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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by JImbob0i0 (1202835) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:30PM (#42757167)

    With this ruling neither side are going to be happy (and frankly it's somewhat self-contradictory as well)...

    Both sides will be writing up appeals no doubt so this story is far from over yet - it'll be very interesting to hear what gets presented to the higher court and what their take on the foreman is.

    • by sconeu (64226) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:35PM (#42757203) Homepage Journal

      General consensus on Groklaw is that she's sick of the whole mess and knows everyone is appealing everything, so she's just kicking it upstairs.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yeah, that seems to be the case. So how is this not a case of doing a half-assed job, making wrong conclusions and then passing the buck?

        If you or I did that in a business environment, we'd probably get fired. Will she get a free pass after this?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.

        The thing is, this is really a cry for overall IP (Patent, Copyright, Trademark, Design Rights, etc) reform to stop being able to patent stupid, obvious things. Software developers create things all the time that they don't know if it's patentable or someone they're in communication with is patenting all

        • by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday February 01, 2013 @12:16AM (#42758311)

          General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.

          This had *nothing* to do with feelings. Apple is unable to maintain its massive mark-ups of rebadged foxconn phones through innovation; its massive market share gone; the days of the iPhone killer long behind us; its marketing machine pushing it as the *one* phone turning on Apple. When Jobs went thermonuclear on Android he should have been spending money on diverse product lines; Company acquisitions....hell competed on price, but instead he deicide to *litigate* over a few interface patents on devices covered by thousands of patents, often shared at little or no cost between traditional phone manufactures.

          This court case was a massive win for Apple, but without product bans...toothless. I suspect even with them there are simply too many compelling Android phones; from a diverse collection of manufactures. All with an Mountain!? of there own patents [Hell even Google has them now]...Apple is terrified of them forming a cartel.

          The bottom line is this is nothing to do with feelings this is everything about poor corporate strategy.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Theaetetus (590071)

            General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.

            This had *nothing* to do with feelings. Apple is unable to maintain its massive mark-ups of rebadged foxconn phones through innovation; its massive market share gone; the days of the iPhone killer long behind us; its marketing machine pushing it as the *one* phone turning on Apple.

            [cough]iPhone snags its highest U.S. market share ever [cnet.com][/cough]

          • by node 3 (115640)

            This had *nothing* to do with feelings. Apple is unable to maintain its massive mark-ups of rebadged foxconn phones through innovation; its massive market share gone; the days of the iPhone killer long behind us; its marketing machine pushing it as the *one* phone turning on Apple.

            Apple has been consistently selling ever more iPhones and iPads, they just had their best quarter ever, and their highest profits ever, reached their highest level of market share ever...

            In Q4, the iPhone was the top selling phone of all phones (not just smart phones) in the US. For the entire year of 2012, 1/4 phones in the US (again, all phones) was an iPhone.

            In other words, Apple is doing better than ever, better than when they started this lawsuit. The lawsuit isn't about waning importance, it's about s

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:42PM (#42757241)

    Seeking treble damages is SOP for these kinds of suits. You do it because you have a reasonable chance of succeeding and there is no penalty for the attempt.

    Anyway, don't be quick to jump to Samsung's defense because they're on the other end of Apple in this suit, or because they make your favorite smartphone. Samsung pretty much owns the SK govt and aggressively attacks its overseas competitors in every manner you could imagine. There are plenty of blogs detailing Samsung's domestic abuses of power (That far predate any smartphone). Samsung isn't a friendly company and they aren't looking out for you. Like any company, they just want your money.

  • If I'm not mistaken Apple will have to pay California income tax on the money they get from Samsung. With a corporate tax of nearly 9% that'd be close to $90M added to the coffers. If one was into conspiracy theories this would be an interesting avenue to pursue.
    • by tgetzoya (827201)
      I'm sure Apple will find a way to not pay taxes on it.
    • If I'm not mistaken Apple will have to pay California income tax on the money they get from Samsung. With a corporate tax of nearly 9% that'd be close to $90M added to the coffers. If one was into conspiracy theories this would be an interesting avenue to pursue.

      I don't think you have any idea how much money the state gets in Tax. State spending was $127 billion in 2011

      • You're right, they'd never miss $90M, even with them running a deficit for several years end-on-end. If they're fortunate and their forecast comes through for 2013, they'll just barely squeak into the black. I wonder if that forecast included this little windfall...
  • 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.

  • by HuguesT (84078) on Friday February 01, 2013 @02:37AM (#42758725)

    One very important sentence in the groklaw article:

    The reason she found Samsung was not willful is because of all the prior art that their experts testified showed that the Apple patents were invalid.

    Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market.

    • Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market

      Yes. This is standard operating practice for a thug protection racket operation like Apple.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by afaik_ianal (918433)

      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 oztiks (921504)

        Which is a bit schizophrenic if you consider that most of the attempts Samsung made at raising prior art were thrown out at the beginning of the trail.

        • You're missing the point.

          There's a difference between disagreeing with what someone says (throwing out the claims of prior art), and believing they believe what they're saying (agreeing the alleged infringement was not willful). They're not mutually exclusive.

    • One very important sentence in the groklaw article:

      The reason she found Samsung was not willful is because of all the prior art that their experts testified showed that the Apple patents were invalid.

      Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market.

      No, you're misreading it. To willfully infringe a patent, you must know about the patent, believe its valid, and go ahead and infringe anyway. What she's saying is that Samsung got expert opinions that said that Apple's patents weren't valid. Those experts were apparently wrong, according to the jury, but that belief takes out the second prong of willfulness, so Samsung didn't willfully infringe, and damages are not tripled.

      • by rwise2112 (648849)

        No, you're misreading it. To willfully infringe a patent, you must know about the patent, believe its valid, and go ahead and infringe anyway. What she's saying is that Samsung got expert opinions that said that Apple's patents weren't valid. Those experts were apparently wrong, according to the jury, but that belief takes out the second prong of willfulness, so Samsung didn't willfully infringe, and damages are not tripled.

        But why wern't the 'damages' reduced? At least two of the patents from the trial were invalidated since.

        • No, you're misreading it. To willfully infringe a patent, you must know about the patent, believe its valid, and go ahead and infringe anyway. What she's saying is that Samsung got expert opinions that said that Apple's patents weren't valid. Those experts were apparently wrong, according to the jury, but that belief takes out the second prong of willfulness, so Samsung didn't willfully infringe, and damages are not tripled.

          But why wern't the 'damages' reduced? At least two of the patents from the trial were invalidated since.

          That's an issue for appeal, not this stage of trial.

Please go away.

Working...