D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 1, posted (7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
"Abuse of discretion" is a term of art in the legal world. It basically means that she did something she wasn't supposed to do, i.e. commit an error that can be reversed. It's nowhere near as sinister as it sounds. (Usually.)
In this case, Apple requested an injunction at the start of the case (basically an order forbidding someone from doing something) preventing Samsung from selling the Galaxy Note because it likely infringed Apple's patents. But to get an injunction, you have to prove that the infringement of your patent will be the substantial cause of irreparable economic damage. To do that, you have to show that people buy Galaxies because it has this particular feature. Judge Koh thought Apple had shown that the patent and the damages were directly tied. The Federal Circuit thought the tie hadn't been shown. Here's the key statement by the Federal Circuit:
Quote: If the patented feature does not drive the demand for the product, sales would be lost even if the offending feature were absent from the accused product.
So now, Apple would have to go back and show the link between the patent and the economic loss, by showing that this patent (basically a search window for the entire device's contents) is the reason that people by Galaxy Notes.* That's going to be hard since I'm pretty sure people don't buy Galaxies for its search window.
But to fans of either product lines - if you are talking about the $1 B jury verdict however, this ruling has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, a judge does not abuse discretion when a jury reaches a verdict.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1933 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): While it's a minor setback, it makes me wonder if this is not the last time we'll read:
I'd be surprised if just about everything that this judge Koh has touched won't be overturned one way or another, she was a little bit too excited to use extreme tools on behalf of Apple.
As for the 1 billion dollar verdict, that one is also in risk of being overturned. Judge Koh being repremanded by a superior court just increases those odds.
I think this report is referring to the Nexus, but there are so many similar products being discussed so it's hard to keep them all straight.
Quoting D L X (Reply 1): But to get an injunction, you have to prove that the infringement of your patent will be the substantial cause of irreparable economic damage. To do that, you have to show that people buy Galaxies because it has this particular feature.
That seems to be a high hurdle to clear.
I hope some of the other sillier "appearance" patents get squashed, but I understand that the jury has spoken.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4): I think this report is referring to the Nexus
You're totally right. I wrote the wrong model.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4): That seems to be a high hurdle to clear.
Yup. It ain't gonna happen.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4): I hope some of the other sillier "appearance" patents get squashed
I can't go that far, because often the appearance is patented because finding an efficient way to package things is incredibly hard, but incredibly easy to copy.
Case in point: the self-collapsing cardboard box. Some engineers had to sit long and hard about how to cut and perforate a sheet of cardboard so that applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box. But with no patent, everyone can copy it -- that engineer's work didn't benefit him much.
But search windows have been around since at least 1996.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10442 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2375 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 5): Case in point: the self-collapsing cardboard box. Some engineers had to sit long and hard about how to cut and perforate a sheet of cardboard so that applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box. But with no patent, everyone can copy it -- that engineer's work didn't benefit him much.
Yes, but that's about functionality (applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box) more than appearance.
In the Apple-Samsung thing, there are both appearance things (rounded corners) as well as functionality things (pinch to shrink), and I think the appearance things are silly.
Even the words "ornamental decoration" are silly. Yes, it may cost you a lot to design a decorative ornament, but once it's out there, it's appearance is going to be copied, just deal with it.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): Yes, but that's about functionality (applying human pressure to it would make it turn into a box) more than appearance.
It's the appearance of the sheet of cardboard before it is pushed into a box that is patented. Inherent in every design patent is that the design aids a function. You may not like that the shape of an iPhone has been patented, but that shape aids the functionality of the device. (And also to be fair, which very very few commentators have ever been on this issue, the design is not merely a rectangle with rounded corners, but also with a tableau of icons arranged in a particular way, with buttons arranged in a particular way and smooth surfaces in particular places. If the accused devices doesn't have ALL of those features, it does not infringe. Having a rectangular shape with rounded corners is not what got Samsung into trouble.)
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10442 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 7): Inherent in every design patent is that the design aids a function.
