Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Almighty Buck The Courts Apple

Samsung Ordered To Pay Apple $290M In Patent Case 219

Posted by timothy
from the not-in-nickels-this-time dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Ordered To Pay Apple $290M In Patent Case

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Whatever happened to Groklaw!!!

    • by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:02PM (#45485421) Homepage Journal

      From wikipedia:

      On August 20 2013 an article appeared on Groklaw saying it was to be closed down due to government monitoring of the internet, particularly e-mail.[6] Jones wrote "What I do know is it's not possible to be fully human if you are being surveilled 24/7... I hope that makes it clear why I can't continue. There is now no shield from forced exposure."

      The NSA scared them out of business.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by gnasher719 (869701)

        The NSA scared them (groklaw) out of business.

        Mostly as a reaction to the Lavabit case. Which had some justification as a protest against what the NSA is up to, but not justified if you are afraid of email surveillance.

        Lavabit made the mistake of storing emails in an encrypted form which Lavabit was capable of decrypting. That made legal demands to access the decrypted data possible. To be legally safe, as a service provider you must provide end-to-end decryption where it is impossible for you to read the messages. And the NSA can't break S/MIME wit

        • by jafac (1449) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @08:36PM (#45486651) Homepage

          If you're being monitored by the NSA, and if you're a journalist, that excludes a huge amount of potential sources who might talk with you. Certain sources would shy away from any contact which might be monitored by the NSA. (this is true whether any of Snowden's revelations were true or not - only if the revelations were credible).

      • What an example they showed. Simply give up!

    • Samsung will buy $290 million dollars worth of iPhones, slap a Samsung sticker on them, and offer them for $1.98 as unlocked phones. give the receipt to the judge, and say "there, got it."

  • Have you noticed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:00PM (#45485395) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ackthpt (218170) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:03PM (#45485447) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by pete-classic (75983)

        If Apple (or someone) files a patent application it is on the public record*, if they don't, they can't make a claim. So . . . how is Apple meant to make Samsung do its due diligence?

        *37 C.F.R. 1.11

        • by alvinrod (889928) on Friday November 22, 2013 @12:14AM (#45487931)
          They're not, but when there are an ever increasing number of patents to comb through, it becomes impossible to determine if there are any out there that you violate. Add in a number of inane patents like "X, but on a computer!" and it just becomes cheaper to deal with the legal consequences after the fact. Whether a person thinks software should be able to be patented at all, I think everyone can agree that the system as it is needs an overall.
    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:04PM (#45485465)

      And if you try your case in certain places, you'll win. With Apple, apparently even if you lose, you win [cbsnews.com].

      • by ackthpt (218170) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @07:01PM (#45485933) Homepage Journal

        And if you try your case in certain places, you'll win. With Apple, apparently even if you lose, you win [cbsnews.com].

        Apple's legal research team are working on splitting the Litigon, a particle with quantum spin which is capable of detecting where and when someone has violated their Intellectual Property.

        • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex AT ... trograde DOT com> on Thursday November 21, 2013 @09:03PM (#45486817)

          Apple's legal research team are working on splitting the Litigon, a particle with quantum spin which is capable of detecting where and when someone has violated their Intellectual Property.

          We have been studying matter vs Litigon collisions for quite some time at Apple's Hardly Imaginary Particle Smashing Toroidal Experiment Research fascillity (aka: The HIPSTER Collier). [cnn.com] Through friction with other manufacturers Apple's outsourced supply chain provides a never ending stream of Litigons -- Sometimes even through interaction with itself (as TFA demonstrates).

          When Litigons collide with normal matter in reality they produce a veritable golden shower of Bogons. This led to the discovery of the Bogosity Field; Now known publicly as the "Apple reality distortion field" in guerrilla marketing campaigns. Apple holds the exclusive patent for the Bogosity Field retroactively and in perpetuity through creating new devices with which to fill the blank in: "Bogons on a ___." [computer, phone, PDA / tablet, set-top box, watch, glasses, Maxwell Smart's shoe, etc.]

          Due to the nature of quantum uncertainty it is not observation of the Litigon itself which detects the location and time of infringement, but rather via inference after witnessing the speed and direction of the technology segment's charged Progress particle (The Progress-ion), after collision with Apple's Bogons.

    • by ausekilis (1513635) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:15PM (#45485575)
      The real question is at what point do these ideas become "common knowledge" enough that the patent should be no more. After all, every TV is rectangular in shape, with button (touch) controls in the lower right or right hand side. That's right, this is the USA where the patents are made up and the durations don't matter.
      • by Wovel (964431)

        That point is reached when the patent expires...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This was only a trial on DAMAGES. Therefore, it was irrelevant whether Samsung infringed Apple's patents, because that was already determined to be the case.

    • Re:Have you noticed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pinhedd (1661735) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:34PM (#45485707)

      Samsung can't argue that they didn't infringe on the patents, that was already settled in the case. This was simply a retrial on assessment of damages. Samsung can (and is) appealing the original verdict and will most likely appeal the new damages as well.

      • by Solandri (704621)
        Actually, Samsung can argue that they didn't infringe on the patents. The jury cleared their tablet of infringement because of copious prior art. It found that they infringed on the iPhone, but that was most likely because of a technicality (they missed a filing deadline by a day), the judge disallowed Samsung from showing the jury prototype designs they were working on in 2006 [tinypic.com] prior to the iPhone being made public.

        Anyone who wasn't sequestered like the jury and saw the evidence the judge disallowed kn
        • by Pinhedd (1661735)

          No, they cant.

