back to article Jury awards Apple $1bn damages in Samsung patent case

The nine-member jury in the closely watched patent litigation between Apple and Samsung has returned a verdict decidedly in Apple's favor, awarding the fruity firm a whopping total of $1.05bn in damages. The jury took less than three days to reach its verdict, something that apparently startled even Apple's legal team, as …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

      1. Martin Huizing
        Facepalm

        Re: dx

        Sorry, I forgot to enable sarcasm mode. Thought I was being obvious...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Re: Well what do you know!

        "Anyone who wasn't a completely blind fandroid could see Samsung was copying Apple in every way they could."

        Just like Apple have copied their competitors and just like every large company from Olympus to Ford to Tampax have bought, disassembled and learnt from the products of their competitors for centuries.

        The question, the important question, here is why is it suddenly bad when someone does it to Apple?

        The answer is that it isn't. What's bad is the abuse of patents to protect "inventions" that companies did not in fact invent.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Martin Huizing

      "We were all wrong!"

      Yeah well Google wasn't wrong when they warned Samsung that their products looked too much like Apples, now were they?

  1. Eddy Ito

    So

    Samsung got a bloody nose in round 1. Since this fight is a long way from over when does the bell ring for the next round? Oh, does anyone want popcorn or a beer while I'm up?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So

      Actually, no, that was the main event. it's more like Samsung have taken a hammering, have now been knocked down, Apple are now sat on their back and have them in a headlock and Samsungs only option is to wave feebly at the ref in the vain hope he will step in and let them back-up.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So

        >Actually, no, that was the main event. it's more like Samsung have taken a hammering, have now been knocked down

        Nah, in Round 2 Samsung won't have one hand tied behind their back. We've already seen Apple's A game.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So

          "Nah, in Round 2 Samsung won't have one hand tied behind their back. We've already seen Apple's A game."

          My comment wasn't facetious but based on practical reality. Samsung can appeal, but an appeal is not like a retrial. There is no more jury trials on this case. For it to get anywhere Samsung have to prove to judges their judge colleague did a bad job that materially affected the outcome.

          a) Judges generally don't like criticising or overruling their judge colleagues - at least not in public

          b) They don't like overruling jury verdicts unless there was some serious provable omission in the process or Samsung are able to bring something new to the table e.g. new evidence Apple should have presented or proves Apple were lying on x, y or z points.

          Both of these are unlikely, so the reality is Apple do have them in a headlock and Samsung have to hope the ref will judge the wining move illegal and let them back up to restart the fight.

          1. Gobhicks
            Headmaster

            Re: So

            It is, in fact, very common for the US patent appeals court (the CAFC) to over-rule first instance findings. In a case of this complexity there are likely to be multiple grounds of appeal on different aspects of the original trial, each of which could be reversed or returned to the court of first instance to be looked at again in light of directions from the CAFC. Beyond the CAFC there is the Supreme Court, but there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supremes.

          2. Rob Dobs
            Holmes

            Re: So

            I would say the Judge having a pre-formed opinion and making comments to that effect are pretty good grounds for appeal.... the Jury foreman having personal interest in seeing outrageous patents being upheld as he holds one himself if a pretty serious conflict of interest... again good grounds for appeal. Further in the appeal process Samsung has a second chance to more clearly display the vast mountain of prior art that should invalidate these so-called patents.... further the Jury nor judge did not ever seem to weigh these patents on their actual inventiveness (i.e. non obvious) burden as they don't even need the tons of prior art to show that they way it was done (round corners, square apps on a grid, pinch to zoom etc) were all the OBVIOUS way that any engineer approaching the problem would have handled it.

            No headlock here, many other cases looked worse and were Completely and utterly reversed.... remember with evil microsoft finaly lost in court and was ordered split into three distinct and separate companies.... that happened... oh wait no it didn't, because it was completely reversed on appeal.

            And you can bet that Apple is really in a long term no-win situation here.... people are already starting to get up in arms in the US over paten abuse and failures... even if apple wins on appeal, they are only more likely to push for massive lobbying by both companies and citizens for broad sweeping patent reform that will invalidate such decisions anyways.... certainly a loss of battle for Samsung, but wars can be very long and tides can certainly turn.

  2. ~mico
    Holmes

    I'm so surprized...

    not

    Next on the menu: CSS rounded corners

    1. mafoo
      Joke

      Re: I'm so surprized...

      thats apple's as well

      no seriously, it is.

    2. samlebon23
      Unhappy

      Re: I'm so surprized...

      "Next on the menu: CSS rounded corners"

      From now on, call them APPLE ROUNDED CORNERS.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm so surprized...

        Have you fandroids even read the article? It quite clearly states that the rounded corners were rejected by the jury, so I don't know why you keep bleating on about them. Why don't you try defending the things the jury decided Sandung did copy from Apple?

        1. ~mico
          Trollface

          Because...

          > Why don't you try defending the things the jury decided Sandung did copy from Apple?

          Because those were even more ridiculous.

