decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs
Friday, August 24 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT

Stand by, because the jury in Apple v. Samsung just reached a verdict. They'll all convene in the courtroom and then it will be read.

Lots are live blogging, but here's The Verge, which historically has been the most complete with the details, if you want to follow blow by blow. And you don't have to update the page. Just now waiting for the judge and the jury to come in. The lawyers are there. They report Michael A. Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster is smiling, but trust me, he typically does smile most of the time:

Still waiting on Judge Koh. It's dead silent in the courtroom, save for the frantic typing on dozens of keyboards.
Update: The amended verdict form [PDF]. Details below.

Jump To Comments

[Update 1, Update 2, Update 3, Update 4]

Here's the court notice:

1926 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Clerks Notice
Docket Text: CLERKS NOTICE RE STATUS OF JURY DELIBERATIONS. The Jury informed the Court at 2:35 p.m. that they have reached a verdict which will be read in Courtroom 1 as soon as the parties can be assembled. ***This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.*** (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)
No moss growing on Samsung's Quinn Emanuel. A filing already, just in case they want to clarify any points by talking with the jury:
1927 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: SAMSUNG'S REQUEST FOR THIRTY MINUTES TO REVIEW THE JURY VERDICT FORM BEFORE THE JURY IS DISMISSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF POTENTIAL INCONSISTENT VERDICT IF NECESSARY by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/24/2012) Modified text on 8/24/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
It reads like this, minus headers and footer:

SAMSUNG’S REQUEST FOR THIRTY
MINUTES TO REVIEW THE JURY
VERDICT FORM BEFORE THE JURY IS
DISMISSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF
POTENTIAL INCONSISTENT VERDICT
IF NECESSARY

Introduction

The verdict form in this complex case necessarily spans 20 pages and requires unanimous answers to more than 500 discrete questions across 5 different legal disciplines. (Dtk. No. 1890.) The likelihood of an inconsistent verdict is a possibility despite the jury’s best efforts. Samsung respectfully requests thirty minutes to review the verdict form before the jurors are dismissed and the opportunity to determine whether it would be appropriate to seek clarification if an inconsistent verdict is reached. This will allow the parties and the Court to determine whether to seek clarification of any potential inconsistent verdict from the fact-finders themselves, avoid waiver of potential of inconsistent verdict arguments, and conserve the resources of the Court and the parties.

Samsung requested that Apple join in this motion. Apple declined.

Argument

The parties risk the possibility that any inconsistent verdict arguments may be deemed waived on appeal if not given sufficient time to review the verdict form for inconsistencies before the jury is discharged. See Home Indemnity Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court “properly refused to amend the judgment because [the plaintiff] waived its objection to the jury’s verdict on its contribution claim by not objecting to the alleged inconsistency prior to the dismissal of the jury”).

The parties and the Court here have expended substantial time, money, and resources to bring this case to verdict.

Allowing the parties thirty minutes to identify any inconsistencies in the jury’s verdict and the opportunity to seek clarification from the original fact-finders will (1) give clarity to the verdict and may avoid potential post-trial briefing on topics the jury could have easily remedied if given the opportunity, and (2) allow the parties the time necessary to object to the verdict in order to preserve those objections for any appeal. See, e.g., Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (“We now hold that where the jury is still available, a district court’s decision to resubmit an inconsistent [special] verdict for clarification is within its discretion.”)

1

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, Samsung respectfully requests thirty minutes to review the verdict form before the jurors are dismissed and the opportunity to determine whether to seek clarification if an inconsistent verdict is reached.

Dated: August 24, 2012

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

Apple refused to join in the request, but the Verge tells us that Judge Lucy Koh, now in the courtroom, says it's a good idea:
"I saw Samsung's request for 30 minutes to review the verdict form... I think that makes sense."
After that:
Apple and Samsung agree that both sides should take 10-15 minutes to review the document if there are inconsistencies after it is read.
That's this case in a nutshell.

