Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules For Samsung in Smartphone Fight With Apple (reuters.com)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Samsung in its high-profile patent dispute with Apple over design of the iPhone. The justices said Samsung may not be required to pay all the profits it earned from 11 phone models because the features at issue are only a tiny part of the devices. From a report on Reuters: The justices in their 8-0 ruling sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. The decision gives Samsung another chance to try to get back a big chunk of the money it paid Apple in December following a 2012 jury verdict that it infringed Apple's iPhone patents and mimicked its distinctive appearance in making the Galaxy and other competing devices. The court held that a patent violator does not always have to fork over its entire profits from the sales of products using stolen designs, if the designs covered only certain components and not the whole thing.
from the ./ summary:
The justices in their 8-0 ruling sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Another way to put that is the Supreme Court unanimously decided that both sides need to keep paying their lawyers.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Yes, a tiny underdog... one of the most cash-rich private entities in the history of the planet... Poor whittle Apple
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Specifically, up until 1885, the patent act had damages for infringement of a design patent that were "the actual damages sustained". In 1885, there was a design patent infringement case having to do with carpet designs. The lower court said the actual damages were the infringer's profits, in $ per yard of carpet sold. The Supreme Court reversed and said that since bland carpets have some intrinsic value, then the damages should be limited only to what part of the profits that were explicitly due to the design, as opposed to the carpet. I.e. if you can sell this carpet for $5/yard, or you could sell a beige carpet for $3/yard, then the profits due to the design are $2/yard.
Mmmkay, whatever, but that's not what Congress intended. So in 1887, Congress explicitly rewrote the statute to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling, saying that the damages for infringing a design patent were "the total profit made by the manufacture or sale of the article to which the design had been applied." This is how checks and balances work under our Constitution... The Supreme Court can interpret anything that's ambiguous in a statute, as a check on Congress; and Congress can draft statutes that explicitly overturn Court rulings and say "x is the proper interpretation, rather than y". Here, they said it was the total profits for the sale of the article, so that infringing carpet is back to $5/yard.
So that stood for 140 years (including the 1952 Patent Act, where Congress again said that the damages for infringement were the total profit).
But then here, the Court steps in and says "oh, by total profit, it's just the total profit for any component using the design, not the entire article." So, for example, the design on those carpets may only apply to the top fibers and not the mat into which they're woven, so the profits are... well, no one sells just the top fibers, so no one knows. And the justification for this is based on the fact that you can get a utility patent that covers a component. But that's not really a good justification to overturn 140 years of precedent and completely disregard what Congress has said, twice.
And then if that weren't bad enough, the decision ends with "so how do we determine whether the 'article' for purposes of infringement is the entire device or just a component? That would require us to set out a test for identifying the relevant article... But that's hard, so we're not going to do it."
It's as bad as the Alice Corp. decision with Justice Thomas saying, "abstract ideas are unpatentable. What's an abstract idea? Eh, we don't need to define that." Both pro-patent and anti-patent ridiculed him for that, rightly. This decision is at least as bad, with it's "we need a test to identify the relevant article, but we're going to punt on that question and hope that someone else answers it."
I don't give a shit what congress said 100+ years ago. Rationalizing that rounded corners is worth the entire profits of a phone is intuitively wrong.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I'm finding it somewhat improbable that an 8-0 decision would be made on a deeply divided Supreme Court with justices having dramatically different views of the constitution if there's such a compelling case in opposition to the decision they made. Can you put forward a theory that explains why all eight justices rejected this argument?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Nope, you're just wrong about what they did. I explained here, but to summarize:
Your claim: they went back to 1885 and changed the profitability criteria to "incremental value added by patent."
What they actually did: they said that the profits due to the infringed upon party need to be those applying to the component that was sold, rather than the whole of the smartphone.
To put it another way: If Samsung makes $200 on profits per a $1000 phone, and would have made $199 in profits if it didn't have rounded corners, and case makes up 5% of the total cost of the phone, then:
In 1885 (we agree): Samsung would pay $1 per phone to Apple.
In your interpretation of the law: Samsung should pay $200 per phone to Apple.
Eight supreme court justices: Samsung should pay something similar to 5% of $200, eg $10 per phone (or a similar formula.)
Your insults to the Supreme Court Justices are noted and hardly do your case credit: they may not know much about technology, but this case wasn't about technologies, it was about the criteria needed to measure compensation. You bet Scalia's fat dead ass they all know the law on that better than anyone else.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The really funny part is that 50 years ago Congress rewrote the law to say exactly what the Court said today, which was already the precedent under the old law. So 100+ years ago Congress wrote the law in an unclear way, the Court clarified, and then 50 years ago Congress fixed the law to say the same thing as the precedent. Then a couple years ago, the appeals court made up some nonsense that was exactly the same as what the Court had thrown out 100 years ago. Most slashdot readers are on one side or the other of this issue, and either way, they don't/won't/can't comprehend the basic facts in dispute.
The whole thing is only a few pages, and it was written by Sotomayor so it is easy to read. They upheld the exact wording of the statute here, which is in agreement with precedent. The only thing thrown out was the awful ruling.
The Federal Circuit would have us believe that the word "article" in "article of manufacture" means only things available for sale by themselves. As Justice Sotomayor explains, article actually means any item, it is a very broad word. So an "article of manufacture" is a thing you make; the definition has nothing to do with if it is sold to the end consumer in a single box or not. According to Apple and the Federal Circuit, even the toys in a Happy Meal wouldn't be articles of manufacture, since they're not sold by themselves! A toy in a crackerjack box? Not an article of manufacture. A car stereo? Oh, only if it is a brand available in the store. A brand only sold as an OEM unit would not be an article of manufacture! Complete absurdity.
Also clear in the ruling is that if Samsung had had better SCOTUS lawyers, they could have got more of the issues decided; there were issues briefed by the government that would likely have gone Samsung's way, that are instead being sent back down to the Federal Circuit. But the Court did make clear that they're ready to do more work on this case when it comes back, and it likely will because Apple can't resist asking for the moon, and the Federal Circuit can't resist giving Apple whatever they ask for.
You're close, but it isn't the incremental profits as it is with other types of IP; here it is 100% of the profit directly attributable to the component. So it doesn't matter how much profit they made, or how much less they would have made had they not infringed.
What matters is the profit that they made from the physical component that infringed. It doesn't matter what the differential would be if they used something else. Unfortunately for Apple, the design patent covers primarily the plastic bezel, for which Samsung probably doesn't even have any profits, and the software screen layout, which is software, and likely don't have any profits from the software either.
The reality is that design patents aren't as useful as Apple claimed; on a decorative item, which is what they're intended for, they offer a lot of protection because the design actually is the value; a decorative plate is the typical example. Complex items that are mostly functional aren't well protected by design patents, because most of the device is functional and by definition isn't covered, and you're not going to get paid for the functional components just because the case copied your case. If a regular functional-but-ugly smarthphone cost $5, and the one with the fancy design code $500, as is the case with decorative plates, then it would make sense to protect it that way.