"Reject Samsung's appeal," Apple says to the U.S. Supreme Court
posted by Alan F. / Feb 05, 2016, 1:03 AM
On Thursday, Apple filed its argument with the Supreme Court, writing that the Court has no business getting involved in the case. While Apple has already been paid $548 million by its rival, if the verdict is overturned Samsung will get its money back. Apple says that the method for awarding damages for infringing on design patents has been settled on for a long time and that it is not an issue that requires the Supreme Court to intervene.
Google, Facebook, Dell and HP have submitted amicus briefs on behalf of Sammy. And had Apple not been involved as the plaintiff in the case, it too might have been eager to join Samsung's clarion call for patent reform. After all, Apple itself must pay $625 million to VirnetX after a jury ruled that Apple had infringed on the company's VPN patent with its Face Time video chat. After the jury ruled in favor of VirnetX earlier this week, Apple said "We are surprised and disappointed by the verdict. Cases like this simply reinforce the desperate need for patent reform."
Check out the Supreme Court filings from both Samsung and Apple, which are embedded below.
source: Scribd (1), (2) via Re/code, AndroidCentral
Posts: 279; Member since: Apr 18, 2015
Why can't all the companies just get along?
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 1:17 AM 0
Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013
They largely did until Apple decided to sue people for their invalid patents.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 5:32 AM 17
Posts: 351; Member since: Jul 02, 2014
Court's reply - "Stop being greedy assholes"
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 1:36 AM 21
Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015
Sadly people on the court are also "greedy assholes"
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 1:54 AM 13
Posts: 415; Member since: Mar 31, 2015
Apple are some greedy MF`s! that`s one of the reasons I don`t buy Apple devices.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 1:44 AM 16
Apple charges what people are willing to pay. Look at it this way, if you don't want a Mercedes, Jaguar, Cadillac, etc. You are more than free to buy a Volkswagen, Ford, Honda, or any other lower market car. Apple works on the same principle. But I'm not surprised they are being hypocritical. Acting in your self-interest and ignoring what may be the greater good often results in hypocrisy.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 2:32 AM 3
You are correct with the idea that Apple charges what people are willing to pay. However, your comparison falls when looking at the fact that Mercedes, Jaguar, Cadillac spend more on its components in building their products than the others you mentioned. That definitely is not the case with Apple. The idea of greed isn't based simply on the mark-up, but how many of these types of law suits existed before 2007, when Apple went after HTC, Motorola, and Samsung seeking bans to create a monopoly? All of these companies went out and started buying patents left and right like it was an arms race after Apple started suing them for things that they themselves copied. Apple supporters still ignore or dance around the "slide to unlock" justification.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 7:04 AM 4
How much a company spends on engineering or making their cars as complicated as possible isn't necessarily connected to how reliable they are. Market segment has nothing to do with how well a car will hold up over time. It is absolutely true that higher end brands generally spend more on engineering and refinement. The flipside of that, is that it generally means there is more to go wrong and it will only be more expensive once it does. I can tell you that from personal experience with my Jaguar XF, and my previous BMW 3 series. http://www.newsday.com/classif
There are a hell of a lot of premium brands that are not as reliable as cars from brands that cost significantly less. True, you are getting something that is generally quieter, has more features and is more stylish. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are mechanically superior.
That being said, you are right about Apple's unsavory legal practices. But as I said on a different post, morality often has little place in business.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 10:19 AM 1
Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 2015
With a single difference thats mercedes , jaguar ect are not the most sold cars wich make them more unique and make ppl want it. Iphone are very common so for me thats alone make it lost its magic. Vertu phone on other hand thats real high end phone thats are special and rare.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 7:31 AM 1
Depending on which models were talking about, BMWs, Mercedes, and Audis are hardly uncommon. They may not be the highest sellers, but they are far from being rare. They each sell well over 1 million cars every year. It is exactly like the relationship of iOS and Android. There are a hell of a lot more android devices. But it is not at all uncommon to see an iPhone despite the higher price tag it carries than most Android phones. A huge part of the reason Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar and Audi charge what they do is because of brand cachet. That is partly what Apple operates on. The perception of premium is nearly more important then the reality of the product. Vertu, Tonino, Gresso and the like would be more analogous to Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Pagani, etc.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 10:26 AM 0
Posts: 42; Member since: Aug 07, 2015
Most patents of this case was invalidated, that's why Apple doesn't want the supreme court to look at it.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 2:26 AM 17
Posts: 288; Member since: Mar 19, 2015
@carbo : this particular SCOTUS petition has to do with Apple design patents that are still valid, but allowed Apple to take away Samsung's entire profit. Samsung is basically the damage should be apportioned like how every damage award is calculated.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 9:31 AM 0
Posts: 3276; Member since: Nov 15, 2013
when money is coming, apple is saying supreme court should not hear this case because it is fair to get money... when apple lost, it is saying that court is unfair and should hear the case again
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 2:28 AM 9
Well, yes. They're acting in whatever way they feel is in their best interest. That is entirely predictable even if it isn't necessarily moral. Then again, capitalism is in no way shape or form about morality.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 2:30 AM 6
How many times does Samsung have to loose the case before they stop appealing? Its time Samsung just pays up. I'm so tired of this case. Samsung looses, Samsung files for appeal, looses again, appeals again, and again and again. Not just with Apple - Samsung does this crap with everyone who sued them. Time to make them stop and own up. I know bunch of you will disagree, but all ya hate Apple anyway - that's your problem.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 2:31 AM 1
You have any idea how many companies that is applicable to? To put it another way, if you ran any given company being sued why in the hell would you just say f*** it and pay when you have a chance to have the entire case overturned and not have to deal with the financial loss? That's basic sense But as the article pointed out, in the grand scheme of things Samsung is ABSOLUTELY right even if they are mostly pursuing this to avoid that payment. Apple itself would actually benefit if they lost this case with Samsung and it resulted in a change to patent law. Honestly, Apple itself knows that and I can guarantee you they are going to be in the position Samsung is currently in one day.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 2:38 AM 26
Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010
If they were smart, Samsung would use Apple's own words against them. In the article the other day about Apple losing the case regarding Facetime, didn't someone associated with Apple say that that instance was an example of the need for patent reform. So apparently both companies are in agreement with that notion, but Apple just wants to get paid before the changes are made.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 8:04 AM 0
Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010
Who are we to say that it must stop? And if the patents they were found guilty on get invalidated, how is that bad for them? And if they just paid Apple from the start, how fast do you think Apple would be to pay them back?
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 3:47 PM 0
Ted and VZ, I respect your input here on PA... But you guys missing the point in making. Samsung should have the patents invalidated first then make their products not the other way around. It's not samsungs fault or apples for filing patents and being granted some of them - it's the USPO that need to get their s**t together - and stop validating and invalidating at whim - how the hell does someone protect their profits? Please retread this without thinking I'm biased toward Apple. I'm trying to explain this in post #41 as well. Apple sued because they were granted a patent for which (while it was valid) Samsung has infinginged upon. If it was invalidated - that's fine - it probaly shouldn't have been granted to begin with - but it was and Samsung knowingly infringed.
posted on Feb 05, 2016, 3:53 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):