If you're new to AirPods, considering buying a pair, or just want to pick up some new tips.
Samsung Ordered to Pay Apple $539 Million in iPhone Design Patent Retrial
The latest Samsung v. Apple trial wrapped up this afternoon after the jury decided that Samsung must pay Apple a total of $539 million for violating Apple's design patents with five android devices sold between 2010 and 2011, reports CNET.
A total of $533,316,606 was awarded to Apple for Samsung's violation of three design patents, while the remaining $5,325,050 was for Samsung's infringement on two of Apple's utility patents.
Samsung and Apple were back in court to redetermined damages after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, which was set at $399 million after several appeals, was a "disproportionate" sum for the design violation.
The Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals to redetermine the damages amount, leading to today's victory for Apple.
The core issue of the retrial was whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's fee should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied.
Apple argued that its payment should be based on the full value of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a lesser amount. They're seeking profits on the entire phone," argued Samsung lawyer John Quinn. "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone. They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone."
Apple asked the jury to award $1 billion in damages, while Samsung asked jurors to limit the damages to $28 million. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury sided with Apple, and the new award is more than Samsung would have had to pay had the retrial not happened.
In a statement, Apple had this to say: "It is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design. We're grateful to the jury for their service and pleased they agree that Samsung should pay for copying our products.
Update: Samsung also gave a statement on the verdict: "Today's decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages. We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity."
A total of $533,316,606 was awarded to Apple for Samsung's violation of three design patents, while the remaining $5,325,050 was for Samsung's infringement on two of Apple's utility patents.
Samsung and Apple were back in court to redetermined damages after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, which was set at $399 million after several appeals, was a "disproportionate" sum for the design violation.
The Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals to redetermine the damages amount, leading to today's victory for Apple.
The core issue of the retrial was whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's fee should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied.
Apple argued that its payment should be based on the full value of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a lesser amount. They're seeking profits on the entire phone," argued Samsung lawyer John Quinn. "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone. They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone."
Apple asked the jury to award $1 billion in damages, while Samsung asked jurors to limit the damages to $28 million. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury sided with Apple, and the new award is more than Samsung would have had to pay had the retrial not happened.
In a statement, Apple had this to say: "It is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design. We're grateful to the jury for their service and pleased they agree that Samsung should pay for copying our products.
Update: Samsung also gave a statement on the verdict: "Today's decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages. We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity."
[ 149 comments ]
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
11 months ago
I remember back in the day picking up a colleagues Samsung Galaxy (I think that’s the model it was) and thinking it was an iPhone 3G, even being amazed how similar the icon layout was. To say they didn’t copy any of it is a bit of a lie.
11 months ago
Samsung likes to copy Apple... however, they are still smart enough not to copy Siri... :D
11 months ago
Samsung likes to copy Apple... however, they are still smart enough not to copy Siri... :D
Remember that time when Apple didn't just steal an idea, but claimed it as their own? I do:
[MEDIA=youtube]8JZBLjxPBUU[/MEDIA]
1 year earlier showing tech from the 80s:
[MEDIA=youtube]ac0E6deG4AU[/MEDIA]
11 months ago
As long as this back and forth has been going on though, I feel like that is just paying legal fees.
11 months ago
Pay it and end this circus. Can't believe Apple got away with owning rounded corners.
11 months ago
“We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity."
How about not copying? Blatantly.
Yes all phones now look and act much the same. But back when this started Samsung went from one design to an almost exact copy. They do it in other industries too. That’s how they operate. Apple kept at them when most companies give up.
How about not copying? Blatantly.
Yes all phones now look and act much the same. But back when this started Samsung went from one design to an almost exact copy. They do it in other industries too. That’s how they operate. Apple kept at them when most companies give up.
11 months ago
Pay it and end this circus. Can't believe Apple got away with owning rounded corners.
They already paid it... they wanted a refund.Instead they got a bill for a few million more.
Apple only won because their lawyers managed to get some key prior art tossed out.
Every other country where prior art was allowed in, Apple lost.
Let's hope this is the end of it.
As a side note, I'm sure Qualcomm is loving the outcome. If something as frivolous as rounded corners and icon layout can warrant this kind of cash, imagine what a crucial piece of tech should garner.
11 months ago
Here are the three design patents in question:
In case you forgot, the iPhone came out in 2007. Hmm. Flat, rounded rectangle with bezel and rounded speaker hole. Even round home buttons and an icon grid. Yet, Apple claims it invented these shapes?
-----
But that's just one problem with this whole mess. The more important one with this retrial was the idea of whether or not such Design Patents should be worth the ENTIRE profits... which gives design patents (which are visual only) awards power waaaay above regular utility patents (which implement something and usually award per their contribution to the whole).
Naturally, liberal arts designers think their work should be worth everything; far more than engineering patents. The problem with that is, it means even the designer of a single icon could sue Apple for ALL its iPhone profits. Worse, it means in theory that EACH AND EVERY icon owner could sue Apple for all its iPhone profits. Yep, multiple awards of the entire profits.
How on earth does that make any sense? Answer: it doesn't. Congress needs to rethink this hundred year old law, which was created back when products used a single design patent.
In case you forgot, the iPhone came out in 2007. Hmm. Flat, rounded rectangle with bezel and rounded speaker hole. Even round home buttons and an icon grid. Yet, Apple claims it invented these shapes?
-----
But that's just one problem with this whole mess. The more important one with this retrial was the idea of whether or not such Design Patents should be worth the ENTIRE profits... which gives design patents (which are visual only) awards power waaaay above regular utility patents (which implement something and usually award per their contribution to the whole).
Naturally, liberal arts designers think their work should be worth everything; far more than engineering patents. The problem with that is, it means even the designer of a single icon could sue Apple for ALL its iPhone profits. Worse, it means in theory that EACH AND EVERY icon owner could sue Apple for all its iPhone profits. Yep, multiple awards of the entire profits.
How on earth does that make any sense? Answer: it doesn't. Congress needs to rethink this hundred year old law, which was created back when products used a single design patent.
[ Read All Comments ]
Just ahead of when Apple plans to launch a new subscription video service that will give customers access to bundled cable channels, Comcast has introduced Xfinity Flex, a streaming service that...
Apple today updated a number of its video-related Mac apps, including Final Cut Pro, Motion, Compressor, and iMovie. Most of the updates are minor in scale, focusing on bug fixes and under-the-hood...
The 19th annual CanSecWest security conference is underway in Vancouver, Canada, including the annual Pwn2Own hacking contest, and two zero-day security vulnerabilities have so far been discovered in...
Apple today updated its Apple Store app to version 5.3, introducing a redesigned Sessions tab at the bottom of the app that houses dozens of new Today at Apple sessions that Apple users can sign up...
Earlier this week we highlighted a few deals for pre-orders on Apple's new iPad mini and iPad Air, and now B&H Photo has introduced a notable pre-order discount for the new entry-level...
With Apple Pay's latest promotion, you can get free delivery through Instacart when you use Apple Pay to checkout. To get the free delivery, you'll have to spend $35 or more on your...
Apple in March debuted second-generation AirPods, featuring several updates over the original massively popular wireless earbuds of the same name.
So what's improved in the new AirPods...
Michelle Dockery, best know for her role as Lady Mary Crawley in PBS's "Downton Abbey," has signed on to star in "Defending Jacob," one of the TV shows Apple has ordered.
...