What does it mean, to look for inconsistencies? Well, Judge Koh said she will review and if there is something like damages awarded for a patent they found invalid elsewhere in the long verdict form, that would be an inconsistency, and she'd send them back to finish it without inconsistencies. The Verge:

Judge Koh agrees with Samsung that she doesn't want to release the jury until everything is clear.
This is a remarkably quick verdict, and it's a remarkably complicated litigation. I'm impressed Samsung got this filed so remarkably fast. But I guess that's what you pay firms like that the big bucks for. Perhaps they even have a stand-by folder, for all known contingencies, ready to file if needed. Actually, that would impress me even more.

Reading the verdict form [PDF]:

  • 1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ’381 Patent?
    Answer: Yes, Samsung infringes Apple's '301 patent, all devices
  • 2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent?
    Answer: Yes on claim 8 of'915 patent, some devices, almost all
  • 3. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ’163 Patent?
    Answer: Yes on claim 50 of '163 patent, yes, some devices, no others.
  • 4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe the ’381, ’915, or ’163 Patents?
    Answer: Inducement re '381, '915, '163 patents: yes, all devices on '381; yes for all devices but Replenish on '915; on '163 yes for most devices
  • 5. 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?
    Answer: D'677 (design patent) - Yes for most devices, no for Ace.
  • 6. 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’087 Patent?
    Answer: D'087 - Yes for most. No for No for S2 ATT, S2 i9100, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.
  • 7. 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’305 Patent?
    Answer: D'305 patent - Yes for all.
  • 8. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’889 Patent?
    Answer: D'889 - No for all.
  • Q9, If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087, D’305, and/or D’889 Patents?
    Answer: D'677: Yes. D'087 Yes for S4G and Vibrant. No for the rest. D'305 Yes, for all. '889 No for Galaxy Tab.
  • Q10, If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
    Answer: SEC yes, for all but D'087 and D'889, no for those two. SEA, Yes for '163, '381, '915.
  • 11. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility and/or design patent claims are invalid?
    Answer: No, on all.
  • 12. Apple Trade Dress Claims: Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress ’983 is not protectable?
    Answer: No.
  • 13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade dresses are protectable?
    Answer: Apple has proven only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable. No on Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.
  • 14. Trade Dress Dilution
    Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are famous?
    Answer: Yes on Registered iPhone and Unregisterd iPhone 3G, no on Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.
  • 15. If you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, 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 diluted the registered iPhone trade dress?
    Answer: Yes (SEC) on all except Captivate, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, S2, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Infuse 4G. Yes (STA) on all.
  • 16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, 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 diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress?
    Answer: Yes (SEC) on Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant. No on the rest. Yes (STA) on Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
  • 17. If you found the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, 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 diluted the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress?
    Answer: Skipped for obvious reasons.
  • 18. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress?
    Answer: Skipped.
  • 19. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful?
    Answer: Yes, except (SEA) No on iPad; (STA) No for Unregisted iPhone Trade Dress and iPad Trade Dress.
  • If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer Questions 20 and 21.
    20. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress?
    Answer: Skipped.
  • 21. If you answered “Yes” to any of Question 20, and thus found that any Samsung entity has infringed Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
    Answer: Skipped.
  • 22. DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE)
    What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple?
    Answer: $1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars (broken down by product).
  • 23. Damages broken down by product.

  • SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE
    24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims? (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Samsung), or with an “N” for “no” (for Apple).
    Answer: No, no, no, etc. except iPad Touch.
  • 25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful?
    Answer: Skipped.
  • 26. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility patent claims are invalid?
    Answer: No.
  • DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE) -
    27. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516 and ’941 patents?
    Answer: Nothing.
  • 28. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents?
    Answer: Nothing.
  • 29. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 27 and 28, please provide the breakdown by product.
    Answer: Skipped.
  • BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST -
    30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (“IPR”) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared essential” patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms?
    Answer: No.
  • 31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard?
    Answer: No.
  • 32. If you answered “Yes” to Question 30 or Question 31, what is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation and/or breach of contract?
    Answer: Skipped.
  • 33. PATENT EXHAUSTION
    Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?
    Answer: Yes on '516 and '941 patents.

In short, it's a rout. So the irony is, on the same day, a South Korean court ruled that a South Korean company did not copy the US company Apple and a US court ruled that a South Korean company did copy the US company Apple.