How does that reconcile with the word "ornamental", which was prominently used in the coverage of Apple-Samsung?
Quote:
or·na·ment
1. an accessory, article, or detail used to beautify the appearance of something to which it is added or of which it is a part: architectural ornaments.
There's a big difference between beautifying the appearance of something vs design that aids function.
A pattern in the icing on a cupcake beautifies its appearance, but doesn't make it any easier to eat.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 9, posted (7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 8): How does that reconcile with the word "ornamental", which was prominently used in the coverage of Apple-Samsung?
Don't put too much stock in the coverage of the trial. I have yet to see an article outside the legal press that did a decent job of explaining what a design patent is. But yes, ornamental things may also be functional. A fancy doorknob is a prototypical example.
Anyway, I don't want to dominate this thread with legalese (which I fear I may have already done), so I'm going to bow out for a while. Cool?
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4627 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2278 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 5): Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
I hope some of the other sillier "appearance" patents get squashed
I can't go that far, because often the appearance is patented because finding an efficient way to package things is incredibly hard, but incredibly easy to copy.
But the thing is some are just really silly, such as "the bezel".
Quoting D L X (Reply 7): Having a rectangular shape with rounded corners is not what got Samsung into trouble.)
The bezel got Samsung in trouble:
Quote: "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same. Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated." ...
Is a bezel is really that new and unique and something that was not obvious? Really? Just go down a list an see if it has a bezel and if it does then it infringes.... it's crazy.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16802 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
I'm terribly sorry, but my heart bleeds. Oh noes! One of the largest corporations in the world has suffered a minor setback against another of the largest corporations in the world! Alone, Apple has enough liquidity on hand to pay off the national debt of a few third-world countries.
I have never understood the point of these patent battles, anyway. It seems rather interneceine to me. Costs a lot of money on both sides and rarely has any sort of meaningful outcome.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2473 posts, RR: 35 Reply 13, posted (7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2168 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): I have never understood the point of these patent battles, anyway. It seems rather interneceine to me. Costs a lot of money on both sides and rarely has any sort of meaningful outcome.
Don't forget all the public money being spent
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10442 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): I have never understood the point of these patent battles, anyway. It seems rather interneceine to me. Costs a lot of money on both sides and rarely has any sort of meaningful outcome.
I was reading that Jobs was quite angry about having to pay for a license due to a trivial patent on a previous program and insisted that on iPod and iPhone that they "patent everything".
That was why the war chest was full of patents when he decided that Andriod was a rip-off and that he'd spend Apple's last dollar trying to kill it off.
Bottom line is that much of this particular set of legal battles is about the ego of a person who is no longer alive, and so whatever outcome it has will not even be known to the main protagonist.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 17): I presume this meant the cost of running the courts, but it could also extend to the government cost of the patent process as well.
Courts absolutely. Not sure but I think the patent process is covered by fees. But there is also the costs to enforce sales injunctions. Particularly import control.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2473 posts, RR: 35 Reply 20, posted (7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1978 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 19): Private litigation (which is what this is)
How can you have missed all the cases that courts have had to deal with around the world?
Quoting Klaus (Reply 19): Should be covered by applicable fines imposed on the attempted importer.
Not from what I have seen. We had a case where Sony objected to some items we imported to Germany, but were happy with us importing the same items to Netherlands, France, Spain and UK, go figure. We certainly did not pay anything possibly covering the costs the German government occurred.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Quoting cmf (Reply 18): Not sure but I think the patent process is covered by fees.
The patent process is paid for (and then some!) by the patentee.
Quoting cmf (Reply 18): But there is also the costs to enforce sales injunctions. Particularly import control.
No. There is almost no cost to enforcing an injunction. The party that gets the injunction is the natural watchdog over the enjoined party. The instant the enjoined party does what they are not allowed to do, they are sued in contempt. That's the point at which the court is again involved.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4627 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (7 months 6 days ago) and read 1956 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 21): The parties pay the court fees.
