[國際新聞] 蘋果告贏三星 獲賠82億 將禁三星在美出售 全球機價恐茘 三星, 果, iPhone

peter236

http://news.mingpao.com/20120826/taa1.htm

【明報專訊】美國蘋果與韓國（南韓）三星公司的世紀專利案判決出爐，美國加州法院裁定，蘋果控告三星的7項侵權指控有6項勝訴，三星須賠償10.5億美元（82億港元），為有紀錄已來最大宗專利賠償之一，三星對iPhone侵權的5項反指控則全部不成立。大獲全勝的蘋果對判決表示歡迎，已準備就侵權產品申請三星產品禁制令。三星不服裁決，認為是「美國消費者損失」，將入稟申請推翻裁決。專家表示，判決未必對三星造成致命影響，反而消費者可能因此「捱貴機」。

蘋果於去年4月入稟，指控三星28款產品，包括Galaxy系列智能手機及平板電腦等，侵犯蘋果iPhone及iPad等產品共7項專利權，包括矩形圓角機身等外觀設計、應用圖示的圓角設計及排列位置、輕敲屏幕後即放大畫面並置中的功能，以及滑動至超過畫面範圍時的回彈效果等，要求三星賠償25億美元。蘋果引用三星內部文件，指2007年iPhone推出時，三星高層曾盛讚其設計美麗、硬件「易抄襲」，更決定將iPhone所有元素直接抄到旗下手機上。蘋果多名設計人員亦出庭講述產品設計過程，佐證產品原創性。

僅iPad指控不成立

三星否認侵權，聲稱業界產品互相參考獲「啟發」非常普遍，例如蘋果內部文件顯示iPhone設計時亦參考了Sony產品，力證蘋果的專利權無效，又強調矩形圓角等常見設計不應為蘋果所壟斷，並反指蘋果iPhone、iPad及iPod部分型號侵犯高速數據串流、傳送電郵及多功能操作等5項無線通訊版權專利，向蘋果追討每件產品2.4%版稅，總索償金額達4億美元。

案件於本月初開審，歷時逾3周。9人陪審團經過22小時商議後，裁定蘋果所有專利有效，三星6項侵犯蘋果專利的指控成立，其中5項屬蓄意侵權，但侵犯iPad外觀設計專利的指控則不成立，三星須賠償10.5億美元；而三星對蘋果的侵權指控則全部不成立。蘋果行政總裁庫克聞判後向蘋果員工發出內部信，指出訴訟展示出蘋果員工傾注心血、開發具原創性的最佳產品的價值，認為這比維護專利與爭取賠償更重要，批評競爭對手隨意抄襲。蘋果的代表律師表示，正準備申請禁止三星侵權產品在美國出售。

三星求推翻判決

三星則發表聲明，稱會馬上入稟要求推翻判決，如失敗則將申請上訴。聲明指出：「今天的裁決不應視為蘋果的勝利，而是美國消費者的損失。裁決會導致市場上選擇更少、創意減少，而產品價格可能提高。」

專家分析，蘋果勝訴是重大勝利，將鞏固其在流動裝置市場的主導位置，其競爭者勢須向蘋果付專利費，或另闢蹊徑開發與蘋果不同的產品，令產品售價上升，成本估計都會轉嫁消費者。

受判決消息刺激，蘋果股價在場外交易時段上升近百分之二。

（華爾街日報/路透社/法新社）

快樂牛郎

South Korea should ban all apple products in their country.

peter236

South Korea should ban all apple products in their country.
快樂牛郎 發表於 2012-8-26 20:51

Apple will probably call for a ban of Samsung smartphones all over the world, or ask for a patent fee for each smartphone that Samsung sells.

lo_pak

回復 3# peter236

總之，單野有排玩… 最尾都係落地還錢…

mcjohnjohn

呢D 野真係好on 居...
講到尾, 生意人都係為左錢.
小弟諗起當年阿Nobel 研發左火藥都唔去申請專利.

lo_pak

回復 5# mcjohnjohn

愛迪生就因為專利晚年潦倒…

mcjohnjohn

回復  mcjohnjohn

愛迪生就因為專利晚年潦倒…
lo_pak 發表於 2012-8-27 14:17

如果對全世界有貢獻的話, 我都唔介意晚年潦倒的.

-- 懶係偉大的MJJ

pkphilip

Can someone explain me the definition of patents?? It is described as "Easily recognizable; obvious"

I personally think some patents should not be award after all to begin with, in this case:

- Bar style with rounded corners (it's just a shape)
- Edge to Edge Glass (we are losing the bezel anyways in other devices)
- Grid icon layout (This GUI design existed long ago)
- Home button (The Nexus One has the trackball...)

Samsung did screw up the following:
- Bounce-back feature
- Multi-touch scrolling
- Tab to Zoom

I think that to say Samsung copied iPhone is simply misleading because in NO WAY you will get duped into buying a Galaxy S and thinking it is an iPhone. Samsung logo is on it and it runs a totally different set of software and the lit-up capacitive buttons are very obvious.

What can I say? This lawsuit means a backstep in technology, it used to be a cat and mouse game between Android and iOS, now, whatever innovations are made through lawyers. It's simply sad.

Philip

lo_pak

回復 8# pkphilip

I think most accusations are against the GUI...

Outlook is difficult in proclaiming patents because patent by definition is something that's hard to copy which makes it unique. Just like cooking a hamburger, it's impossible to impose patent to the outlook. Rather, you can only proclaim the formula of the sauce.

In this jury, I believe Apple has proven that Samsung has so many "intentions" to intrude Apple design to produce similar products to the same market...


IMO the judgement is just "poor" because it can't specifically (too board, not precise) list out what people can do and what people can't do in the future.