back to article ETERNAL PATENT WAR: Apple and Samsung locked in battle again

Apple and Samsung will head back to court in California today to argue over just how much the fruity firm should get in damages after a jury last year decided that the Korean company infringed its patents. Apple won $1bn in the original ruling, but Judge Lucy Koh lopped off nearly half of that - $450m - after she found that …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Craig 2

    And the lawyers keep on getting richer....

    1. Phil E Succour

      >>And the lawyers keep on getting richer....

      'twas ever so. I'm not aware of any legal system which actually seeks justice, truth and fairness for the parties involved, the whole set up is designed to keep the laywers in yachts.

      The British satirical magazine Private Eye hit the nail on the head many years ago now when it printed a photo of a high profile libel lawyer and their client following the failure of their case in court. A speech bubble added to the client said "We lost", the speech bubble added to the lawyer said "No, YOU lost. Here's my invoice".

    2. Ben Rosenthal

      Damn their oily hides!

  2. hammarbtyp


    Where's Groklaw when you need it. Sorely missed....

    1. FuzzyTheBear

      Re: Sigh

      I miss the site terribly . I used to go there daily for news , comments and in depth analysis of the behind the scenes games that are played out in the courts . Sorely missed is the word. I surely hope someone will step up with the knowledge of PJ , somehow that someone will surface and keep this type of information/reporting alive. We need someone to expose the shenanigans and put it out in the public view and within the range of the public's legal understanding. Yeah .. sorely missed , an IT resource gone in the wake of the NSA's outrageous actions and spying. I think it was a thin excuse , but i respect her decision.

      1. Shagbag

        Re: Sigh

        "We need someone to expose the shenanigans and put it out in the public view and within the range of the public's legal understanding"

        google Florian Muller. :-D

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Sigh

          >Florian Muller

          Whilst he does a good take on things, I did find that Gloklaw added some legal depth to the discussions.

    2. Carl

      Re: Sigh

      I agree.

      PJ packed it in far too hastily and far easily in my opinion.

      I know that's easy for me to say but I erally think the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

      It's a real shame. Groklaw was great for a morning coffee de-FUD.

      The Oracle/Apple/MS lawyers and shills must be delighted.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Sigh

        Concur fully. Groklaw could have been a forum to provide sensible guidance and analysis through the thicket of US national security law, which unquestionably is far more complex and subtle than anything, in any of the media, suggests.

        I have seen nothing yet that even remotely approaches what Groklaw could have become.

    3. El_Fev

      Re: Sigh

      I reckon someone was coming close to finally revealing PJ's identity

      1. sisk

        Re: Sigh

        I reckon someone was coming close to finally revealing PJ's identity

        I'm fairly certain PJ's identity was known to the wrong people (AKA the US government) already. The NSA has been collecting emails for years and identifying the person behind Groklaw would have no doubt been high on their list of priorities (right behind identifying terrorists I'm sure). If you were pulling gratuitous legal shenanigans wouldn't you make sure you knew who the popular blogger putting legal proceedings into layman's terms for the world was?

        1. hammarbtyp

          Re: Sigh

          It is well known that PJ is in in fact Steve Ballmer.

          Look at the facts. Announced their retirement on virtually the same day and were both responsible for breaking MS computing monopoly

        2. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Sigh

          Enough paranoid fantasy.

          First, there is not the slightest reason to think the Federal government, let alone the NSA, had any reason in the past to be interested in the identity of anyone associated with Groklaw, quite a number of whom were openly identified anyhow. SCO (RIP), Oracle, and Apple are not the government, nor is there any evidence that any of them is in position to make claims on government police or military powers. And the proposition that potential Groklaw coverage of national security law would be harmful to the government's case is preposterous in view of Groklaw's fairness throughout its history.

          Second, Groklaw is hosted on ibiblio, at the University of North Carolina, in the US. IF the NSA cared in the least about tracking those associated with Groklaw, they probably would have done it in a day or two, and by now it would be far too late for remedial action..

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    round 94?

    I thought it would take the next 20 years. Are we there yet? Nah...

  4. Joey

    "The Fruity Firm"

    Used three times in this short piece. Go to the back of the class for lack of imagination and overuse of clichés.

    1. frank ly

      Re: "The Fruity Firm"

      Clichés die if you don't overuse them.

      1. Craig 2
        Thumb Up

        Re: "The Fruity Firm"

        Or ever be born...

      2. Tim Parker

        Re: "The Fruity Firm"

        "Clichés die if you don't overuse them."

        Hmmm - there's an appealing thought....

      3. Rob

        Re: "The Fruity Firm"

        Every time you don't use them a cat video on YouTube dies.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "The Fruity Firm" -Every time you don't use them a cat video on YouTube dies

          You mean that, conversely, Brian O'Nolan's Catchetism of Cliche is responsible for all those cat videos?

          It'll take a third policeman to sort that one out.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "She also pointed out that Apple had licensing deals with other firms, so it clearly thought that money was a fair recompense for the patents."

    ... and apparently the firms paying for the patents thought they were cool/useful enough to warrant paying.

    1. hammarbtyp

      Re: Optional

      Not necessarily. For example I'm pretty sure that no one thinks MS android patents are useful or even innovative. They pay because it is the lesser of two evils. Pay a small amount or get locked up in courts for years to come with your entire business model threatened.

      It's strange really. The same thing will get you 5-10 for blackmail and protection racketeering . Companies do it and their share price increases and their directors get bonuses. Go figure .

  6. MrMur

    Well. if Apple thought they could issue a killer blow to Samsung's mobile aspirations, it is coming all too late.

  7. Simon Harris

    In my best Bowl Of Petunias voice...

    "Oh no, not again!"

  8. IGnatius T Foobar

    Fruity Firm FAIL

    Apple can whine in court all they want. It's not going to stop Android from continuing to dominate the market. You'd think they would have learned a generation ago when they got their arses handed to them in the desktop market.

    1. James Hughes 1

      Re: Fruity Firm FAIL

      That's what I don't understand - they are not going to win this battle. Ok, they may get a load of cash in settlement, but that's it. SS will work round the patents, Android will continue to dominate, and Apple become the sad also ran in the corner, dining out on past achievements and failing abysmally to innovate themselves back to the top.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fruity Firm FAIL

      The thing is, if Apple claimed Samsung was causing irreparable damage, and Apple is a growing company, that would seem to imply that what they are really asking for is a monopoly. Which would attract the attention of the regulators.

      If Samsung has caused Apple significant damage, I think it is not because of any patent issues but because Samsung is a vertically integrated company, and Apple is extremely dependent on Samsung technology. Apple's attempts to escape from this seem to be having limited success.

  9. Wardy01

    Just fine them both and throw it out

    Couple of Billion dollars should do it.

    Wasting court time.

  10. ProperDave

    Not knowing a thing about US Law being a Brit, perhaps US Legislation needs to change so that the federal government can take taxes out of any money that exchanges hands, given (as I understand it) Apple was dragged before the senate to be quizzed about their tax dodging techniques?


    It seems such an unfair system that big business can get away with this sort of behavior, and receive legal support to rob each other blind and still not pay money back into the countries that allow this.

  11. Raifon


    Apple had better mind their P&Qs on this one or Samsung will quit providing the components they need for their products.

  12. silent_count

    Apple & Sammy

    There really should be investigation into these two for anti-competitive practices. Between them, they're conspiring to corner the market on 'stoopid', and push up the market share of WinPhones (which should be a crime in it's own right).

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like