Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#181

Post by reitanqild » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

mattkevan wrote: post #144

bitmapbrother wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The design was originally reasonably polarizing/radical. Half the reason these design elements are now so widespread is because everyone immediately copied Apple. The LG Prada was shown off before the introduction of the iPhone. To imply that the iPhone was polarizing/radical and that the LG Prada was not is ridiculous IMO. https://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada...

The only reason anyone remembers the LG Prada is to bring it up in this kind of discussion. If it was so radical and ground-breaking, how come LG are an also-ran Android OEM and not the most valuable company ever? It's an asinine argument as it takes the most superficial elements, such as a full touchscreen, conveniently ignoring the actual things that made the iPhone so innovative, such as multitouch UX, proper web…

> The only reason anyone remembers the LG Prada is to bring it up in this kind of discussion.

> If it was so radical and ground-breaking, how come LG are an also-ran Android OEM and not the most valuable company ever?

The LG Prada example only destroys the "Apple invented rounded corners" argument.

iPhone was groundbreaking. Rhe lawsuits afterwards were ridiculous IMO.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#182

Post by Aaargh20318 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #179

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I used my fingers on my Palm Pilot because it was more practical than dragging the stylus out. Still using it in the same way as a mouse. The thing that set the iOS UI apart is direct manipulation of the UI. E.g. instead of using a scrollbar/arrows to scroll, you use your finger to move the page around. Instead of clicking a checkbox you move a slider. Instead of clicking a "zoom in" button you 'stretch' the photo…

That might be true for some interactions, but you touched icons, buttons etc., and frankly I don't think that part would have made that much of a difference for users. It certainly wasn't something most potential users knew about the Palm Pilot before rejecting it out of hand as some gadget.

> I don't think that part would have made that much of a difference for users

I do. I think it was a revolutionary improvement. It's so much more intuitive to use, it's the one thing that makes your grandma able to use an iPad. It's hard to overstate how important this was. The fact that now you know about it, it seems obvious and not a big deal emphasises how big of an improvement it was.

> It certainly wasn't something most potential users knew about the Palm Pilot before rejecting it out of hand as some gadget.

Of course not, it wasn't invented yet so they didn't know the Palm Pilot lacked this.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#183

Post by vidarh » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:49 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #163

vidarh wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think design is irrelevant to profits, but I also think tying it to Apple's position as the most profitable mobile manufacturer is weak. While Apple has competition, it is at the same time in a position where it's competition can't sell iOS phones. That gives it a substantial buffer against price pressure that none of the Android manufacturers face. If you're agnostic to the OS, then, yes, Apple needs to conv…

> ...it is at the same time in a position where it's competition can't sell iOS phones. That gives it a substantial buffer against price pressure that none of the Android manufacturers face. Alright, but what is it about iOS that makes it an advantage, if it isn't it's design? The design isn't just what it looks like, it's how it works. Have a look at that 132 page document, the article I linked has screenshots from…

> Do you really think that's acceptable?

For the most part, yes, I do. Most of it is not in any way anything that can be legally protected. Some of it may be, but suggesting that all of that 132 page document is somehow an indictment of Samsung is misleading. They may have stepped over the line, but analysing how to adopt the best part of what a competitor does is part and parcel of competition.

But to your main question: In addition to the design: Brand, integration with the rest of the Apple ecosystem, investment in apps.

To put it another way: If it was only design, you can buy > As for logistics and manufacturing integration, Apple don't even make their own phones.

I don't know what you think that suggests, but what it actually means is that Apple as part of their effort of streamlining their supply chain has largely outsourced the risks on the manufacturing side while they still place a massive amount of demands on their manufacturers that they're able to thanks to their volume.

Tim Cook's rise in Apple was largely down to closing down internal manufacturing and instead dictating terms to contract manufacturers that virtually removed Apple's inventory, and doing things that other people thought were crazy, like starting to ship electronics by air, betting it'd pay for itself by letting them not have e.g. weeks worth of inventory on ships and being able to respond to demand changes much faster (and hence needing to place orders much later). Apple's shift to using contract manufacturing was part and parcel of the company more tightly integrating their entire supply chain and shortening it drastically, by entering long term contracts with companies close to e.g. their component sources.

> How incompetent do they have to be for Apple to have that as a primary advantage for decades?

Not at all. They had $50bn worth of operating income in 2017 from Samsung Electronics compared to $61bn for Apple. Their Android business is low margin because it is extremely competitive. Their contract manufacturing and other product lines are generally much more profitable.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#184

Post by tooltalk » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #127

tooltalk wrote: post #94

There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsu…

> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly - not their brilliants > displays, battery, or even wireless radio > functionality. You're completely losing the plot here here. The reason for the high amount of damages is not because it's believed that Samsung phones wouldn't have sold as well without rounded corners…

>You're completely losing the plot here here.

You are not only losing the plot, but you are also clearly unfamiliar with this particular case, much less patent lawsuits in general.

