1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Judge cuts Apple award versus Samsung, sets new damages trial

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Bob, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. Bob

    Bob Well-Known Member

    (Reuters) - Apple Inc had a major setback in its ongoing patent battle with Samsung Electronics on Friday, as a federal judge slashed a $1.05 billion jury award by more than 40 percent and set a new trial to determine damages.

    Apple won the award last year against Samsung in what was the biggest and highest profile trial among a number of legal challenges around the world over mobile patents.

    The ruling by Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California in San Jose means the two mobile electronics companies may once again square off in a California court to decide how much of the $450.5 million stricken from the damages associated with 14 Samsung products should stand.

    Koh said the jury had incorrectly calculated part of the damages and that a new trial was needed to determine the actual, final dollar amount, which could be less than or more than the original $450.5 million set by the jury.

    The iPhone maker convinced the jury that the Korean company, which in 2012 knocked Apple off its perch atop the global smartphone market, had infringed on its iPhone and iPad patents.

    On Friday Koh, rejecting Apple's motion for an increase in the jury's damages award, ordered a new trial on damages for the 14 devices, which include the Galaxy SII. The jury's award to Apple for 14 other separate products, totaling almost $599 million, was maintained.

    "The court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury," Koh said in her ruling.

    Apple and Samsung account for 1 in 2 mobile phones sold. They also rely on each other for components and business.

    Their legal tussle has been viewed as a proxy war between Apple and Google Inc as Samsung's flagship Galaxy smartphones and tablets run on Google's Android operating system.

    Shares in Apple closed down 2.5 percent at $430.47.

    (Reporting By Ben Berkowitz; Editing by Gary Hill)
  2. Shelley

    Shelley Well-Known Member

    That case was always iffy if you ask me. Why Apple got awarded 1.05 billion is absolutely amazing yet ridiculous. IMO Apple should not have been awarded a cent since aren't they using technologies by samsung? Yet a ridiculous amount was awarded to apple for a shape of the design of one of their samsung devices? #madness
    SneakyDave likes this.
  3. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    Ya know? The folks here at XenForo just finished up some rather nasty legal action. Quoting copyrighted material in its entirety is a sure fire way of landing them back in hot water.
  4. Stallyon

    Stallyon Active Member

    Quoting the source or author covers you as research, otherwise every University student in the world would be in the faecal matter.
    D.O.A. likes this.
  5. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    No, it does not. You must obtain permission before quoting the article in full.


    Unless you wrote Reuters and obtained permission, in writing, you cannot reproduce in full any content from their organization. Paraphrasing and quoting approximately 10-15% of the article falls into fair use. Otherwise, you're breaking the law.
    hellreturn and DBA like this.
  6. Digital Jedi

    Digital Jedi Well-Known Member

    I doubt Reuters would have gone on the attack for one random news article on one random website in ether of cyberspace. I'm sure he won't do it again. But it's not worth derailing the topic.
    Crayo likes this.
  7. dutchbb

    dutchbb Well-Known Member

    There seems to be a tendency among many people to think that any company suing another company must be evil, wrong, trying to destroy competition, etc. Anyone knows Samsung has been copying Apple products with striking resemblance. Without the existence of Apple, Samsung's products wouldn't even look and function remotely like they do now. Apple pays all the costs for innovation and other brands can take their ideas for free and make billions at the expense of Apple. Well, in some cases you can do that, in other cases you will be prosecuted (patents). The problem that most people do not recognize is that a lack of respect for patents stifles innovation, because for businesses the capital invested in it is not worth it if it can be copied right away. To me it's funny that the people who hate Apple and like Samsung do not realize that part of the reason they like Samsung is because of many features copied by Samsung (and Google) from Apple. So it's good for customers that there can be competition, but in order to protect incentives for innovation (which is just as important), I believe some rules ought to be followed.

    Now if you disagree that's fine, but then you have to present a working alternative.
  8. Jason

    Jason Well-Known Member

    Haven't people been doing this all along? I'm sure you could even find some examples on this forum in earlier threads posted on this very topic. It seems more like people are unwillingly to accept that all manufactures are copying from each other, and that prior art concerning "smartphones" existed before the iPhone.

    On the flip side, try naming these innovations Apple should be credited with where there's not at least one other example of another company doing something similar prior to the iPhone/iPad. I bet there isn't many.
    Kim likes this.
  9. dangonay

    dangonay Active Member

    Apple released the iPhone in 2007. Ballmer laughed at Apple and claimed they'd be lucky to get 2-3% of the market (while saying he'd rather be on 60-70%). Nokia stated that Apple knows nothing about the cell phone market and "aren't a threat". RIM stated the same thing as Nokia and added people who type want physical keyboards not touchscreen keyboards.

