Slashdot Mirror


Feds Ask Supreme Court To Void Apple's $400 Million Award From Samsung (siliconbeat.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the San Jose Mercury News technology blog: "The $400 million awarded to Apple in a patent-infringement case against Samsung is a moving target... On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a "friend of the court" brief to the Supreme Court, asking justices to void the $400 million award and send the case back to a lower court to determine if a new trial is needed... Samsung has argued that it should be liable only for profits attributable to a specific design that violated a patent, not an entire phone, and that the law should be interpreted to impose liability related to "components of the phones, rather than the phones themselves, according to the brief. The department came down on Samsung's side on the component argument, and blasted a federal circuit court ruling that had upheld the jury award.
Ironically, earlier this week Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung for its innovation, both in virtual reality headsets and with a Samsung camera that takes a picture whenever you say "smile".

63 comments

  1. Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the golden Apple age is really over.

    1. Re: Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats how bad white people are gonna get it in the ass. Even wow praising the Koreans

    2. Re:Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I guess the golden Apple age is really over.

      Woz keeps praising lots of stuff. Including Apple gear. Apple must be doomed.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That this award was not about some unique, non obvious mechanism. It was because Samsung phones had the "look and feel of an iPhone."

    1. Re:Let's not forget by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which had the look and feel of an LG Prada, or a Mio A701, or a dozen other candy bar phones. But I digress...

    2. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet was unique enough that Samsung was caught red handed trying to copy it down to the icons. FYI, it did not have the look and feel of the LG Prada, and the Prada was revealed just a couple of months before the iPhone. The Mio A701 used a stylus and looked more like a Palm Treo than an iPhone. I have no idea where people like yourself come up with this nonsense. But I digress...

    3. Re:Let's not forget by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally I think Apple should sue the shit out of everyone with a device that weighs the same as an iPhone. Because, well, that's pretty much what they're being allowed to do anyway.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Prada was stolen in design. After all, the same shit happened to Apple with their OS and MS coming in for a "tech partnership".

      And totally right for "look and feel" to be given the weight of super-criminal status, because it's just so warm and fuzzy a concept!!! Just try to explain what it was that was the same for the Samsung but WASN'T for the LG.

      Try it.

    5. Re:Let's not forget by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      FYI, it did not have the look and feel of the LG Prada, and the Prada was revealed just a couple of months before the iPhone.

      Actually, the official reveal was a few days after the iPhone - but who's counting. http://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-Prada-phone-officially-announced_id1739

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  3. Our govenrnment at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "friend of the court" my ass ... the judgement should stand and the Department of Injustice needs to butt the hell out.
    I

    1. Re:Our govenrnment at work by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Government determines that they may have overreached, Anonymous Coward decides this is also overreach and that the original government overreach must be correct. Because screw both due process as well as checks and balances.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    2. Re: Our govenrnment at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if Boeing had put an inflight screen in, and that screen had "one click buy duty free" button on it, is it then OK for Amazon to demand ALL the sales from every Boeing 747 since they were made? Simply because one component of one component violated Bezos one click patent?

      It's a patent scam

    3. Re: Our govenrnment at work by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I agree, however it's one patent scam out of a multitude. Why would they decide to step in for Samsung? They didn't help Blackberry out or any of the other companies that got hijacked by patent scams. What's special about Samsung? Who did they pay off? Or perhaps the President of South Korea had a talk with high level US officials and arranged a favor? You can bet there's a reason besides "it's a patent scam."

    4. Re: Our govenrnment at work by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      No, if Boeing had put an inflight screen in, and that screen had "one click buy duty free" button on it, is it then OK for Amazon to demand ALL the sales from every Boeing 747 since they were made? Simply because one component of one component violated Bezos one click patent?

      It's a patent scam

      So your point that Samsung only had sales worth $400 million?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  4. Visited Taipei Display Geek (retired) last month by retroworks · · Score: 4, Informative

    Last month I went to Taipei to interview a retired display device geek for a story I'm writing. He explained that the touch display technology was originally German, and that his mentor bought it from the German firm hoping to use it in touch screen ATM (CRT based, I think) when the German company went chapter 11 ("They had a great technology, but no application"). They got it to work on small LCDs, and the Taiwanese group pitched it to a company making Ipods for touch displays, he's not sure how it went from there to telephones. Apple got the guys mentor to open a shop in Vancouver to claim the device was independently developed there rather than Taiwan. I still don't have all the history covered, still grey areas, and I've been studying this for years. I don't understand the utility of asking juries to award $400M patent awards based on "telephones" with "rounded corners".

