Seemingly frustrated U.S. Supreme Court hears Apple, Samsung patent case

“The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared frustrated over how to resolve a high-stakes battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., indicating it may not provide final resolution of how much money the South Korean electronics company owes for infringing patents on the iPhone’s design,” Brent Kendall reports for The Wall Street Journal.

“Jurors found Samsung liable for patent infringement in 2012 and the company was ordered to pay about $930 million in damages,” Kendall reports. “The high court, which heard an hour of oral arguments, gave Samsung the opportunity to challenge a $399 million portion of that award. That sum amounted to the company’s total profits on 11 smartphone models that jurors found to infringe Apple’s design.”

“Apple and Samsung didn’t appear to disagree deeply on the type of legal rules that should govern damages for design patents. Instead, their clash was mostly about how those rules should apply to the specific facts of their smartphone litigation,” Kendall reports. “The justices made clear they were less concerned with that issue, suggesting they will come up with new rules and then give lower court judges the first opportunity to apply them to the iPhone fight.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will do the right thing, but even if the judgement is fully enforced, it’ll be a pittance compared to what was stolen from Apple by Google, Samsung, et al.

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 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.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Samsung, Apple damages dispute today – October 11, 2016
Apple wins appeal reinstating $119.6 million verdict against patent-infringer Samsung – October 7, 2016
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. Hmm. Now I’m thinking these justices are too old to understand technological issues like this.
    The iPhone was a completely new idea that introduce totally new ways to use a device. The then and now pictures above really drive home the point.
    That innovation is what Samsung (and others with Google’s help) copied and revolutionized the mobile industry.
    That innovation brought in multiple billions of dollars to the copiers.
    If this goes back to the lower courts it will just go back round in circles for another few years.

    1. “If this goes back to the lower courts it will just go back round in circles for another few years.”

      Isn’t that precisely what the lawyers would want?

      They get paid a truly stupendous fee per hour and it’s very much in their interest that a case such as this should be spun out as much as possible, with two well-heeled clients paying top-dollar. Anybody who has had a divorce or any other legal dispute will have seen for themselves how lawyers are skilled at escalating issues in a way that sounds like they are standing up for your rights, while at the same time creating a lot more lucrative work for themselves.

  2. I sincerely hope the Supreme Court realizes that these competitors that attribute their sales to other little do dads that they bolt onto the iPhone knockoff would not even be considered for purchase had they not directly copied the basic design and function of the iPhone. Without pinch and zoom, rubber band, touch pad, bezel, etc. Those do dads on phones with 50 buttons have become extinct.

Reader Feedback

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