        2. Markl2011

          Re: I'm so surprized...

          @AC 6.36

          Fandroid's never read the article. They just keep spouting (copying) the same rubbish.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Utterly contempable

    I will NEVER buy anything to do with Apple. You CAN'T patent a tablet because it is the shape of a tablet. Apple did not invent sleek and curvy, it is TRIVIAL. No-one is confused between the devices because one has a bloody big Apple on the back, and the other is packaged in a box marked Samsung.

    1. Herba

      Re: Utterly contempable

      If you think the case was about rectangles you obviously dont know jack about it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utterly contempable

      RTFA you halfwit.

  4. Marty
    Coat

    American company, American court, American jury against Johny foreigner... is anyone really surprised?

    I bet the appeal papers are already in the hands of the lawyers....

    and i am sick of popcorn

  5. Anony-mouse

    Hope Apple has a new supplier.

    For processors and screens and whatnot for their iphone5 and new upcoming tablets. If I were Samsung I would make supplies dry up for anything Apple wants.

    1. Jediben

      Re: Hope Apple has a new supplier.

      Screw that. If I were SOUTH KOREA I'd make it harder for Apple to buy a single resistor than it would be for Kim Jong Il to rise back up from his grave and wander into downtown Seoul, dressed only in his finest dodo-hide one-piece on the back of an albino unicorn.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nah - thats a different company...

      Samsung's "parts" division is a separate company - why shoot yourself in the foot on revenue when its another company that is in the lawsuit with Apple. Big multinational multi divisional companies dont think that way... take the revenue you can and run!

      1. dssf

        Re: Nah - thats a different company...

        But, the chaebol will not sit still for this shit. They will micro nudge that billion back out of apple by cagng up the possible alternative suppliers and by inching up the price or cost of components, and maybe even aggressively flood non usa markers with enough Samsung products to slow apple down.

        1. Philip Lewis
          Meh

          Re: Nah - thats a different company...

          I doubt that Samsung sell ANYTHING to Apple which cannot be sourced elsewhere. As I have commented previously, expect a gradual shift away from Samsung components as current deals expire.

          However, if Samsung comes to the table with the right components at the right price, I doubt Apple will have any issues awarding Samsung the deal. These guys are in business, and business is business.

          I suspect Samsung's status as a trusted partner with Apple is a bit corroded at the moment.

          Meanwhile, I enjoy my iPad3 and think the Samsung D8000 is just the bees knees with a cool design to boot!

      2. skidpanda

        Re: Nah - thats a different company...

        Yeah. Doesnt stop them bumping up the prices for those screens and parts though, you know, to cover "costs" (of around a billion dollars). ;-)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Um, no

      Think of this as Apple negotiating an aggressive discount on their next round of iPhone chips!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hope Apple has a new supplier.

      The separate departments of Samsung are basically that, sort of like sister companies. The processor/screen divisions will not sacrifice their profits in some (essentially spiteful) defence of the mobile division.

      At least, I doubt they would, although that would be a cool gesture. United and all that.

    5. Steve Todd Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Hope Apple has a new supplier.

      You want Samsung to try for a breach of contract suit next? They make quiet a lot of money supplying parts to Apple, and they aren't the sole suppliers of those parts. They'd be cutting off their own nose to spite their face if they broke their supply contracts, and Apple wouldn't be inconvenienced much as most of the parts come from multiple suppliers anyway.

    6. Mikel
      Meh

      Re: Hope Apple has a new supplier.

      This was one of my first thoughts. While the components and mobile divisions of Samsung are very separate, this matter has become serious enough for the corporate head to get the various divisions to work together. It's the mobile division that's the breadwinner.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    google groupies, hankies to the ready!

    go, ggroupies go, let's hear your whining :)

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: google groupies, hankies to the ready!

      "go, ggroupies go, let's hear your whining :)"

      You're a short-sited idiot if you think this isn't bad for all of us who want a healthy, competitive market with a variety of products to choose from. Even in Europe where this ruling doesn't take effect, it means that Samsung may not (probably will not) make the products that they otherwise would for any of us.

    2. Bit Brain
      FAIL

      Re: google groupies, hankies to the ready!

      Didn’t have the balls to post under your username then?

  7. Paul 135

    Time to boycott American products

    No other country would get away with such blatant protectionism. In fact, I would rather hope all Android manufacturers would leave the USA and leave them to be exploited further by this pathetic hyped fashion company, as that is what they deserve.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Re: Time to boycott American products

      Good luck with your boycott of American products, I suggest you boycott Microsoft and Google next.

      You should move to China, I hear they have no problems copying stuff over there.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Kiwi Silver badge
        Linux

        Re: Time to boycott American products

        "Good luck with your boycott of American products, I suggest you boycott Microsoft and Google next."

        Linux and duckduckgo (hate the name but it does the job).