    --
    Gently reply
  5. Payback by mveloso · · Score: 2

    This is the Obama administration giving their friends at Apple the UFIA.

    1. Re:Payback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a price worth paying. Apple don't need the $400M if it comes with "iOS backdoor" strings attached.

    2. Re:Payback by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Damn! I was wondering why the Feds were being Samsung's bitch. Now I see the light. I'm getting slow in my old age, I should have seen that right off the bat.

    3. Re:Payback by epine · · Score: 1

      Damn! I was wondering why the Feds were being Samsung's bitch. Now I see the light. I'm getting slow in my old age, I should have seen that right off the bat.

      Because—as old crusty coot knows to the very marrow of his fragile bones—the most cynical available view is never wrong. My diagnosis is that old age is still penetrating your hard tissues. But take heart. The process is automatic. You won't even have to work for it.

      Hitchen's Author of America contains a super depressing page on Thomas Jefferson descending into coot-hood.

      "I regret that I am not to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it."

      Vintage Passion of the Withering Lawn.

      "Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger?" he demanded to know in a letter to Adams. If Congress could override the state on the question of slavery ... where would it all end? "All the whites south of the Potomac and Ohio must evacuate their states; and most fortunate those who can do it first."

      Good grief, doubting Thomas, settle down.

    4. Re:Payback by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm getting old and slow. You've gone for senility. From the Feds fucking Apple over after the refusal to crack the iPhone to whites fleeing vengeful ex-slaves. Quite a trip. Now that I think on it I believe it might be drug or alcohol instead of senility.

  6. the shifting definition of "innovation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung for its innovation ... with a Samsung camera that takes a picture whenever you say "smile".

    20th century innovation: The solid state transistor. The integrated circuit. Laser. Space travel. The internet.

    21st century innovation: A "camera that takes a picture whenever you say smile". Selfies. Facebook. The "selfie-stick".

    1. Re:the shifting definition of "innovation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would that not in itself constitute innovation?

    2. Re:the shifting definition of "innovation" by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I guess it's a matter of degree.

    3. Re:the shifting definition of "innovation" by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      And my Lg G4 will take a photo if you say Cheese, Whisky, Smile, Kimchi or LG.....

    4. Re:the shifting definition of "innovation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And virtual reality, and self driving cars, and deep learning, and big data mining, and true parallel computing...
      Come on, the 21st century is still young, we can match the 20th!

    5. Re: the shifting definition of "innovation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And quadropters, deeper genetic insights, prosthetics, etc.

    6. Re:the shifting definition of "innovation" by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung for its innovation ... with a Samsung camera that takes a picture whenever you say "smile".

      20th century innovation: The solid state transistor. The integrated circuit. Laser. Space travel. The internet.

      21st century innovation: A "camera that takes a picture whenever you say smile". Selfies. Facebook. The "selfie-stick".

      Good thing we have 4-score+ years left in this century...

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  7. I'm glad the Feds feel that way by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    The next person that loses against the MPAA/RIAA should then bring this document out. Since only profits should be repaid then the person should owe them nothing as it is commonly known that due to creative accounting techniques music and movies don't make money.

    1. Re:I'm glad the Feds feel that way by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      I've thought the same thing. Although one is copyright and the other is patent law...

    2. Re:I'm glad the Feds feel that way by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apples and Oranges, my friend. MPAA/RIAA is copyright (and some trademark). This Fed thing is Patent, and the purpose for the award is, based on the jury's decision on the evidence, to get justice for Samsung making (huge) profits off stolen idea(s). Apple being a big company, the issue may get a little fuzzy. So, imagine if Apple were a tiny company of a few guys in a garage, making a few phones with their parents' money, and a year later Samsung is making billions of them that look and act just like them. The Patent system exists to give the garage guys a chance at some justice, so they and every other inventor don't just say fuck-it and hit the pipe.

      If the jury finds that Samsung did steal, then the penalty is supposed to be severe, and the damages are hooked to the profits made off the theft. The theft concerned technologies associated with a mobile phone, and went into building and marketing a phone. So, the jury based their award based on profits made off Samsung's phones.

