Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Patents The Courts Apple

Judge Koh Rules: Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe 111

Posted by samzenpus
from the it-keeps-going dept.
sfcrazy writes "In a nutshell there won't be a new trial in the Apple V. Samsung case, as Samsung wanted, because the judge thinks that the trial was fair despite allegations that the jury foreman could have been biased. She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple as the iPhone maker failed to prove they were 'undercompensated' by the jury. The most important ruling was that she found that 'Samsung did not willfully infringe.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Koh Rules: Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe

Comments Filter:
  • From the summary:

    She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple

    From the article:

    So, Samsung owes Apple US $1 billion for a non will ful infringement.

    "More" in this case would be $3B as da,ages may be tripled for willful infringement.

  • by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday February 01, 2013 @01:37AM (#42758729)

    https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQte-5G3PGg [idc.com] *Worldwide* Q4 post earning release from a real market analyst. However you spin it Apples share of the pie is shrinking. In Larger markets than the US like China Apple have no market share...and don't have a competitive product in that market. You should reread my post, its pretty good.

  • by afaik_ianal (918433) on Friday February 01, 2013 @03:09AM (#42759007)

    I think you might be misreading it.

    "their" refers to Samsung. So she's saying since Sasmsung's experts testified that there was prior art, she's assuming they genuinely believed the prior art to be valid. The jury disagreed, but without other evidence she has assumed the experts genuinely believed there to be prior art.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01, 2013 @04:09AM (#42759247)

    Samsung was manufacturing real products and not using litigation as a business method until Apple started the legal war.

    Couldn't agree more. I'm posting anonymously for reasons that will become obvious below...

    I work for a direct competitor of Samsung in a different space to smartphones. Samsung is a relative newcomer in our market, and are comparatively tiny compared to the big players (such as my employer, one of the "big 5" in our industry).

    Right now, we're shitting our pants over them. Their product is half the price of ours and around 3/4 the quality. They'll bump the quality up to ours or higher and easily keep their price below. I KNOW they can do this, because they manufacture a lot of the components that we have to buy; and can integrate their technologies much more fluidly than we can.

    Our management are looking at all kinds of legal ways to try to fight them, including digging through our patents to figure out what we can sue them for. The simple fact of the matter is, they've got a product that WILL be better than ours and instead of improving our devices to stay ahead, we want to try to squash them down before they become too big.

    I'm seriously considering looking in to employment at Samsung in the coming years...

  • Re:Koh . . . (Score:4, Informative)

    by wienerschnizzel (1409447) on Friday February 01, 2013 @06:43AM (#42759683)

    how he was a) a wannabe patent troll

    I'm not the original poster, so can't comment on this. I would just say more generally that he was a possible patent enforcer

    how b) that makes a damned bit of difference either way to the case

    He has a vested interest on patent infringement damages being awarded regardless of the content of the patent. In this concrete case he manipulated the jury to disregard the instructions to consider the validity of the patents. It's like having an insurance company owner deciding on a case of insurance coverage.

    c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?

    The judge could have annulled the jury decision based on them not following the jury instructions and she could have sent them back to do their work properly.

  • Re:Koh . . . (Score:5, Informative)

    by iapetus (24050) on Friday February 01, 2013 @07:03AM (#42759745) Homepage

    The relevant questions were asked of the jury. Hogan gave misleading answers to those questions.

    If the jury had found for Samsung on every point, despite Hogan's possible bias against Samsung and their position, of course there wouldn't be a basis to demand a new trial. A better question might be whether Apple would be demanding a new trial had an anti-Apple zealot made it onto the jury by concealing their past history with Apple and then browbeating the other jurors into ignoring and misinterpreting law in a way that favoured Samsung.

    And I think we all know the answer to that one.

  • by Cederic (9623) on Friday February 01, 2013 @08:34AM (#42760121) Journal

    lol at all the teenage fandroid rage

    I shouldn't reply to an immature cunt, but

    Samsung will eventually settle this and cross-license patents

    Apple are refusing to allow licence Samsung to licence them. And Apple's patents are utter bullshit. And Apple is refusing to pay for FRAND licences.

    I'm not seeing much misbehaviour from Samsung on this one. Why would they settle?

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...