However, it's not total: please note that Apple's FRAND claims lost, even in a US court.

Update: DailyTech has an odd, and then again yet not, reaction from Microsoft's Bill Cox, who commented on the verdict like this:

Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.
Microsoft knows what this means and what it was about. Of course, there will be an appeal. Litigation isn't over until it's finished with all the appeals. But do expect more stupid patent litigation, including look and feel nonsense.

There's also statements in the same article by both Apple and Samsung:

First up, Apple:
We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
And now we have Samsung, which is clearly not pleased with the outcome of this case:
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
And Dan Gillmor puts it like this, in The Guardian:
A home-town jury has given Apple the world, or at least the United States, in its campaign to control the smart phone and tablet markets.

Samsung, which decisively lost the highest-profile case to date in Apple's sue-everywhere strategy against the Android operating system, will surely appeal the verdict handed down the San Jose, California, federal court on Friday afternoon. And even if Samsung ultimately has to pay the $1bn judgement, the company can afford it.

But we're likely to see a ban on many mobile devices from Samsung and other manufacturers in the wake of this case, as an emboldened Apple tries to create an unprecedented monopoly. If so, the ultimate loser will be competition in the technology marketplace, with even more power accruing to a company that already has too much....

Crucially, the jury found none of Apple's patents invalid, despite substantial evidence that others anticipated many of the innovations that Apple put together when it released its first iPhone. This is a shame, because Apple's abuse of our out-of-control patent system has given Apple its chief ammunition in its global campaign to destroy Google's Android operating system, which Samsung (and many others) adopted for its smart phones.

Update 2: Samsung says it will appeal, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

Trial lawyers early on had predicted appeals would inevitably follow a verdict in the patent battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.

Sure enough, Samsung said on Friday it would file post-verdict motions to overturn the district court verdict and, if unsuccessful, appeal to a higher court....

On appeal, Samsung would likely argue that Judge Koh's ruling to keep evidence of "prior art"—evidence that designs similar to Apple's iPhone and iPad existed before Apple got certain patents on those products—out of the hands of the jury was wrong and that the case should be retried.

Early on in the trial, Samsung strenuously objected to Judge Koh's decision to exclude evidence it argued proved Apple copied elements of the iPhone from Sony Corp., which could have been used to undercut the validity of patents on Apple designs.

Update 3: File this under OMG. From the Verge's live blog:

The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
And that's exactly the problem. Also, the jurors goofed and some inconsistencies resulted. Rushing can do that. The amount of damages, as a result, is now reduced. The Verge reports Samsung noting the inconsistencies:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....

A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million

Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement. ...

Samsung's attorneys are now arguing that the jury's finding of patent exhaustion not be valid because one of the prerequisites for patent exhaustion is that Apple's devices had infringed in the first place.

O M G The jury wasn't even paying close attention. "Let's give Apple millions," seems to be the attitude. Talk about an appeal issue. So the jurors went back and tried again, these slipshod folks who don't even need jury instructions. And the new funny money awarded to Apple by this jury of its peers is $1,049,343,540.

Update 4: And here are the latest filings, including the jury's amended (ahem) verdict and the schedule on what comes next:

1929 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Jury Notes
Docket Text: Jury Note Number 1 (only question from jury during deliberations) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

1930 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Jury Verdict
Docket Text: JURY VERDICT. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

1931 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Jury Verdict
Docket Text: AMENDED JURY VERDICT. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

1932 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Jury Trial - Completed
Docket Text: Minute Entry: Jury Trial completed on 8/24/2012 before Judge Lucy H. Koh (Date Filed: 8/24/2012). (Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge.) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/24/2012)

1933 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Clerk's Judgment
Docket Text: CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Apple Inc. against Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

1934 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012
Order
Docket Text: ORDER Re: Post-Verdict Proceedings. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/24/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