They may pay fees but those are significantly different from the costs of the court. The fees do not cover the costs that the court creates. I believe that is what cmf was noting.
Quote: Court costs (also called law-costs, or in the United States, Attorney's fees) are the costs of handling a case, which, depending on legal rules, may or may not include the costs of the various parties in a lawsuit in addition to the costs of the court itself. Court costs can reach very high amounts, often far beyond the actual monetary worth of a case. Cases are known in which one party won the case, but lost more than the monetary worth in court costs. Court costs may be 'awarded' to one or both parties in a lawsuit, or they may be waived.
In both Australia and Canada, the losing side is ordered to pay the winning side's costs. This acts as a significant disincentive to bringing forward court cases. Usually, the winning party is not able to recover from the losing party the full amount of his or her own solicitor's (attorney's) costs, and has to pay the shortfall out of his or her own pocket. The loser pays principle does not apply to the United States legal system, although a separate system does operate there. In cases in the federal court system, Title 28, section 1920 of the United States Code, provides:
"A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree."
Quoting D L X (Reply 21): No. There is almost no cost to enforcing an injunction. The party that gets the injunction is the natural watchdog over the enjoined party. The instant the enjoined party does what they are not allowed to do, they are sued in contempt. That's the point at which the court is again involved.
There are plenty of costs in stopping shipments and following processing.
Quoting D L X (Reply 21): I think your information is wrong.
Ditto
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 20): How can you have missed all the cases that courts have had to deal with around the world?
What are you talking about? It is not criminal prosecution pursued by the state but instead litigation brough from private parties to other private parties, with the state having no interest in it. Court fees should usually apply to this kind of thing.
25 D L X: No, you just haven't yet explained how this point is relevant. That article you cite about "costs" (a term of art) is certainly not what cmf is talki
26 cmf: They sure are. I am. Are you trying to state they don't? Between the two of us only you are running off the rails. Reality is these cases exist becau
27 D L X: No, I'm trying to understand your argument, and why you would single out these cases. And that is again where you are incorrect. If Apple had not fil
28 cmf: This thread is about the Apple - Samsung cases. Why I talk about the Apple -Samsung cases. You're wrong. The size of the court system is built on the
29 D L X: I am on the same page with this. That's not necessary. The injunction forbade Samsung from selling the Galaxy Nexus. Don't you think that if Samsung
30 cmf: Why are you so afraid of talking about the topic of the thread. We are talking Apple Samsung. We are not talking Joe Doe vs Jane Doe. Don't assume th
31 D L X: I haven't feared from addressing Apple v. Samsung at all! It's possible that I was not clear, because there is clearly a disconnect between what I am
32 cmf: As clearly stated even by the minimal court costs you calculated, there is public cost. The attempt to say that they do not count because if it wasn'
33 zckls04: That's the worst argument I've ever heard! If you chopped the number of vehicles on the roads by a factor of ten, what do you suppose the effect woul
34 D L X: And as I have shown, the cost is so minimal that it is not worth singling out, so I'm still trying to figure out why you did. No, that is not at all
35 cmf: Yet again, add up all the costs of all courts around the world who have been involved in this Apple - Samsung war and we are not talking minimal numb
36 Klaus: Completely irrelevant without a clear calculation of actual public costs specifically for the respective trials minus the fees paid to the courts by
37 cmf: Suggesting that weeks of court time is without real cost is ignorant.
38 Klaus: Again: What exactly is the actual remaining cost after all court fees have been paid by the trial parties? You just keep claiming that this cost "had
39 zckls04: You're asking for a number which cannot be calculated though. But just because an exact figure can't be given doesn't mean you can assume it is zero.
