Victory For Apple In "Patent Trial of the Century," To the Tune of $1 Billion 1184
pdabbadabba writes "The jury is in in the epic patent dispute between Apple and Samsung and Apple appears to be coming out on top. The court is still going through the 700+ items on the verdict form, but things seem to be going Apple's way so far. In the case of Apple's various UI patents, the jury is consistently ruling that Samsung not only violated Apple's patent, but did so willfully." Reader bob zee also points to the AP's story, as carried by Breitbart.com, and Charliemopps adds Reuters' take. Reader Samalie contributes a link to a live blog of the (at this writing) ongoing recitation of the verdict. Whether you like it or not, even this verdict won't be the last word.
No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:5, Informative)
Over $1 billion damages (Score:1, Informative)
According to the Verge http://live.theverge.com/apple-samsung-verdict-live/ [theverge.com] Apple was awarded $1,051,855,000 in damages. Samsung got nada. Zip. Zero.
Big win for Apple and a legal lesson to the folks who claimed this case was about "a rectangle with rounded corners."
Why the link to nutbag Breitbart instead of AP? (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks Timothy... not.
In the case of Apple, it's clear that Samsung was directly copying Apple on many fronts - hell, look at their Samsung Stores or their power adapters. This case however, will immediately be appealed and this is nowhere near the last we'll hear of it.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:5, Informative)
If a precedent is set here, someone will use it against Apple in the near future... plus this has cost them what remained of their positive image amongst the rest of the tech community.
It's quite obvious that Samsung's claims about prior art have merit. Apple's collective belief that they are wholly responsible for the conceptual development of every product they release is both arrogant and farcical, but i guess that's what you get taking your corporate direction from a CEO who'd rather yell at his family for a year than seek treatment for the illness that was killing him.
Re:As it should be. (Score:2, Informative)
What? For a fucking shape?
Go look at the evidence. The designs were around long, long, long before Apple did anything with them.
And *real* tech patents? Nothing.
This trial shows nothing but what Americans value, and that's shiny fashion accessories.
This marks the nail in the coffin for American economic dominance. Other countries will pull out because the US will become a backwater of markets dominated by fiefdoms propped up by bullshit patents. Patents are killing off real competition and innovation. We're going to be stuck with shiny toys while the rest of the world enjoys advances in standards of living.
Welcome to your new glorified banana republic.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:4, Informative)
Most lawyers litigating in a big trial like this are from a firm. In-house lawyers guide the company's transactions, typically.
Re:Only 22 hours of deliberations (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the case was not really that complex once it got to the jury. Simplifying the jury's task is the point of a lot of the legal maneuvering that goes in before and during the trial. It's true that the jury verdict form was really long, but mostly that is because each question had to be asked once for each Samsung product at issue. Here's the form: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1307288/1890_finalverdictform.pdf [sbnation.com]
But, yeah. You disagree with the verdict (based, I'd wager, on very little information), so the jury must have been stacked.
Re:Don't call it that, seriously. (Score:1, Informative)
They could do like all the other companies that are not getting sued over this, and actually do some work on their own.
Re:Only 22 hours of deliberations (Score:5, Informative)
It's a little complicated but, basically, if the suit is for damages the 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial if the plaintiff wants one. For (a LOT) more, have a look at this: http://iplj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Article-THE-RIGHT-TO-A-JURY-TRIAL-IN-ACTIONS-FOR-PATENT-INFRINGEMENT-AND-SUITS-FOR-DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT.pdf [iplj.net]
Re:R.I.P. Innovation (Score:2, Informative)
There are times when I feel that a .44 Magnum can fix anything!
Re:An appeal is a virtual certainty... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you can appeal the decision of the jury. All you can appeal are technical failings, the instructions given to the jury, etc.
The jury decision itself, however, is typically considered unappealable, since they are considered to have greater authority than the judge.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:3, Informative)
aren't most of the lawyers already on one or the other company's payroll
Emphatically no. The staff lawyers are often involved the in the case itself; they're witnesses. They can't litigate the case. These sort of cases are handled by outside firms that do litigation. Staff attorneys do contracts and stuff; they don't litigate.
Re:Only 22 hours of deliberations (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:2, Informative)
Yep. It's worth whatever Honey Boo Boo Child's family is getting. Apple is the new Honey Boo Boo Child!
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:3, Informative)
It's possible but very unlikely. Their lawyers are not in-house and, that being the case, lawyers for the plaintiff will usually be paid on a contingent-fee basis, meaning they get a percentage of the winnings. It's possible they're paid by the hour, but it wouldn't be typical. (Bear in mind also that Apple probably has at least two firms representing them: a big litigation firm, a trial specialist, and possibly also a third local firm retained for ease of filing and familiarity with the local procedures.)
Re:Don't use "stacked" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but usually only the defendant pays the hourly rate. If you're the plaintiff you pay a contingent percentage fee unless your lawyer thinks you'll lose (or you have some other alternative fee arrangement).
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:3, Informative)
In the end the only true winners, are the lawyers.