There is no punitive damage in patent trials, unless there is very clear evidence of willful infringement, in which case, the final damage can be tripled. The legal standards for awarding triple damage likewise is very high in this country and that was rejected years ago.

Leaving aside your ignorance in patent litigations, most don't believe that frivolous minor patent violation should enable patent holders to disgorge infringers' entire profit. There are over 120+K active patents in any given mobile devices today, and the courts have over the years developed legal theories limiting the scope of damage to the infringed component only. This is precisely why SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower courts and instructed them to re-define what that proper infringed component, or "article of manufacture," on which damage can be calculated ought to be. It seems like Apple's judge willfully botched the jury instruction again, rather than help the jury define and award damage more inline with the SCOTUS decision.

Do you know who else believes in this? Apple has over 90 pending patent litigation today (as defendant)and has consistently argued the same for apportionment in cases where Apple is defendant, while asking for the whole kitchen sink against a foreign company.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#185

Post by vidarh » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #182

vidarh wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true for some interactions, but you touched icons, buttons etc., and frankly I don't think that part would have made that much of a difference for users. It certainly wasn't something most potential users knew about the Palm Pilot before rejecting it out of hand as some gadget.

> I don't think that part would have made that much of a difference for users I do. I think it was a revolutionary improvement. It's so much more intuitive to use, it's the one thing that makes your grandma able to use an iPad. It's hard to overstate how important this was. The fact that now you know about it, it seems obvious and not a big deal emphasises how big of an improvement it was. > It certainly wasn't somet…

> Of course not, it wasn't invented yet so they didn't know the Palm Pilot lacked this.

You miss the point: Most people rejected the Palm Pilot before seeing how you interacted with it at all. The idea that how you interact with the device makes such a big difference is flawed to a large extent because these devices demonstrated quite clearly that there were other issues that stopped mass market adoption of these devices before people even bothered to figure out how you actually interacted with them.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#186

Post by Marazan » Fri, May 25, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #150

Marazan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was simply about rounded corners or a grid of icons, they would have been laughed out of the court. Like they were in the UK? And forced to publish an apology?

Nope.

I must have imagined the apology then.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#187

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 25, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

bluthru wrote: post #170

stickfigure wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard an engineer claim that, well, anything from Samsung was novel or original. Nobody is making that argument. We're trying to have that very valid debate you're referring to right now. This stuff should not be patentable, not even in aggregate. Full stop.

Should Hyundai be able to ship cars with the same body as a BMW?

[deleted]

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#188

Post by mattkevan » Fri, May 25, 2018, 4:21 PM UTC

reitanqild wrote: post #181

mattkevan wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason anyone remembers the LG Prada is to bring it up in this kind of discussion. If it was so radical and ground-breaking, how come LG are an also-ran Android OEM and not the most valuable company ever? It's an asinine argument as it takes the most superficial elements, such as a full touchscreen, conveniently ignoring the actual things that made the iPhone so innovative, such as multitouch UX, proper web…

> The only reason anyone remembers the LG Prada is to bring it up in this kind of discussion. > If it was so radical and ground-breaking, how come LG are an also-ran Android OEM and not the most valuable company ever? The LG Prada example only destroys the "Apple invented rounded corners" argument. iPhone was groundbreaking. Rhe lawsuits afterwards were ridiculous IMO.

'Apple invented rounded corners' is also a wilfully incorrect simplification of the issues.

It doesn't matter who invented what first, Samsung deliberately infringed Apple's design patents and were found to do so by the court. As I understand it, design patents are different to normal patents in that prior art is not a consideration.

Samsung could have gone in so many different directions with the design. Instead they came up with something that even their own lawyers had trouble distinguishing from an iPhone.

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#189

Post by tooltalk » Fri, May 25, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

kurtisc wrote: post #166

avar wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's > patents rounded corners drove market demand > for Samsung's infringed device almost > single-handedly - not their brilliants > displays, battery, or even wireless radio > functionality. You're completely losing the plot here here. The reason for the high amount of damages is not because it's believed that Samsung phones wouldn't have sold as well without rounded corners…

That's exactly how the legal system works in most of the non-American world.

so which patent legal system allows punitive damage award without willful infringement?

Re: Apple Wins $539M from Samsung in Damages Retrial

#190

Post by tooltalk » Fri, May 25, 2018, 4:56 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #128

tooltalk wrote: post #94

There is one important aspect of this re-trial many of you are missing. The case was already decided years ago against Samsung -- there is nothing more to debate on that end, however absurd the decision. Now the new jury decided that those frivolous infringements amount to most of Samsung's entire profit. In another word, Apple's hometown jury decided that Apple's patents rounded corners drove market demand for Samsu…

If design is so irrelevant to profits, how come Apple’s phones capture almost all of the profits in the mobile industry? Surely if your company has at great expense developed a legally protected advantage in the market that gains you the majority of the profit share, someone else copying your legally protected advantage and churning out products using all the same design features you spent years on must be pretty sic…

I always thought benchmarking your competitors' products was fairly common -- how else do you think Apple came up with phablets and stylus, after denouncing it and declaring that nobody would buy something that big?