      The Justice Department, for some reason, now wants the jury to split hairs and somehow figure out how much more Samsung's profits would be equipped with Apple's inventions vs. what Samsung would have earned if they had just done without. Given that juries in patent cases are typically in way over their heads in the first place... good luck with that!!!

      Samsung's business practice has often been to unapologetically copy stuff and use their deep, deep pockets to out litigate patent holders, at least until they attain dominant market share, and then, mission accomplished, maybe settle. Apple's one of the few players big enough to fight back. I think the jury did the right thing, and $400 mil might be enough of a bite to deter Samsung from keeping it up. What the Justice Department hopes to accomplish here completely escapes me, except it will make it even harder for honest patent holders to ever see a dime out of well-financed thieves.

      Admittedly, trolls might benefit, too, if they hold a patent that actually sticks. Most of them don't, and defendants like Newegg who don't fall for that shit have been shutting them down way before there's a question of damages. So, this is not about trolls. This is about a mega-rich vertically-integrated conglomerate stealing other people's R&D to become the dominant player in a market, and using every legal trick money can buy to weasel their way out of being held accountable.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  8. Ironically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This has NOTHING to do with Apple denying the Obama Administration's demand to add backdoors to their operating system.

    1. Re:Ironically... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      No, it's their desire to kill American companies in favor of foreign ones.

  9. Re:Slashdot hates gay people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is concerning they haven't posted on this yet.

  10. Slashdot is slow, for analysis by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The other day Slashdot posted a story about a court filing that happened in early 2015 - over a year ago. This particular story is about as fast as Slashdot gets - the news sites covered it Friday, two days ago. I'm sure Slashdot will have a story about the shooting in the next few days, probably after more is known so there can be better discussion.

    1. Re:Slashdot is slow, for analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they should have a post that they're waiting for more information for a better discussion. As of now they are either incompetent or uncaring, possibly both.

    2. Re: Slashdot is slow, for analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to agree with OP. Slashdot editor in charge right now needs to be fired.

    3. Re:Slashdot is slow, for analysis by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Someone got shot? Imagine that. People get shot every day.

    4. Re:Slashdot is slow, for analysis by lucm · · Score: 1

      This will be a thing of the past once Emperor Palpatine Clinton takes control of the country. Gun control and using the Presidency for personal gain is the legacy of that clan.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Slashdot is slow, for analysis by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I can see where they might want to reign in all the restrictions of the US Constitution. With things like the 2nd and 4th amendments holding them back from keeping us safe from terrorists. If it weren't for that pesky old document just think how safe we'd be! There's a reason why our forefathers screamed "Give me liberty or give me death!" Living under tyranny makes dying preferable.

  11. DOJ supported Apple by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    They did support apple. What happened?

    1. Re:DOJ supported Apple by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      Samsung got caught up with their protection mon-... I mean brib-... I mean lobbying. Yeah, totally legal lobbying, yep. :)

    2. Re:DOJ supported Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple "refusing to cooperate" with the DoJ in recent months. Nope, no sir, no way. -PCP

  12. mass shooting in Orlando by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I assume that a lot of the people that were shot were iPhone users, given what the place was...

  13. Pay back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously this is pay back for Apple not currying Justice's favor by opening up iOS. What an embarrassment of Justice.

    Samsung would not have sold nearly so many smartphones if it couldn't tout them as being everything an iPhone is.

    1. Re:Pay back! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've got to admit I liked the look of the S2. I've always bought Samsung until they did away with the removable battery and SD card. Now they're exactly like Apple. Had to go to LG for my Wife's new phone.

  14. Re: Slashdot hates gay people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That story is gonna be swept under the rug lest it undermines mainstream rhetoric. Hold your tears Leftists! They were just statistics.

  15. Re:Visited Taipei Display Geek (retired) last mont by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    I don't understand the utility of asking juries to award $400M patent awards based on "telephones" with "rounded corners".

    Even if it's a bit chancy, it's a great way to launder and write off 400 mil... The "lawsuit" is just another way of transferring funds

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  16. Or Slashdot isn't "Headline News Now" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > they are either incompetent or uncaring, possibly both.

    "They" is mainly a computer algorithm, users vote on stories in the Firehose to determine what appears on the front page. So yes, the algoritm is uncaring.

    Beyond that, this isn't "Headline News Now, Up to the Minute Reporting of What's Going on Today". There are sites that do that. Slashdot isn't one of those. Try CNN or Fox.

