What people who have not been in court don't realize is that Apple won on the narrative. Find the good guy, find the bad guy, and the bad guy will almost always be found to "lose."
Many times, patent cases are argued like someone was trespassing: This idea is my property, and you started using it. What Apple did well in this trial is that it portrayed Samsung as a cheater—someone who looked over Apple's shoulder and copied down its answers. This portrayal obviously resonated with the jury leading to the overwhelming win.
Is that right? No, not really, especially for technical issues. Frankly, the most astounding part of this decision was that Samsung's standard-essential patents were not considered infringed. I fully expect Samsung to file (and win) a JNOV (a judgment notwithstanding the verdict) on that issue. But overall, I doubt this verdict will be overturned as a whole.
>"Frankly, the most astounding part of this decision was that Samsung's standard-essential patents were not considered infringed."
Apple submitted evidence (receipts) proving that they had purchased the chip from Intel, who had in turn already licensed the patents from Samsung[1]. A business cannot demand payment for a patent license twice. They also cannot dictate who the patent encumbered products may be sold to. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of simple fact. If Samsung do file a JNVO, then it will be thrown out with prejudice for that reason.
I thought it was Qualcomm that supplied the offending chips.
Anyway, it's not a straight Apple win on the standards-essential patents. The jury didn't find that Apple violated the patents, but they did, at least, uphold the patents. The jury just determined that the patents were exhausted, so Apple couldn't have infringed.
This should give Motorola (Google) pause in their lawsuits too, since they had asserted standards-essentials patents against Apple too. I'm not sure where they are with these cases though, it's getting too hard to follow.
I think it's Intel, although Qualcomm chips are being used in their CDMA variants of the iPhone. Apple uses Infineon baseband chips, however the company (Infineon) was bought out by Intel, hence it is Intel who supplies the offending chips.
Apple tried to pay Samsung for the license after Samsung revoked it (probably to get more money from Apple), but Samsung turned down the license fee claiming they wanted more.
To me, this sounded like Samsung wanted Apple to violate some of their patents for some ammunition in the case.
I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here. They just bought chips from a manufacturer, assuming that they can use the chips they paid for in their products. It seems crazy someone could sell you chips, and then sue you if you happen to use them in your products.
> I don't think Apple willfully infringed anything here.
Apple knew this was coming. See the stuff in the case about the Sherman act. They're "willfully infringing" to the extent that they are "refusing to end negotiations and pay the fee Samsung claims they own."
Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.
>Samsung seems to have brought this in to show what the dispute was really all about. And that show with the Intel receipts didn't address the entire problem from my reading.
That has never made sense to me, though. Unless Samsung could prove that Apple was actually assisting in designing the silicon of the chips(in which case, patent exhaustion would not apply), they were suing the wrong people. The infringement would have been on Intel/Qualcomm/whoever is supplying the chips.
There are appealable issues relative to exhaustion. If I were Samsung, I would file on both issues (infringement and exhaustion) to preserve for appeal.
I'd be careful if I were Samsung. Their motives over the FRAND patents are extremely questionable and they are already being investigated for antitrust over the abuse of these patents. The fact they revoked patents clearly in a bid to extort monies, either through relicensing or litigation, is an antitrust violation. Again, these are the facts as they stand.
Very interesting, thank you. Could you talk about what the liability is if you buy from someone who is (unbeknownst to you) infringing, and what your responsibility is if the seller turned out not to have a license?
What if the component you bought has already made it into your products?
The rule is that you can be liable if you make, use, sell, or import the infringing device. In theory, end users are also liable. Individuals as end users usually are accused - no upside. Businesses as end users sometimes get sued.
An American success story of a company led by a recently deceased charismatic visionary entrepreneur vs a faceless Korean mega corporation. It sells itself.
Good point and this proves that such complex civil cases should not be decided by juries!
A patent case is not about moral questions and narratives, it's about technical, legal as well as economic questions. (I would perhaps even argue that intellectual property laws are ultimately entirely about economics.)
I don't think case is about anything technical. If you look deep into Samsung's history, you'll see they make a business out of copying other company's successful products by mimicking the product's form factor or appearance. For example, Samsung copied Motorola's RAZR with their own SYNC model.
Although this demands we ask the question, "Is this bad?" It's sort of inevitable that popular designs will be mimic'd in the industry. Why is it bad, so long as Samsung retains a positive and strong branding so that they're not confusing people about who made the product?
Samsung is not exactly a powerhouse of innovation, but they're part of a competitive ecosystem that we prefer to think drives innovation. Smaller companies come along with breakthroughs that bigger companies integrate. Said smaller companies need to continue to innovate and grow to be competitive; no one gets to just make one great invention and sit back laughing at the market.
