

  3. No matter how much the courts make Samsung pay, it will still be just a drop in the bucket compared to how much they made off of Apple’s ideas. They are still laughing all the way to the bank, even if Samsung accidentally set that bank on fire.

    1. Manufacturing parts for a customer using their designs is simply good business for Apple when the price is right and the quality is up to standards. If you can’t understand that you actually are as stupid as your profile name indicates.

Reader Feedback

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