Samsung to Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in Ongoing Patent Battle With Apple

No way the Supreme Court is going to hear this. They review 100-150 cases a year and only rule on 60-70 cases a year. This is not a SCOTUS issue. Samsung should just quit before it costs them more than the fine.

Anything to drag this out. In another year when they've exhausted the SC avenue and the judgement stands they will find some other idea for appeal. In another three to five years when all of those are exhausted they will then drag out actually paying for a decade or more.

That's Samsung's business model: Steal litigate, drag it out, repeat.

I sort of just wish they'd kiss and get all of this romantic tension out of the way.



And a few passion-filled months later, the sPhone 6S Edge was born unto the world.

Sorry in advance for the length on this-- it's a response to two long posts that probably belong together...

I am merely pointing out Apple is in NO WAY innocent, it steals just the same.
Ok maybe you can relate to this more then, and as said the Swiss Railway Company threatened to take Apple to court and that's why Apple paid, Apple should have followed the law and asked them if they could use their design first. So don't try and twist it round.

Anyway, I'll use this example then ('http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-settles-with-creative-for-100-million-1/'): Apple copied creatives patented technology, creative sued them and won, and as the iPod sales were so important to Apple it just paid rather than risk iPod imports being banned.
So Apple stole patented technology, were sued, attempted to counter sue and lost on both accounts.

And Samsung is innocent, the patent Apple won with has been void, it no longer exists, with the case still going on with all these appeals then that needs to be taken into account.
Apple was only using the law to get Samsung products off the shelf to gain market share, it came up with rubbish reasons like they copied the colours black and white, they copied this basic sketch of a rectangle with round corners...

I can think of two devices that copied, the Galaxy 1 and the icon design for the new smart watch they have coming. I'm not talking about all the other patents.
I am just pointing out Apple is in no way innocent.

Or what about the Ericsson dispute, Ericsson are losing money to Apple because Apple refuses to pay them to license their technology that goes into every single cellular equipped iOS device. Everyone else pays them but not Apple, they want to twist the law to get a better deal, and refused to accept a fee decided by the courts which Ericsson offered to Apple.

The are stealing patented technology which is costing money to Ericcson because that's how Apple does business, and this has been going on for several months, so how many iOS devices have been sold in that time? Ericsson have 4 court cases lined up in 4 different countries if Apple doesn't settle by December. Apple has of course attempted to counter sue as it always does, but at the end of the day they are stealing Ericssons patented technology. In effect Apple is performing the very act they accuse Samsung of.

First, the lead story is about Samsung taking their case to the Supreme Court because they don't think they should have to pay their court ordered fine. Most of your arguments are either just noise and smoke to avoid discussing the subject, or essentially making the argument that "two wrongs make a right, neener, neener". I can't really tell which.

As far as my twisting things around, you'll have to explain how I'm doing that. You said Apple infringed and then paid fines. I'm agreeing. My point is simply that by giving a long list of times that Apple infringed, and paid their fines, is not helping your (implied) argument that Samsung should be let off the hook.

The one point you've made that may be relevant (almost by accident, it seems) is that the USPTO just issued a non-final ruling that D6'77 may not hold the priority date that they'd said it does. That's a reversal on the PTO's part, and possibly, but not necessarily, relevant. I suspect, by your characterization, that you haven't actually read the ruling. The patent has not been invalidated-- you can tell because the little check box "b[] This action is made FINAL" (sic) is not checked. It is merely a communication from USPTO saying that barring further arguments from Apple (and you know there will be some) they're moving towards invalidating the patent.

If you read the ruling, you will also see that USPTO indicates what remedies Apple may follow to retain their patent. Search for phrases in the ruling like, "the examiner suggests overcoming this rejection in one of the following ways", and "the rejection may be overcome by showing". PTO phrases their communication like an email that says "Let us know what you think. If we don't hear back, we'll assume you're ok with this and we'll just go ahead and gut your business. Have a good weekend." Lawyers, and geek lawyers in particular, aren't big on the warm fuzzies.

