Samsung v. Apple - case number 15-777, Supreme Court of United States.
In the case mentioned, Samsung saw supports from Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Alphabet Unit Google. The Internet Association also conjoined in a short lapse. Now Apple also has its army. More than a hundred Designers and Educators signed a court brief to assist Apple.
Apple supporters are some big names. Huge fashion brands viz. Calvin Klein, Paul Smith, Alexander Wang, etc. are ready to back Apple. The Industrial Design Director at Parsons School of Design, the Design Director for Bentley Motors, and the editor-in-chief of Wallpaper magazine-Tony Chambers are other supporters.
These Design Industry maestros believe that the compensation Apple got is justified. Samsung emulated the patented designs. The group has a stance that the distinctive looks of the Apple drive people to be its fans. Samsung stole and imitated the same. It is what the signed brief read.
They say-"In the minds of consumers, the look of the product represents the underlying features. Stealing a design can lead to a lost sale, and Apple deserves the infringer's entire profits."
Back in 2011, Apple sued the South Korean electronics firm. Indictments were that Samsung violated its technology and appearance related patents. A jury verdict of 2012 compelled Samsung to pay $548 million to Apple. From this sum $399 million was for rounded-corner front face, bezel, and the grid of icons imitation.
Later on, Samsung pleaded that $300 million is excessive for appearance imitation. It stated that the contribution of the designs was marginal in complex products. In May, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained the verdict. It said that the trademarks cannot protect appearances of a product.
Samsung appealed a review of the case and in March the court accepted the appeal. The Court has to analyse whether a company deserves total profits from the product if a single component of the product violates a patent.
Group on Samsung's side feel that the verdict of is dangerous for Tech Industry. They believe that this decision empowers the firms who sue other companies on design patents to make money.