Except in a case like this, aren't most of the lawyers already on one or the other company's payroll? If so, they're not getting a cut of the award.
Samsung hired one of the best known law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP [quinnemanuel.com]. They even have a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_Emanuel_Urquhart_%26_Sullivan [wikipedia.org].
So at least Samsung's lawyers are not on their payroll.
Re:Apple stifling innovation in lawsuit (Score:2, Informative)
Retina displays, multitouch displays, and an app ecosystem, off the top of my head.
Re:If Apple were stifling innovation, they'd sue m (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung have produced a superior product, therefore Apple needs to attack them first.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:5, Informative)
Thats funny. My office of 5000+ is about to buy iPhones for 20% of them to replace aging Blackberry phones. With that they have already purchased mass provisioning and corporate app distribution capabilities.
Guess personal anecdotes only tell a narrow picture of the landscape.
Re:Apple stifling innovation in lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
Please. Apple gave multiple examples of smartphones designed that didn't infringe. In Samsung's case is Bada, Tizen and F700 lines were among them.
Re:Lazy Crap. (Score:5, Informative)
The Internet was a great step forward. But as far as computers themselves were concerned it was. We when from a wide variety of computer platforms in the 80s to more or less a Wintel monoculture in the 90s, where the only points of distinction between different computers was numbers of MHz, and MBs. The 90s in computing was horrible. If you don't recognise that, you're probably to young to remember what it was like before.
Re:If Apple were stifling innovation, they'd sue m (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung's success has come largely from making good phones. As in, large high quality screens and powerful hardware. On both counts they handily beat iPhones from the same generation, which is why I personally ditched iPhone 4 back in the day for S2, and never looked back.
Oh, and as a user of both products? Any person that thinks that S2 looks or works like iPhone 4, after using one for a few minutes, is retarded.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:5, Informative)
You've posted the same thing three times. It remains completely wrong.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not infringing? How? When? (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta cite for that?
"Question 5 [forbes.com]: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace."
And see voiceofworldcontrol's answer below.
How was it that they were found not to be infringing? Under what argument? Just because they were not Android or something?
Because it's not about friggin' rectangles but about copying a very specific design presumably.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:2, Informative)
At the risk of repeating myself:
This lawsuit was about the Galaxy line of phones, all of which have a larger screen than the iphone.
If I'm mistaken, tell me where I am mistaken and tell me the correct answer. Don't just say, "YOUR WRONG!" and leave it at that. Tell me which devices are part of this lawsuit because everything I can find says the Galaxy line. I also read that they are using this lawsuit to try to ban the Galaxy SIII.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48783982 [cnbc.com]
The verdict, which came much sooner than expected, could lead to an outright ban on sales of key Samsung products and will likely solidify Apple's dominance of the exploding mobile computing market.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-case/ [foxnews.com]
As part of its lawsuit, Apple also demanded that Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. A judge was expected to make that ruling at a later time.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/avantgo/2018986876.html [nwsource.com]
Apple lawyer plans to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market.
While the SIII is not listed specifically, it is the most popular cellphone Samsung sells right now.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:5, Informative)
Steve Jobs [wikipedia.org] had four [wikipedia.org] children. His first [wikipedia.org], Lisa, he had with his girlfriend, and he denied being her father for a long time. He named the Lisa computer after her. They didn't have a good relationship early on, but eventually made up and she lived with him for several years. He had three other children (Reed, Erin, and Eve) with his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs [wikipedia.org].
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure how many ways there are to say that the SIII was not part of this lawsuit. Your apparent inability to read and continued claims does not make it so. The judge asked them to narrow their claims down, and they did. The SIII was not and is not part of the claims. Just because you claim it is part of the SIII line does not make it so.
Apple can use the results of this lawsuit to claim the sky is green for all I care, but the judgement was against specific products that were named in the lawsuit. Non-named products have not been judged infringing. Are you also going to claim that Apple is going to ask for the Samsung TV to be banned? Because apparently that's also a squarish type object Samsung sells.
And you are marked informative. *SHEESH*
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:2, Informative)
The only way to avoid Apple's patent claims is to make a device that is shit. They have a patent on scrolling at the same speed you move your finger at, which is the natural and obvious way for it to work. There is no other good option for scrolling a list, everything else sucks.
Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score:4, Informative)
In the case of both Apple and Samsung, you have a legal department that you're already paying anyway, so the costs of litigation amount to practically nothing.
It doesn't make sense to retain on payroll a legal team able to litigate in all territories in which a company operates. Some US states require membership of their respective bar associations, so think of the cost of covering that. Scale this up to an international scale and what you have is a legal department so big they may as well begin farming it out Amazon AWS style.
What's more likely is that they retain legal teams to handle compliance and assess legal issues. Where serious litigation comes in to the picture, they'll engage a law firm. See this story for an example of Samsung using a law firm. Amusingly enough, one of their lawyers overlooked the need to be registered with the local bar association:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1168100/samsung_could_face_court_penalty_over_lawyers_oversight.html [macworld.com]
Long story short - legal action is not free by any stretch of the imagination.