Samsung Apple Trial Concludes With $290 Million Samsung Fine

Samsung Apple Trial Concludes With $290 Million Samsung Fine

The jury thought Samsung didn't come up with enough evidence to counter Apple's arguments.

The verdict is in on the Apple Samsung patent damages trial, and Samsung lost. The jury thought Samsung just didn't present enough evidence to counter Apple's claims, and so Apple has been awarded $290 million for its patent infringements. It's not quite the $380 million Apple was looking for, but it's a long way from the $52 million Samsung was prepared to pay. The total owed by Samsung, inclusive of the original patent trial award, is $900 million, or about 90% of the original $1 billion damages that Apple was awarded back in 2012.

The original $1 billion fine had been reduced by Judge Koh, who said at the time that the amount was too high, arguing that the jury had miscalculated the amount owed. This jury asked for calculators and highlighter pens on Wednesday, as it carefully went through the figures. Then, on Thursday, it ordered Thai food and asked for a copy of its courtroom sketch, before delivering a verdict.

Samsung can't be happy with the decision, and plans to appeal, but it was likely to appeal anyway, and it's already said that the racism allegation arising from Apple's closing statements will be part of its argument. Of all its past mistakes, the Infuse 4G is probably the most expensive, accounting for approximately $99.9 million of the award, with the Droid Charge a close second at $60.7 million.

Samsung has already filed an emergency motion, alleging that one important Apple patent may not be valid. Judge Koh has yet to rule on this aspect of the case. If Samsung wins that argument, it's possible the entire award will be nullified.

"During its presentation, Apple made a deliberate decision not to separate the damages between the different asserted patents," says Samsung. "Therefore, it will be impossible to determine what allocation of damages belong to the invalid 915 patent versus the other patents."

Yet another patent trial is due March 2014, this time over patents in the iPhone 5 and Galaxy 4.

Source: Guardian

Permalink

Well, at least it's more or less over.

The whole thing still reeks of Apple suing Samsung because they were real competition and dragged them to an American court with an American jury where where they were more likely to win.

Weaver:
Well, at least it's more or less over.

The whole thing still reeks of Apple suing Samsung because they were real competition and dragged them to an American court with an American jury where where they were more likely to win.

That's one of the big arguments that Apple made. Apple stated to the jury that they were an American company and they needed to protect American interests from foreigners.

I have to be honest, both of these companies are far far far too public in order for any juror to be impartial. Like, that was a win for Apple as soon as it went to trial because Apple is a respected American brand and it was in front of people who probably all owned iPhones. It's ridiculous, but thank god it's over. These people were probably under some strange idea that Apple is even an innovative company, which they are not.

Baresark:
These people were probably under some strange idea that Apple is even an innovative company, which they are not.

Just looking at their products, Apple aren't so much innovators as they are a refinery. Apple looks around, sees an idea that has potential, and creates their own highly polished version of it, turing it into something people will actually buy. Were smartphones anywhere near as big before Apple came along with the iPhone? Had anyone even heard of mp3 players before the iPod? Did anybody care about tablets before the iPad? Of course, that's only if you take it at face value, ignoring all the hardware and software innovations Apple has made over the years in order to deliver the products they do.

So say what you will about Apple's business practices, but it's a bit of a leap to claim they don't innovate.

Apple is popular, that is all they are. The it all stinks if being in favour of Apple from the start. Come on Curved fucking corners is a Apple Innovation ??? Its petty, Apple just did not like the idea of having to REALLY do some innovation as Samsung like someone else pointed out was going to be some real competition. Really samsung came along and did it better. And Apple would rather no one fuck with their gravy train of bringing the same bullshit out every year.

AstaresPanda:
Apple is popular, that is all they are. The it all stinks if being in favour of Apple from the start. Come on Curved fucking corners is a Apple Innovation ??? Its petty, Apple just did not like the idea of having to REALLY do some innovation as Samsung like someone else pointed out was going to be some real competition. Really samsung came along and did it better. And Apple would rather no one fuck with their gravy train of bringing the same bullshit out every year.

