Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple

Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too 156

Posted by timothy
from the you-may-not-seek-quite-so-much-rent dept.
SternisheFan writes with this news from the Register: "Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the U.S., but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its patent infringement case against the Korean firm, it set about pursuing another win in the form of permanent injunctions on the products in the case. The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobile phones and tablets in the U.S., but the judge said the company hadn't done enough to legally support such a ban." More details at Groklaw.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too

Comments Filter:
  • Thank the ghods. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx (31751) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:17AM (#42325635) Homepage

    I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.

    This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P

  • Why the register? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:20AM (#42325661)

    Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

  • by arbiter1 (1204146) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:32AM (#42325775)
    Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.
  • Re:Thank the gods. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:45AM (#42325947)

    I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.

    Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence. Laziness isn't an excuse to change a verdict.

  • by venicebeach (702856) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:47AM (#42325967) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps they will factor in the one billion dollars they won.
  • fuck this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Redmancometh (2676319) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:52AM (#42326027)
    I just read the words "sammy mobes" on slashdot...fuck..you...brain...hurts
  • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @01:10PM (#42326935) Homepage

    I think the OPs point was that the way the jury behaved was very questionable in many respects. Their verdict was inconsistent with itself and had to be sent back for them to try again not once but multiple times, if I recall correctly. Also, the foreman pretty much admitted to presenting himself as an expert and telling the jurors things that are simply not true about patent law. Not to mention the general bogosity of the patents themselves.

    The question here is, if this case is not re-tried and cannot be appealed, what does that say about the reliability of the US legal system? How could anyone sanely subject their company to a jury trial about patents when the process appears to ignore its own rules of engagement?

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...