Market Overview

How A 131-Year-Old Case Involving Carpet Set The Stage For Tuesday's Supreme Court Showdown Between Samsung And Apple

Share:
How A 131-Year-Old Case Involving Carpet Set The Stage For Tuesday's Supreme Court Showdown Between Samsung And Apple
Related AAPL
What Exactly Went Wrong With Samsung's Failed Note 7? We Will Find Out Very Soon
Skyworks Delivers Again In Q1, Extends One Of The Best Track Records On The Street
Open Square Capital Up 31 Percent In Inaugural Year As Bullish Oil Bets Pay Off (Seeking Alpha)
Related SSNLF
What Exactly Went Wrong With Samsung's Failed Note 7? We Will Find Out Very Soon
IBM Breaks Innovation Record In 2016
Intel Optane = Optical + Octane (Seeking Alpha)

Way back in 1885, Jon and James Dobson, two carpet makers, were accused of copying designs from other carpet makers, including Hartford Carpet and Bigelow Carpet.

According to the BBC, the Dobsons were taken to court by Hartford and Bigelow and the case was heard at the Supreme Court, which agreed the Dobsons stole designs and tried to sell them off as their own.

The problem was that the judges couldn't determine an appropriate fee since the design of a carpet is merely a small part of the overall carpet. For instance, a carpet can look beautiful but if designer poorly and isn't comfortable then it is unlikely to sell.

Hartford and Bigelow received a fee of six cents each from the Dobsons for stealing their design.

Related Link: How To Time The iPhone Release Cycle

Orville Platt, a senator from Connecticut lobbied Congress to make changes to the Patent Act to ensure that design patents are given more weight. By 1887, changes were written into law.

Why Does This Matter?

Fast forward 130 years and Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and rival SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC KRW5000 (OTC: SSNLF) are arguing over the same thing.

Apple accused Samsung in 2011 of being the "Dobsons" and copying several aspects of the iPhone design, which were used in their own smartphones.

A court agreed with Apple's claims last year and based on Senator Platt's changes to the patent law, Samsung was forced to pay all of the profits it made in damages or $250, whichever amount is higher.

Samsung ended up paying Apple $548 million but now the South-Korea based company feels it should be given back at least $399 million of that amount.

Similar to the carpets, Samsung is making the argument that the design of a phone isn't the only factor consumers consider when buying a phone. A lot of hardware and software are at work inside the phone and this also influences consumers' decisions.

Samsung will make its case to the Supreme Court but a final decision isn't expected until June 2017.

Full ratings data available on Benzinga Pro.

Do you have ideas for articles/interviews you'd like to see more of on Benzinga? Please email feedback@benzinga.com with your best article ideas. One person will be randomly selected to win a $20 Amazon gift card!

Posted-In: Apple Versus Samsung Orville Platt patent Patent LawsNews Events Tech Media Best of Benzinga

 

Related Articles (AAPL + SSNLF)

View Comments and Join the Discussion!