    Look where these three companies are today in the smartphone market.

    Samsung looked at the iPhone and did a complete 180. They wrote a detailed 140 page document analyzing the iPhone and made suggestions how to compete. Samsung essentially changed their entire smartphone business in response to the iPhone (instead of dismissing the iPhone like everyone else).

    And look where Samsung is today when compared to RIM, Nokia and MS. I don't think it's a coincidence.
  10. D.O.A.

    D.O.A. Well-Known Member

    All I know is the US patent system is bullsh*t
    Arty likes this.
  11. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    And nothing in the iPhone is actually truly innovative. It had a better user interface, and had a sleek design (Which also wasn't original as the LG Prada was around before the iPhone).

    Samsung didn't really do much wrong by copying them, only to the degree that they copied them. When someone upsets a market the competition should totally look at the new market leader to see what they're doing right, which is what Samsung did and what the three companies you listed did not do.

    As far as the lawsuit goes, the whole thing is a complete joke. The patents involved either had prior art, were already common design patterns outside of phone design (bouncing at the end of a list is something commonly used in the late 90's with Flash), and the icons are mostly common sense. The jury foreman was clearly biased, and the fact that they didn't even take a day to come to a decision when they had a lot of evidence that was suppose to have gone over is clearly wrong.

    Apple truly hasn't invented much. The only inventions I can think of are the clickwheel for the original iPod (Inspired by a Braun product), and possibly credit for the unibody laptop design which is such a wasteful process that I'm surprised it is even considered 'green' (They only refined the process at that).
    Kim likes this.
  12. dangonay

    dangonay Active Member

    ^ Please. The judge already ruled there was no issue with the jury foreman. One of Samsung's lawyers was married to the lawyer that sued Hogan (the jury foreman) yet they still let him remain. Samsung's entire case was about getting a mistrial or leaving in a back door that they could appeal the case on (Hogan is one example, releasing that stupid press release complaining the judge disallowed "smoking gun" evidence was another).

    Apple hasn't invented anything? You shouldn't speak in absolutes like that. Do you have an LTE phone? If so it'll have Apple invented technology. And no, I'm not talking about the nearly 400 LTE patents they acquired but the 30 LTE patents Apple invented themselves. Apple has a ton of LCD patents and Samsung licenses them to build their LCD screens. They also have a lot of semiconductor and microprocessor patents. In fact, the latest A6 and A6X processors are Apple designs that run ARM code (like what Qualcomm does). Samsung, despite their semiconductor expertise, are still building off-the-shelf reference ARM designs.

    Certain people and media would like to convince everyone that Apple doesn't invent anything or that they only have patents on rounded rectangles. This is complete and utter bull, and when someone repeats it it's really hard to take anything they say seriously.
  13. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    Do you truly believe that Hogan was unbiased when statements by other people on the jury was that they went off his word and never really looked at any of the evidence? They didn't even take a day, and with the amount of evidence involved it was estimated to take at least 3 days. Not to mention that the Judge issued corrections relating to tablets and certain phones because they wouldn't have applied, which shows that obviously the decision was at least partially wrong. I also never mentioned any of the Seagate crap because it is so far out there that I don't even think it had any bearing on the issue at hand.

    LTE is a standard technology that has been collaborated on by many companies world wide. Apple has half as many patents relating to LTE in comparison to Samsung, who was a leading collaborator on the technology.

    LCD was not invented by Apple, though they have had a hand in refining it. As have nearly every computer company world wide. For that matter, Retina displays were not invented by Apple but were only adapted in a large format. There were companies already making 'retina' display monitors long before Apple, so that also isn't an 'invention'.

    The A6 and A6x processors are both built off of the ARM reference. As are the Exynos processors that outperform both the A6 and A6x (Which are manufactured for Apple by Samsung).

    Apple really does not invent much, and at most refine or adapt existing technologies to their needs. Most of their refinements aren't really innovative as they've existed in one form or another at earlier dates, or were not all that well known before they adopted them.
    Shelley likes this.
  14. Shelley

    Shelley Well-Known Member

    To be fair, apple did invent dumb ass commercials promoting sleekness, slim lined products then having some idiot sitting at an airport terminal using this "thin ipad" wearing the biggest pair of headphones that have ever been made, and will likely be made for the next 100 years. #dumb
    Kim and Nasr like this.
  15. Digital Jedi

    Digital Jedi Well-Known Member

    Software companies, to me, seem to have two personalities. The one defined by their techs, and the one defined by their lawyers. I sometimes wonder which half is in charge, when goofball lawsuits like this are filed. Who in their right mind thinks that going "there" is good for the company and their image in any way?
    Forsaken likes this.
  16. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    HTC is just as bad with the Beats brand. Ignoring the Beats sound crap they put in their phones, the beat headphones/earbuds are utter crap and no different than Skull Candies (Which are also crap).