Even though I agree whole-heartedly with your overall analysis of this Apple-Samsung thing, and I think Apple is full of shit and Samsung should rightfully win this thing, there is a component of intellectual property law called Industrial Design, which is the right to the outward appearance of your product in order to set your product visually apart from your competitors. You can apply and file for an Industrial Design for the appearance of your product and sue people for stealing your design in the same way that you can for a patent or a trademark.

Now that said, do I think Samsung violated Apple's rights and stole their design? No way. I own a first gen Samsung Galaxy 10.1" Tablet, which Samsung can no longer legally sell because it "looks" too much like an iPad. But IMO there are very glaring differences between it and the iPad which was available at the time. It was a completely different aspect ratio ( 16:9 vs the iPad's 4:3), there is no home button, the speaker and camera placement are completely different, and the Samsung tablet had a white plastic back place whereas I believe the iPad had a metal one.

I don't think anyone who wasn't completely ignorant of the fact that not all tablets are iPads could easily pick out the iPad from the Samsung tablet if they got a decent look at both, so I think the whole thing was stupid.

Starik20X6:

Baresark:
These people were probably under some strange idea that Apple is even an innovative company, which they are not.

Just looking at their products, Apple aren't so much innovators as they are a refinery. Apple looks around, sees an idea that has potential, and creates their own highly polished version of it, turing it into something people will actually buy. Were smartphones anywhere near as big before Apple came along with the iPhone? Had anyone even heard of mp3 players before the iPod? Did anybody care about tablets before the iPad? Of course, that's only if you take it at face value, ignoring all the hardware and software innovations Apple has made over the years in order to deliver the products they do.

So say what you will about Apple's business practices, but it's a bit of a leap to claim they don't innovate.

Is it? You just said at the start of your own post that they "aren't so much innovators as they are a refinery" which I tend to agree with. And as someone who's main contribution to the world is making user friendly, aesthetically pleasing versions of existing technologies, they seem like one of the last companies who should be out there suing over copyright infringements.

I don't even care if they have a case or not, the spirit driving these lawsuits is unbecoming of Apple. Is the guy who rigorously patented all these silly little design ideas really the same person who said this?

Besides, most of the technological innovations they're suing Samsung over existed years before Apple put them in their devices. You think Apple invented multitouch screens? The technology was considered OLD in the tech world by the time Apple patented it in 2007 and implemented it their new iPhone. The only new thing Apple did to the technology was put a copyright on it.

Does anyone have a list of what "patents" were "infringed" by Samsung? Kind of hard to form an opinion on this without it and none of the news sites seem to think it important enough to provide a link.

Morti:
Does anyone have a list of what "patents" were "infringed" by Samsung? Kind of hard to form an opinion on this without it and none of the news sites seem to think it important enough to provide a link.

It's really not just Samsung. Apple could pretty much target anyone doing anything, anytime.

The list of wording included in all the patents is a bit excessive, of course, and somewhat open to interpretation.

In general, the relevant patents describe things such as pinch to zoom, 'rubber banding', as in bouncing when reaching the bottom of a list or a webpage or other content, twist to rotate, dragging content through touch technology or a device being capable to distinguish between single touch and multi touch touching and actions. There's also the specific patent that covers zooming by double clicking to enlarge and centering portions of the content. And... that's about it, methinks. Then again, some of the patents that cover these bits can quite probably be rather easily interpreted to cover even more stuff.

That's just the software ones from the top of my head as that's of some interest to me, for the hardware list...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/

That should cover it all, in a nice write-up, even.

Not sure if anything substantial got added to it... that would probably be on Wikipedia. I'm trying to stay away from Wikipedia, though. Good luck.

It is like to prefer patent, than to innovate.They are expected to be in such disputes as they are more interested to sue others for patent infringement, just to prevent them from being successful.

It always happen that the one which is the biggest, most probably wins.They are real competitors.I think Apple is little scared to know how Samsung is in open challenge with it, so they want to degrade them in anyway.It is better for the initiators to have their software patents to make them secure.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here