The judge's order, #1934, tells us that Apple is already asking for an injuction to block Samsung's "guilty" products, and there have been arguments on how fast it has to be handled:
The Court is reconsidering the briefing and hearing schedules regarding Apple’s post-verdict preliminary injunction motion, the parties’ Rule 50 motions, and Apple’s enhancement motion. By Monday, August 27, 2012, Apple shall file a 1-page chart identifying both the products for which Apple is seeking preliminary injunctive relief and the liability finding(s) on which the request as to each product is based. No argument is permitted. Depending on the scope of Apple’s preliminary injunction request, the Court may continue the briefing and hearing schedule on Apple’s preliminary injunction motion.
CNN tells us what was the plan originally:
An issue still to be decided is whether to grant injunctions that could prevent Samsung from selling products that infringe on Apple's patents. Judge Lucy Koh wanted both sides to be ready for a hearing on the matter in two weeks, but Samsung's team argued that wasn't enough time. A hearing was scheduled for September 20....

After the trial was over, all nine jurors opted to leave through a back door of the courthouse to avoid speaking with the mass of reporters waiting at the front entrance.

So would I, if I was responsible for a farce like this.

And finally from WSJ:

The only patent the jury found Samsung didn't infringe relates to design of a tablet. Throughout the trial, Samsung's lawyers frequently remarked that Apple shouldn't be given a monopoly on a rectangle with rounded corners....

"There will be many issues brought up on appeal by Samsung," including the damages award, said Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, which advocates for patent reform....

"Software patents are clogging the system at every possible point," says Christal Sheppard, an assistant professor of law at the University of Nebraska College of Law. "This could be the bellwether case that goes to the Supreme Court to decide what invention in the 21st century really means for software."

Amen. This is definitely not the end of this story. It can't be. It's preposterous. Above the Law:
Here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?

  


There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs | 289 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How long will Koh put up with the frantic pounding on keyboards?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
The verge said:

Still waiting on Judge Koh. It's dead silent in the courtroom, save for the
frantic typing on dozens of keyboards.

Seems very indecorous! (grin) (Christenson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Verdict?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM EDT
I thought today's news was supposed to be Google's Supplemental Filing on the
Existence (or Lack Thereof) of Google-Paid Bloggers, Journalists and Carnival
Barkers...

[ Reply to This | # ]

My money
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
If I was a betting person, my money would be on the jury declaring most of the
patents invalid due to prior art but giving some money to Apple for Samsung
copying trade dress.

-Jeremy

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT
History in the making.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps the jury was tainted by C.V. (esq.)'s public release of suppressed evidence?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
Just speculation on my part.
I would think if one juror got a hold of that info, it could make for one speedy
verdict.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes on most claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT
They are saying Yes on most claims.

For shame. US justice system. For shame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes Some
Authored by: Dent on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT
I wish there was a list of the patents in suit handy (1 line summary).

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes Some
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT
I think Samsung has taken a hit here! It's so so so sad to
say the least.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Galaxy tab : Jury says Not a willful infrigement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:56 PM EDT
Uh oh, Apple won't be able to claim it was a clone product anymore.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, it will be interesting
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT
Seems like the jury bought Apple's lies, but Samsung was denied the opportunity
to defend themselves, so the appeals will start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No patents invalid? Really?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
Jury sucks. The whole industry subdoed by a bunch of idiots.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a huge surprise
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT

Considering Samsung wasn't allowed to defend themselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars
Authored by: vidstudent on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT
OUCH

---
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes Some
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT
The jury is awarding 1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand
dollars to Apple? How pathetic can this get.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't think this is good news for Apple
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
People don't like bullies. There's a reason that Microsoft is
not the company it was; it lost support and goodwill. I think
Apple just won a courtcase, and turned many people from being
mildly pro-Apple into enemies. If I was an Apple shareholder,
I would not be rejoicing, thinking of all the damage to
goodwill.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes Some
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT
4:09:37 PM PDT
'460 no across the board
4:09:22 PM PDT
'516 No
4:08:52 PM PDT
'460: literally infirngement for 3GS: no
4:08:46 PM PDT
'893 iPhone 3GS No
4:08:38 PM PDT
'711 iPhone 3GS: No
4:08:31 PM PDT
'711 Patent on iPhone 3G No. '460 on iPhone 3G: no.
4:08:11 PM PDT
Samsung's claims against Apple up next




Ouch

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now it turns out Jury thinks Apple did not infrige any of Samsung's patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:11 PM EDT
This Jury is ridiculous.