          Attorneys cannot make arguments for matters of fact that are not in dispute. As far as this trial is concerned there is no question as to whether or not Samsung infringed on the products that are the subject of the trial, that was settled by the previous jury. The only question is what the actual damages are.

          This is a retrial ordered by the trial court to reassess damages on products that the previous jury found that they did infringe. The trial judge found that the jury used a legally impermi

    • It's sick and disgusting. There was prior art for EVERY patent Apple sued Samsung over. Every single one could be invalidated by prior art you could find on the web.

      Go figure....

      PATENT office should be burned to the ground and never rebuilt.

  • by Hussam Al-Tayeb (3423459) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:07PM (#45485485)
    Samsung should pay the 290 million dollars to Apple in 5 cent coints and take it to Apple headquarters in trucks!
    • Air mail would be better. They could just air-drop it. ;-)
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Or better still in iTunes Store vouchers.

    • by Wovel (964431)

      30,000+ tons is a lot to drive around. Keep in mind Samsung actually (barring successful appeals) owes Apple closer to $890 million, $600 million from the original trial is still intact. The Gas would probably cost them another billion.

  • Thermonuclear war (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tough Love (215404) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:10PM (#45485509)

    Apple remains obsessed with thermonuclear war instead of introducing products that people want. Meanwhile its market share keeps slip, slip, slipping away [yahoo.com].

  • by ggraham412 (1492023) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:36PM (#45485715)

    In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?

    This isn't an example of bad Samsung capitalizing on Apple's good ideas. This is about major corporations being encouraged to stick their flags in the obvious and make else everyone pay. Whether you pay Apple or whether you pay Samsung (who then has to pay Apple), you're paying up and up for a fucking rectangle and whatever else is in their catalog of the obvious.

    • In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?

      I just wanted to notify you, informally, that you've infringed upon my patent that details a process for complaining about patents. I'll make sure that my lawyers send you the appropriate notice paperwork by the end of next week.

    • by Trogre (513942)

      Given that smartphones and tablets are just the current generation of PDAs, Apple, Samsung et al should count themselves very lucky that Palm and Sharp didn't file thousands of stupid frivolous patents.

      Instead of just dozens, perhaps :)

  • Is it a waste? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:53PM (#45485873)
    Sometimes I think that all this litigation is a terrible waste of human effort. Then I try to imagine all these lawyers doing something more productive with their time instead, and I just can't.
    • Than making millions of dollars for yourself and your firm?

      • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @08:01PM (#45486367)

        It's not productive because nothing is being produced. It's just taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. It's redistributive rather than productive.

        Making phones is productive. Advancing technology is productive.

  • 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 i

  • by gnasher719 (869701) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @07:50PM (#45486293)
    Originally Samsung was ordered to pay about a billion dollars. Then it turned out that the jury had made mistakes in the calculation of damages. Therefore about $400 million of that billion had to be tried again, while $600 million of the judgment was deemed correct. So in reality Samsung is now ordered to pay $600 plus $290 million.
  • by msobkow (48369) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @08:31PM (#45486617) Homepage Journal

    No surprise there. Samsung apparently wins the cases overseas, Apple wins them in the US. The whole system is rigged, flawed, and useless. Down with software and "design" patents!

  • I feel a parking lot full of loose change in Apple's future. Maybe this time it will happen!

  • worst summary ever (Score:5, Informative)

    by vux984 (928602) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @08:41PM (#45486671)

    "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."

    Ok.

    "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."

    So, first they one a billion in court, then this win for 290 million.

    "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."

    Oh... ok... so not really a billion. 450million is being reconsidered, but there is this 290 million win. Still good for apple, though right?

    "Thursday's verdict is the result of that new trial."

    Wait what? So this isn't new money they won, but rather that of the 450M of previous win they we're fighting to keep, they've just lost 160M.

    Wouldn't that have been the correct way to start?

    Something like "Trial to reconsider $450M of previous $1B settlement has been reduced by $160M to $290M."

    And that's assuming the patents stand up long enough for the checks to get written, something I understand may not happen as the patents themselves are facing invalidation.

    Seriously, this article made it sound like another big win for apple, when in reality its really news that their one big win has been cut down...yet again.

    • Amen to that.

      Basically, the way the legal process goes, Apple still hasn't "fully" won its match against Samsung. This isn't Apple's second victory if by victory we mean the guy who gets the gold medal, the championship belt, the cheer leader's hug, etc. Apple may have won the round/lap/inning/half but a victory it's not.

    • And that's assuming the patents stand up long enough for the checks to get written, something I understand may not happen as the patents themselves are facing invalidation.

      Last news I have (from the time GrockLaw still existed), most of the patents were already invalidated - but the judge decided that this small fact shouldn't change the veredict.

      • by vux984 (928602)

        Last news I have (from the time GrockLaw still existed), most of the patents were already invalidated - but the judge decided that this small fact shouldn't change the veredict.

        My impression was that the judge assumed that would be sorted out in the appeal.

        • Yep, my impression is that the judge assumed that the appeals court is the right place to hear Samsung's defense, sort if the law actually applies, and look at the facts.

  • It's pretty incredible but sadly predictable that Apple can keep winning over juries in its home county of Santa Clara to award it damages mainly for a patent (pinch to zoom) already declared invalid twice by the USPTO [fosspatents.com]. Thanks however to the US's weird system, Apple can go on appealing until 2017 or 2018 before it finally runs out of people to whine to. I'd like to think that sanity could prevail then, but as recent experience shows, the US President would have no qualms about vetoing any adverse judgement [cnet.com]

  • So not really a second victory, as Samsung now has to pay out a much lesser fine than originally..

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...