40 Klaus: It doesn't have to be exactly zero to be effectively irrelevant. Absent any concrete numbers all the excitement about the presumably outrageous cost
41 D L X: Sure we are. It's still a multiplier of a small number, spread over many years. Do you have any numbers to refute this? I don't know, probably about
42 cmf: Why the exaggeration? I have never used enormous or anything like it. I have used substantial. You claim D L X's information was concrete. Problem is
43 D L X: You also said millions. That's why Klaus and I balked. I also tripled it for overhead. Seems I wasn't as far off as you suggest. Finally, some eviden
44 Klaus: Sorry, but that distinction is just irrelevant sophistry. D L X has already correctly pointed out that you have made a claim and the burden of proof
45 zckls04: All of this may be true, but the original claim was that this cost was zero: ...which I think has been demonstrated to be suspect at best. Now the go
46 D L X: And as I said, please forgive me for rounding a near-zero cost down to zero in that post. You yourself have agreed with me that the costs are not sig
47 Klaus: The judicial system is an essential infrastructure, not a bulk commodity, so unless this infrastructure needs to be boosted significantly just for th
48 Revelation: And today we read: Apple loses tablet copyright appeal against Samsung which says in part:
49 D L X: The only comment I'll make (for now) is this is not "copyright." It is a patent case. It hurts my brain to see the media misstate this. (Think the me
50 zckls04: You can't be exact about the costs involved unless you know the figures (which none of us do), but let's say a court heard 365 cases per year, each o
51 zippyjet: As long as there are hipsters, yuppies and metrosexuals Apple will bounce back and do smashingly fine. They must have sold their soul and made a deal
52 cmf: At least take responsibility for your exaggeration. I have provided backup for my claim. I stated we spend fortunes on courts each year. When you hav
53 D L X: Around and around we go... It's really getting tiring arguing against you when you do not put actual figures up. I'd even accept ballpark figures. So
54 cmf: It really is tiering that you can't apply the well established knowledge that we spend fortunes on running courts meaning that something that takes s
55 Acheron: Oh, but look, the patent system works just fine... http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...lidates-the-rubber-banding-patent/
56 tugger: I saw that today. Of course there are still several more hoops for this to go through and who knows if it will end up "re-validated", that will just
57 Acheron: Things get even better. Apple and Microsoft apparently claimed during negotiation with Samsung, that the 6 dollars or so per phone Samsung was asking
58 D L X: It's not just a bezel. It's a bezel attached to the particular other elements in the design patent. One element by itself does not create infringemen
59 tugger: Being that the type of design "flat screen" encourages a bezel as a standard design element, to claim it is unique or something that others don't use
60 D L X: I don't think we're connecting here. The patent is not on a bezel, but rather a bezel with an edge-to-edge flat-screen, a button at the bottom, a thi
61 Revelation: It suggests (but does not prove) that perhaps many of the other patents Apple is suing over will also go away, and thus perhaps the whole Apple case
62 Acheron: I guess you have no problem with Apple claiming $6 to be "excessively high and would destroy their ability to make any money" while at the same time
63 tugger: We are not connecting because you are positive the patents are valid (which is reasonable as they were awarded) and I am positive they should be vali
64 D L X: That is correct. Let me refer you to the statement that I made earlier which answers your concern: Now look, if you don't care about that, if your mi
65 Klaus: FRAND patents related to radio standards which are required to license to make a cell phone are numerous and can quickly add up to crippling levels u
66 Revelation: Ok, but we still have the below: By definition of FRAND the $6 is reasonable, yet Apple clams it is unreasonable, and then Apple goes on to charge fiv
67 D L X: I'm still seeing that there is a disconnect here. Let's unpack that sentence. 1) Why is $6/unit for a FRAND patent reasonable? Without any other info
68 Revelation: Indeed, and that includes "excessively high and would destroy their ability to make any money".
69 D L X: No, it would not destroy Samsung's (or anyone else's) ability to make money, since they can simply make a different design that does not infringe. Th
70 Revelation: That's what they did! Just kidding...
71 D L X: New development in the UK: The judge ordered Apple to publicly state that Samsung did not copy its design. Leaving aside (at least for now) whether th
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10442 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1933 posts, 
Always look outside the box to get the full view.
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