And isn't this exactly Apple's success story? Their last decade has been an unchecked rampage from market to market in the consumer electronics sphere, quickly toppling incumbents before moving on to another focus when it's clear there's no more low hanging fruit to extract from the markets dominated by sluggish competitors like Sony.
But right now we've seen a series of reversals in the tablet and phone spaces as several other companies band together to try and compete directly. It's sort of amazing that Apple could only be matched in their current target by a massive federation stitched together by another of the most brilliant companies of the last decade, but it's sort of unsurprising that if EVERYONE else gangs up and tries to counter Apple, they might not be able to iPodify this particular market.
I think it's bad if the average consumer cannot tell the difference between an Apple product and a Samsung product. Right now Samsung is trying hard to look like a cheaper apple product -- they have the same "white" apple stores with an equivalent genius bar (smart tutors), and they even reuse apple icons at their physical store wall paper (safari icons, etc). Their boxes and cables are identical to Apple's, they made their onscreen keyboard identical (same white/blue style -- even the shading is identical). Some of Samsung's products will even fit in 3rd party Apple addons that make use of the 30 pin dock.
I honestly don't think a new consumer will be able to easily differentiate between the 2 products. My mom calls everything an ipad even if it's not -- I don't think she would know that she's buying a galaxy tablet and not an ipad.
I don't think copying drives innovation. If cloning products drove innovation, we'd see a ton of China companies making innovative products, but most of them just clone some website in the US, slap on a few features, and that's it.
The China company that cloned Impactjs pixel-per-pixel did not provide anything additional other than providing the same service at half the price.
If Samsung wins here, it's basically setting a precedent for future companies to clone anything successful. We'll probably see a lot more Chinese companies cloning YC startups without worrying about lawsuits.
> Some of Samsung's products will even fit in 3rd party Apple addons that make use of the 30 pin dock.
In this particular point, Samsung is 100% in the right. Interoperability is one of the explicit justifications for copying. Vendor lock-in is nor protected by law, and is one of Apple's borderline-illegal monolopy-protecting tactics.
>"I think it's bad if the average consumer cannot tell the difference between an Apple product and a Samsung product."
Apple just might be the strongest brand in history and is the most valuable corporation on the planet. Their products are must-haves. Are people really getting confused? Are people really going to settle for a "cheaper" brand, rather than the real thing?
Hm, I don't believe the copycats actually succeeded here. I bet if they didn't copy, innovation could have happened sooner. Copying just lets the company stay alive for longer since consumers can't differentiate easily, and said company can use the money to research new innovations.
But that's not necessarily illegal. Only certain kinds of copying are disallowed by the law. And also, the patents that Samsung asserted in the countersuit were _quite_ technical.
And what law says that borrowing features and ideas from competitors is illegal or grounds for compensation?
If you quote the 43(a) of the Landham Act which covers trade dress, please specify which "word, term, name, symbol, or device" that Samsung used that was:
A) "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" people into thinking these were Apple products, OR
B) "in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act."
If your argument is that people purchased Samsung products thinking they were Apple products, please provide evidence of this fact.
Staggering how much ignorance there is about this case:
1) It was NOT TECHNICAL. It was predominately a lawsuit about trade dress and UI driven patent infringement. It is exactly the same as judging whether a Nike shoe has been copied or not. You don't need to understand the technicalities of the manufacturing process.
2) The Samsung standards essential patents WERE considered valid and infringed. Just that due to patent exhaustion Apple was exempt from infringement.
So maybe you should understand the very basics of the case first.
I'm strongly with you on (1). As people working within technology, we really want this case to be about a technical point which has some objectively correct conclusion.
The reality is that the US justice system doesn't work this way, and wasn't designed to. It's not technocratic in the way it reaches a verdict. The jury are not specialists, and aren't supposed to be. They are equals to every other citizen. They judge subjectively, representing the people. If they make a decision that doesn't align with the objective conclusion a specialist sees, that's still allowed.
Democracy is created with awareness of these kinds of 'mistakes'. See Aristotle's writing on democracy, and its benefits and pitfalls. It doesn't seem right sometimes, but it's a choice the US people have made actively.
Isn't a patent by its very definition "technical" in nature? Thereby requiring some technical know-how of the patents in question to adequately judge the case?
Many times, patent cases are argued like someone was trespassing: This idea is my property, and you started using it. What Apple did well in this trial is that it portrayed Samsung as a cheater—someone who looked over Apple's shoulder and copied down its answers. This portrayal obviously resonated with the jury leading to the overwhelming win.
Is that right? No, not really, especially for technical issues. Frankly, the most astounding part of this decision was that Samsung's standard-essential patents were not considered infringed. I fully expect Samsung to file (and win) a JNOV (a judgment notwithstanding the verdict) on that issue. But overall, I doubt this verdict will be overturned as a whole.