    For the price you spend for Beats you could just go out and pick up some Etymotic earbuds or decent quality headphones.
  17. dangonay

    dangonay Active Member

    Sorry, the A6 and A6X are not ARM designs. Apple has a license to make compatible processors that run ARM code. The same way that AMD makes processors that run x86 code, but are not based on Intel designs. Apple used to make ARM reference designs, but they have gone past that now. Qualcomm (who I mentioned previously) also has a license to make processors that run ARM code. This puts Apple and Qualcomm in a league of their own when compared to Samsung who makes ARM processors based on ARM designs.

    Outperform? Which Exynos and which benchmark? That's another blanket statement that's not really true. In some benchmarks an Exynos is faster, but in others they are slower. Here's an article on the Nexus 4 and benchmarked against the A6 in the iPhone 5. Doesn't look too good. Twice the cores of the A6, faster clock speed and it's slower. Imagine that.


    As far as refining and improving - that can be said of every tech company. Can you even name anything that Samsung has invented? Everything they do is basically improvements on previous technologies. And that's OK. The patent system allows you to patent something that's an improvement on a previous version. This is why there are lots of patents for light bulbs and hammers. Nobody can patent something as generic as a light bulb, but you can patent a specific type of light bulb or a light that uses different materials/technology. So I'm not really sure why people always complain that "Apple doesn't invent anything" when the same can be said of pretty much every tech company out there.

    As to Hogan, well Samsung already brought that issue up in court and their requests were denied. What Hogan and other jurors has said in public doesn't really matter - all that counts is what was said in the court. People have different recollections of what was discussed, they are asked leading questions by reporters hoping for a juicy quote, and they were all questioned at different times by different people. That's a terrible way to try and piece together exactly what they were thinking when they made the decision.

    In fact, Judge Koh was not too impressed with Samsung lawyers and their tactics regarding Hogan. To paraphrase Koh: "since you knew about Hogans past, why didn't you ask further questions during jury selection?" Indeed. Instead of talking about how Hogan and the jury came to their decision they tried to use ad hominem to discredit him personally. Samsung knew all about Hogan and yet didn't bother to pursue the matter further. This along with several other "major mistakes" by Samsung have people asking if their lawyers are really that incompetent or if they were being clever to leave an avenue for appeal later on. Some of these mistakes:

    - Missing deadlines for submissions which resulted in evidence being excluded, then complaining about it publicly to imply the evidence was dis-allowed for "suspect reasons".
    - Having a lawyer on the case who wasn't even licensed to practice in the district they were in.
    - Ignoring the Judge and releasing information about the case to the press.
    - Using up all their allotted 25 hours of time and then complaining when Apple was able to question witnesses "without cross examination" using their own remaining time.

    Missing a deadline. Gee, maybe they thought if they asked the teacher nicely they'd get an extra day? Or maybe they should have told Koh "the dog ate our submission and we need another day to reprint them". This to me is simply beyond belief. How could such an expensive legal team make so many rookie mistakes?

    As to the quick decision, this is another mis-conception spread mostly by Groklaw. Yes, there were 700 questions on the jury form. But they were not 700 unique questions. They were the same questions repeated over for the 20+ devices accused of infringing. So once you understood the questions it would be easy to pick up a device and go through the list. Yes they did make a couple mistakes, and this is the topic of the OP. Koh has decided that some damages need to go before another jury for clarification. She hasn't stated anywhere that Apple will only get $599 million - she stated that everything is in order for that $599 million, but a new jury needs to go over the damages for the other devices. Apple might get less than $450 million, it might get the same award as the original jury, or it might get more than $450 million in the new trial.
  18. Jason

    Jason Well-Known Member

    That's disingenuous, at best.

    The A6 is based off ARM designs (ARMv7 instruction set -- which is basically the ARM core, very much ARM IP) just not an ARM-specific CPU design. There's a distinction there, but not that of it simply runs ARM code. This allows them more room to customize the chip's performance without having to push or pull that into the ARM-specific designs. Qualcomm's snapdragon isn't different in this regard either.

    As for know how, most of Apple's recent SoC engineering hires were poached from Samsung (including their lead chip designer). There's a lot of shared knowledge among these companies.
  19. vbresults

    vbresults Well-Known Member

    Not happening. CDA 230.

Share This Page