From the quick verdict to the utter one-sidedness and clearly wrong stuff.
Samsung has tons of room for appeals.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kagaroo Court and Kangaroo Jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT

What was the big hurry to reach a verdict? Were their minds made up before the
trial started?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art -- Invalidated Patents...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM EDT

In Oracle vs Google, Google invalidated most of Oracle's bogus patents before
the trial started.

Did Samsung even try to invalidate Apple's bogus patents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Android lovers of the world, unite!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
Time for pitchforks and torches. Apple wants to control the entire market
and enslave you. The end of freedom is nigh. It is a very sad day for us
all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mighty Quinn
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT
I think mighty Quinn may have something waiting to play out..

This is not good for Apple as public tide is shifting,
something all the paid astroturf bloggers cannot block..

Also, we have Google-Moto motions bringing more...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT
C'mon folks, be positive. Read the important stuff on the posting page and make
links clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes Some
Authored by: N_au on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
I don't know how a johnny come lately isn't infringing on any hardware patents
at all. Shesh!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT
Please make the title of your post the title of the news pick. Make links
clickable if possible because it scrolls so fast.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT
You know the drill.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
Err $1,051,855 is not "$1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand
dollars". You've missed out some zeroes there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SAMSUNG WINS PATENT SUIT IN KOREA
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/08/24/apple-
samsung-patent-trial.html
they are asking for 2.5 billion

guess the two might cancel each other out OR it might
prevent apple from making products in south korea ...and it
might spread to other asian nations and you will see the
apple products sky rocket in price.....

haha this system is boneheaded and funny , welcome to a
trade war.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not enough time => bias
Authored by: reiisi on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:35 PM EDT
Trade dress for iPhone, yes, but no for iPad?

With apologies to Koh, because I don't know yet whether she was materially
bought or simply meta-bought by the Apple distortion field, but now we know for
sure why Koh wanted the tight schedule.

If Samsung had been allowed the time to pick Apple's arguments apart properly,
none of them would have stood.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I just got my a Galaxy S III last week, and I LOVE it!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
I guess because the S III is new, it was not part of the suit. I specifically
chose an S III over an iPhone because I really, really dislike Apple's O/S and
ecosystem, while I love Linux's. Although I don't like Android as much as
Linux, it is close enough, for a phone, for now.

I was not confused whatsoever. I chose purposefully and am happy with my
choice. I like the way that the Galaxy works better then the way the iPhone
works. And, perhaps contrary to the jury, they do work differently, very much
so.

While my family currently owns three Apple products, I will never purchase
another Apple product again. One reason I chose the Samsung Galaxy over the HTC
One was out of sympathy for Samsung in this silly lawsuit.

In the total spectrum of things, I know that the decision makers at Apple
couldn't care less what I think or do. But, I do care. I refuse to support
evil companies. In my opinion, Apple is trying to suppress legitimate
competition and that is evil in my book.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My word that was quick!
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
Was expecting a couple of weeks.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

What in the hell is "Patent Exhaustion"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT

It looks like this "jury" gave Apple a free-ride on Samsung's patents
that were infringed.

I mean didn't Apple even admit that these were Samsung's patents, but they
didn't want to pay what Samsung was asking?

So is the message: "Apple can steal anyone's real patents, but no one can
infringe on Apple's bogus patents?"

So much for the "Mighty Quinn". I think I'll hire Van Nest instead.
;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Damages and wilfullness
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
So are these damages multiplied by 3 because of the wilfullness or is that
included? 3 billion damages?

Still, unless there is an injunction, and even if the appeal fails, I guess that
Samsung will still be in a great position as market leader. They should now be
able to design around all of these problems without losing too many customers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

missing dollars
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT
If I add numbers from theVergeLiveblog I only get what SEC
claimed was owed Apple namely $250 million..

Folks hold your breathe we need to see the actual verdict
filing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung takes a beating but will it hold up in appeal?
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT
Samsung has got to hope that the Appeal Court finds a BIG failure in the
process... or this is going to hurt.

I wonder how all of this will impact future products?

Will it hit the Samsung Galaxy 3?