        1. Steve Todd Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: Time to boycott American products

          And what kind of CPU will you put in it? For desktop machines your choices are basically AMD and Intel, both US companies. It's quite hard to build a modern PC without US components and software.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Time to boycott American products

      "Time to boycott American products

      No other country would get away with such blatant protectionism. In fact, I would rather hope all Android manufacturers would leave the USA and leave them to be exploited further by this pathetic hyped fashion company, as that is what they deserve."

      Evidently you are not familiar with the court judgment won by Samsung against Apple earlier this week on the basis of standard-essential patents in... South Korea.

      You can read about it here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/apple_samsung_seoul_ruling/ .

      1. chr0m4t1c

        Re: Time to boycott American products

        Ah, but that's not protectionism, because that came down against Apple. And we're not biased at all.

        This is absolutely not a popularity contest, we have all read all of the evidence in both cases, we completely understand all the laws involved and have used our impartial thinking processes to reach the conclusion that Apple are evil and therefore always wrong Samsung were entirely correct in their position and the outcome is in no way biased because they are the local company.

        As a side note, could anyone explain to me why I'm posting my unbiased legal opinions on a tech news site instead of making a fortune in the legal arena so that I can live in a solid gold house and drive a solid gold Rolls Royce?

      2. double0scotty
        WTF?

        Re: Time to boycott American products

        Did you even read that article?

        "Both Apple and Samsung got teeny fines and had some of their products banned in South Korea, after a court in Seoul found they infringed on each other's patents."

        Both got a slap on the wrist.... and with teeny fines each. No where near what the american courts awarded apple.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    So you want to claim damages from a company found to copy everything in sight...

    "Can you wait a bit till the ink on these dollars is dry?"

    1. Anomalous Cowturd
      Joke

      Re: So you want to claim damages from a company found to copy everything in sight...

      Upvoted for the irony. And the chuckle.

      Think you should have used this one.

  9. mickey mouse the fith
    FAIL

    What a crock

    Oh well, theres another bullet in the head of future innovation.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I expect in the near future, you will see FRAND go by the wayside when someone does license the technology, they will make sure the license is only for the licensee and not for anyone downstream. Apple has no problem using FRAND to use GSM and 3G patents but they refuse to license anything they have. What happens when you ahve companies that hold patents for say 5G that are essential to the standard and they are not part of FRAND? When Apple says no to licensing their patents, they get told no to licensing the 5G patents.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Oh stop with whining and lying. Apple licenses quite a bit of their stuff under FRAND. You should check the ETSI database instead of posting bullshit as an AC.

      FRAND patents will continue because that's the only way they can get into standards.

      They'll continue to be licensed to companies implementing them into chips, as Samsung's where in this case.

      1. MonkeyBot

        Re: posting bullshit as an AC

        I suppose "dx" is the name on your passport then, is it?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      FRAND and 5G

      This isn't as easy as you think. When ITU starts working on a 5G standard (maybe they already are?) they get a bunch of companies together who want to participate. This will cover everybody who is anybody in the mobile world, from the chipmakers like Qualcomm to phone makers to carriers. In order to participate, they have to agree to license any patents they have that get used in the standard under FRAND terms.

      They can't hold back a few patents and think they'll use them to screw people later, they can't participate in the standards and try to steer them in the direction of their patents and then pull out before signing them over (Rambus tried this, look what happened to them)

      So the only way you can hold a patent that is covered by 5G that you don't have to license on FRAND terms is sheer luck. Without any ability to see what direction 5G is going or being able to steer it in the direction of patents you hold, you have to just hope that you have a patent that will be covered by it, and that none of the dozens of corporations with vastly greater expertise in the mobile world are able to invalidate your patent with their own prior art.

      Not saying it can't happen, but the ones who hold 99%+ of the relevant patents will already be at the table because they want to be. They aren't trying to get rich on the patent revenue, they are trying to get rich by knowing what direction the standard is going ahead of time and perhaps being able to steer it in the direction of something they already have expertise in (i.e., if they hold patents that are relevant, they already know what they're doing that area)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You're clearly ignorant of how patent pools work. A companies patented solution would't be allowed to be a part of the standard unless they commit it to the pool and FRAND terms. There are patents that become essential because the solution they describe is chosen to be a mandatory part off the standard and much more rarely there are patents that are essential because there is no other way of doing the thing in question. Qualcomm held up the 3G standard until they got much improved license terms because they held truly essential patents of this latter type. They were entitled to do so. Samsung never had any such patents. Their patents only became "essential" by virtue of the fact they were selected as the way to do an aspect of the 3G solution. They were only selected on the basis they would be licensed on a FRAND basis. They were only valuable because on this basis they were made the standard mandated the way of doing things (even though an alternative could have been adopted). To then try to wield them as weapons against Apple and to try to use them to hold up Apple kit was unconscionable and Samsung thoroughly deserve to have lost this case.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yes that's a clear misunderstanding of how FRAND works.

        Samsung isn't even a significant player in FRAND standards, they usually license the radio technology just like Apple does.

        For example the Galaxy S3 uses the Intel PMB9811X baseband, and it's Intel who holds the patent licenses used in that.

        This decision will have no impact on FRAND.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020