Samsung Ordered To Pay Apple $290M In Patent Case 219
itwbennett writes "After 3 days of deliberations, a jury has ordered Samsung to pay $290 million to Apple for infringement of several of its patents in multiple Samsung smartphones and tablets. The verdict is the second victory for Apple in its multiyear patent fight against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Last year a jury in the same San Jose courtroom ruled Samsung should pay just over $1 billion for infringement of five Apple patents in multiple Samsung phones and tablets. But afterward, Judge Lucy Koh ordered a new trial to reconsider $450 million of the damages after finding the previous jury had applied an 'impermissible legal theory' to its calculations. Thursday's verdict is the result of that new trial."
Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you noticed these summaries never include what the patents are anymore? Samsung didn't even claim they didn't intrude on the patents, just that they made what their market research said was a good idea.
All you have to do is comprehensively patent every element of your design, and if any of it is a good idea, you'll get to sue anyone in the same field.
It's all a crap-shoot anyway. Odds are Apple holds a patent for something they don't use, but if you develop it independently and roll-out to market, you get shot down because they see you as encrouching on their turf*.
Next up, in a month or two: The reversal.
*everything, everywhere.
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:1, Interesting)
Go read and learn about "Market Share"
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/07/android-market-share-smartphone-users-google-apple
Re:Thermonuclear war (Score:5, Interesting)
I use a Galaxy S3, and I hate iOS and its locked-down ecosystem, but your comparison of select numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Android typically needs more RAM than iOS for the same tasks because the app platform requires JIT compilation and garbage collection. These developer conveniences come at a cost. Also, clock for clock the new Apple CPU cores outperform the more popular ARM cores by a pretty wide margin. You need to compare a real-world task rather than core count or clock speed. That said, I still think my Galaxy S3 is objectively better because it can do circuit-switched video calls, scan directories on an SD card for photos/music, side-load apps, and have its firmware upgraded/downgraded painlessly over USB. Clock speed and RAM don't even come into it.
Maybe Not So Good For Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple claims that Samsung hurts the market for iPhones.
B.S.!
If you want IOS and the Apple App Store you have to buy an iPhone today every bit as much as you ever had to do so.
The Samsung phone is a different creature in a different environment.
Apple couldn't even make enough smartphones to supply the whole world provided that the did have a monopoly on them.
Aside from the fact that Apple never should have been granted these patents, I mean really, how long before Samsung -- who still supplies a lot of the iPhone and iPad components because nobody else can -- announces a sudden price increase that more than pays for this judgement out of Apple's own pockets?
I hope real soon.
And I'm left to wonder if this is taxable income in the USA for the famously tax-avoiding Apple? If not, then they just laundered a giga-buck into the good 'ol USA.
Re:It's not about innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
So while they may have patented a design for a rectangular device, a competing device would need to infringe not only on that claim, but also on all of the other claims as well before it could be considered to be infringing on the patent itself.
Granted, the GP oversimplified the design patent, but what in that patent really made it all that worth of the design patent? If they had submitted just a rectangle, it would have been rejected, right? So there is a level of simplicity that is rejected. The elements they have laid claim on from that patent are, IMO, not only obvious, and with past precident, but natural to that type of device. Rounded corners? duh... no one would want really sharp corners in their pocket. Grid layout of icons? a grid... really... a grid? Square icons with round corners? Nah, I've never seen that before, nor would be be extremely obvious on a device that has both horizontal and vertical orientations, right?
I get what your'e saying, but you haven't listed all the features that made it worthy, and you provided no justification for them, and just made it sound more complex than it really was. The GP didn't list them all either, and over simplified it (to make a point). I read the GP's post as saying he believes the design patent covered far to simple/obvious of a thing, and it's silly that it was granted. I'm not sure if you're saying it was deserving of the patent or not, but I don't think anyone would argue it was for more than a rectangle. The question is, was it enough? The rectangle, and in particular the proportions, size, and contour, were at the center of the case, regardless if that is not all that was in the patent.
Re:It's not about innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent you're speaking of was a design patent (which in many ways more closely resemble trademarks than utility patents (with which we are more familiar) in how they are handled), and the claim you're referencing was but one of many included in that particular patent.
That's bullshit mate. They patented the rounded rectangular slab with touch screen (thus few buttons) and a grid of icons. The rounded rectangle tablet was in everything from Soylent Green to Star Trek. The touch screen I had in the 90's complete with GEM desktop's grid of icons. Putting a few bits of existing tech together and documenting the only real practical design shouldn't be allowed just because you had enough legal budget to do so. At 10 paces folks can't tell the difference between my older HP IPAQ [repairhppda.com] PDA and dark desktop w/ icons. They couldn't tell the difference between the iPhone / iPad and a Samsung phone or tablet either. So what.
Let me tell you something about design patents. The Fashion Industry and Automotive Industries are all about design. They market heavily on design and yet they have no design patents or copyrights in the USA. Despite NOT having such patent protections these markets are more lucrative than nearly any other patent protected markets. So, here we have clear evidence that design patents aren't needed. They're pure anti-competitive bullshit, and unless you have empirical evidence to show vs a control group that patents are beneficial then you're full of shit.
Doesn't matter how "correct" someone's statement is regarding application of current patent law -- The laws themselves are bogus. We don't know if they're harmful or helpful, only that other evidence shows design patents and copyright aren't necessary for progress in design. Anyone with half a scientific method would never agree to run world economies based on untested hypotheses.
You're bitching about some pedantic bullshit about how the laws cover this or that -- Sure, go fuck yourself though. It's like someone saying: It's bullshit that you can have design patents, then you go on for a paragraph about what a design patent is -- As if we don't already know that they're bullshit; And you have NONE -- ZERO evidence to prove they are not, in fact, harmful unnecessary burdens or beneficial in any way.
Re:Groklaw where art thou? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you are not seeing the big picture. GL more than once gathered (and published) evidence of wrongdoing of well connected people. The entire point of mass surveilance is punishing such kind of behaviour.