  17. Payback time! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    Refuse to crack a phone for us? Well, well...I guess we'll just be filing a "friend of the court" against you in every case we can now. This is "banana republic" level of corruption and judicial interference.

    1. Re:Payback time! by sjames · · Score: 1

      It may actually be a correction of banana republic behavior. They should have been putting the brakes on this well before now. I would be heartened by this except I don't believe any actual correction has taken place in government, it's just that Apple is no longer on the special friends list.

    2. Re:Payback time! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The problem with "X did something against Y, Y then takes a position Q against X that happens to be the right thing" is that you can't tell whether Y is acting because X did what it did, or because Q is the right thing.

      To put it another way, the Obama administration (and Samsung) is in the right here. It'd be interesting to know their motives.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Payback time! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Shush! Stop trying to steal my tinfoil hat!

  18. irrelevant, not irony by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Ironically, earlier this week Steve Wozniak was praising Samsung for its innovation, both in virtual reality headsets and with a Samsung camera that takes a picture whenever you say "smile".

    That might be ironic if Woz was a part of the lawsuit and claimed that Samsung never made innovative products. But that's not the case.

  19. Re: Slashdot hates gay people by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing posts like this. If they aren't song lyrics, they should be.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Congress should fix it by l2718 · · Score: 2

    Both the Patent law and Copyright law are in desperate need of fixing, and letting courts bumble their way around is not the way to go.

    Current Patent law is drafted with the idea that you patent whole devices, at which point if you build something covered by patent without getting a license you should be liable for your "total profits". But today patents cover small bits in the device, and each device embodies thousands of patents. Courts (especially the Supreme Court) can say "Congress didn't think about that when it drafted the law, so we'll 'interpret' the language Congress actually wrote [total profits] to mean something that makes sense [the part of the profits which is attributable just to the infringed patent]. But this is a bad solution -- much better would be for Congress to change the law. At that time other urgent fixes (like the term of patents, the windfall rules for making out-of-patent and out-of-production rare drugs etc) can also be made.

    Copyright law is similar: rather than hope courts will restrain themselves (lowering absurd damage verdicts like the Jammie Thomas case) or restrain Congress (how did Eldred v Aschroft do?) we need to get Congress to fix the copyright term at something reasonable (say 20 years, renewable with registration once).

    1. Re:Congress should fix it by themeliorist · · Score: 1

      But it's incredibly difficult to assess "the part of the profits which is attributable just to the infringed patent" and that amount could even exceed the total profit made (if it increases market share, PR goodwill, etc). Let's say you patent a tech that halves the latency of PCIe. Assuming you demand reasonable per unit compensation, no major OEM would pay you licensing fees if they following argument was likely to hold "this is only one aspect of performance of one of many buses within our PC which contains billions of traces that transfer data having nothing to do with this patent; therefore we generously offered one billionth of our profits on our infringing PCs which the plaintiff rebuffed." To me, a market study is needed to see how many customers would have bought the product if it didn't have the tech and, if applicable, how many of said customers would have bought the patent owners' product instead. The patent owner should get all of the (per unit) profit from the customers who wouldn't have bought the product without the patent + any profit above this it would have reaped instead (by higher prices or lower costs of the patent owner) + an estimated value on the goodwill/excitement generated by having this technology in the product. All of these should be argued/determined in court and should be worrisome enough to generally default to paying licensing fees (and not ending up in court in the first place, which is a complete waste of resources).

  21. Woz is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's neither (incorrectly reported as) "ironic" nor coincidental that Woz is praising Samsung; he calls tech the way he sees it without a political agenda.

  22. Re:Visited Taipei Display Geek (retired) last mont by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially as Apple's design is preceded by a shockingly similar Nokia Display Product (now ViewSonic) mobile entertainment center. That was thicker and had a TV tuner inside.

  23. Not possible by lucm · · Score: 2

    Anyone who has any experience dealing with the federal government can tell that there's just no way they could make a conspiracy work, even if all the involved parties agreed (which is also impossible).

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  24. WTF by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Seriously? So we're going to dissect the phone down to it's constituent components and base award off those that offend. Dude it's a fucking phone. The whole package not bits and pieces. There's a reason Google shoves stuff down your throat and does not let you pick and chose. Citing a 1920's case is a bit of a reach and also dubious of its conclusions.