Other than that, Creative and Swiss Rail are arguments in favor of Samsung ponying up. Apple infringed and paid. The threat of court is meaningless in this context-- it's standard boilerplate in a legal letter.

Ericsson is fresh litigation. Contrary to your statements, Apple had been paying license fees until their agreement expired in January. They were unable to come to agreement on the next fee schedule. Ericsson took them to court rather than continuing negotiations (or as a way of continuing negotiations). If you have a patent in a pool required to implement an industry standard technology you are permitted a "fair and non-discriminitory" license fee. The fact that this went to court in no way says that Apple is in the wrong, nor does it say that Ericsson is. When the kids can't get along, they appeal to the parents to settle the dispute. When it is resolved, if Apple refuses to pay their license fees for the period between January and the final ruling, you'll have a point. Until then you're just slinging mud.

Buddy bought an S5 recently and the water resistant trapdoor on the bottom of the charging port fell off after two days of use. I asked him did he get it fixed, he said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said it was a cosmetic issue, and they were not responsible. Junk company.

One quick example, before people go all 'nuclear' on Samsung on here, perhaps I should remind you of this:



The trademarked clock owned by the Swiss Railway company that Apple STOLE and put into iOS, it then released said iOS update with the trademarked clock to the public and that was the first time the Swiss Railway Company knew Apple had stolen it.
The Swiss Railway Company then approached Apple who then paid 21 million $ for it's use, most likely to save embarrassment of removing the trademarked clock design they stole and because Apple was threatened with legal action.

Just showing that Apple steals too.

...But unlike Samsung, Apple paid up. They didn't keep taking the SRC to court repeatedly to get the fine down (or removed).

Well considering the main patent that the huge fine was based on has now been classed as void by the US Patent Office:

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/17/uspto-invalidates-patent/

Because Apple messed up, or tried it on, and they have void it on technicality, then Apple should be paying Samsung and the American Tax payer for money wasted just to gain market share. So I would fully expect the courts to accept this appeal and cancel the fines.

Perhaps Apple can go running to Obama crying again and have him overturn US court decisions for them again?

http://news.sky.com/story/1124254/apple-ban-overturned-by-obama-administration

queue endless post on how nasty Samsung are and how they endlessly copy Apple, meanwhile conveniently ignoring Apple apparently claims to have invented rectangles with rounded corners and had its front iPhone facia patent void by the US patent office....

Umm, considering that one of the patents that Apple says was violated was that the device is rectangular with rounded corners, I would say that this is exactly the type of case the Supreme Court should be hearing.

Then they can finally rule that the idea of patenting a rectangular device with rounded corners is not legal.

I am not saying that Samsung is totally innocent, but I am pointing out the absurdity of the current patent system and it really has gotten so far away from it's original intent, it's absurd. By the way, the original intent was to allow companies to make back their costs a nice profit, then spur innovation by allowing others to build on that patent. It was not intended to prevent companies from using something as a starting point forever like it is being applied now.

Buddy bought an S5 recently and the water resistant trapdoor on the bottom of the charging port fell off after two days of use. I asked him did he get it fixed, he said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said it was a cosmetic issue, and they were not responsible. Junk company.

Buddy of mine bought an iPhone 4 and would drop calls when he held it in a very common way. I asked him if he got it fixed and said no, they wouldn't fix it. He said they said that he was just holding it wrong. Junk company.

Umm, considering that one of the patents that Apple says was violated was that the device is rectangular with rounded corners, I would say that this is exactly the type of case the Supreme Court should be hearing.

Then they can finally rule that the idea of patenting a rectangular device with rounded corners is not legal.

I am not saying that Samsung is totally innocent, but I am pointing out the absurdity of the current patent system and it really has gotten so far away from it's original intent, it's absurd. By the way, the original intent was to allow companies to make back their costs a nice profit, then spur innovation by allowing others to build on that patent. It was not intended to prevent companies from using something as a starting point forever like it is being applied now.

Yeah but when it comes to having a go at Samsung for copying all logic and reason goes riiigghhhtttt out of the window..

Apple use the patent system purely to gain market share, people can't see that though. Having a competitor's product off the shelfs is fantastic for your directly competing products sales after all.