/goes looking...



---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple FUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT

Apple won the FUD battle today.

After this decision gets eviscerated on appeal, that's all they win.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inconsistencies found in the verdict form
Authored by: Torinir on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT
The Verge's live updates from the trial are showing that at least two
inconsistencies were found in the verdict form. One was the award of damages
against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE, because it was found to have inducement of
infringement without a finding of actual infringement.

---
Gaming like it's going out of style.
West/Zampella vs Activision should be covered on Groklaw. :o

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT
1) Wow, damages are a lot higher than I thought they should be.
2) Samsung's appeal will focus on getting the trade dress patents declared not
novel; Quinn was not successful at being able to argue this in court.
3) The patents on functionality bounce back, two finger gestures need to be
challenged. They are not novel ideas, if anything Apple was the first company
that built something that implemented these ideas, but in movies like 2001,
Alien, and the Matrix (3rd one), these ideas were simulated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT
If Samsung has to pay up, will the components Apple buy for their products from
Samsung get more expensive? hmmm????

[ Reply to This | # ]

$954,060 for the Transform - WOW thats interesting.
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
The damages, by device, are as follows:

$57 million for the Samsung Prevail
$44,792,974 for the Infuse 4G
$53,123,612 for the Mesmerize
$3,350,256 for the Replenish
$954,060 for the Transform


via the theverge:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266391/apple-samsung-patent-damages-verdict

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Damages may be a lot more than $1bn
Authored by: jjon on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:33 PM EDT
A lot of people are reporting that the damages are $1bn.
Remember, the judge told the jury to figure out whether the
infringement was "willful" or not, but not to factor that into
their damages calculation.

The jury decided that some of the infringement was willful, so
now the judge gets to increase those parts of the damages -
perhaps triple.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:47 PM EDT
This can only be bad for consumers
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT
Now everyone will be enforcing design patents on everyone
else and the patent mess will spiral so far out of control
we'll have another depression.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:45 PM EDT
On a lighter note:

Dr Evil

One Billion Dollars

:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 08:56 PM EDT
I guess the story isn't over yet; Samsung will certainly
appeal, and have multiple grounds for doing so.

I may be missing something, but this appears to me like a
tactical win for Apple, if some of these decisions even
stand on appeal. While $1B is a lot of cash [that Apple
doesn't need], I would think the longer term cost, and what
Samsung seems to have avoided (from what I can tell), is the exorbitant per-unit
licensing costs, which would make them
less competitive for years.

So Samsung will appeal, take whatever hit they get from
that, which I see as shrinking, and meanwhile will continue
actually producing great products and dominating.

One of the problems Apple has is that it has positioned
itself as being the leader, the premium brand, the
innovator. But to maintain that, they need to keep
innovating, which becomes increasingly difficult as the
markets they are in mature. IMHO Samsung's main strength is
not innovation, but using their strength in high quality,
high volume manufacturing to be in early in commoditizing
new markets. Longer term, Apple cannot maintain market
dominance in those markets.

So the legal shenanigans will continue to stave off the
inevitable falling-off-pedestal, and we all pay for it in
the higher prices of the products.

Disclaimer: I use a Samsung phone, a MacBook at work and
Ubuntu at home. Apple make great hardware. Software... not
so much.

M

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's conflicting Verdicts - They did not understand something and they rushed ..
Authored by: webster on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
...

to judgment for Apple. They clearly weren't thinking and voting for Apple.
Samsung should be objecting and trying to keep this jury over the weekend.
Maybe one will realize what they did and change up. They have to throw some
thoughtful things at Koh and try and keep that jury around at the risk of it
getting worse.

They should object to the rush. They are clearly not taking time. They don't
care. They just want to go home. Apple can do no wrong.

Forget about the appeal. Samsung will now settle rather than Bond a billion for
an appeal. If Koh doesn't cut it, Samsung will have to do some heavy-loss
bargaining. Half a billion is better than one.

That part about Google telling Samsung to design away from iPhones was fatal.
It will be interesting to talk to the jurors. They were easily led.

Koh has to be a little concerned that this inconsistency betrays a rather
indeliberate jury in such a complex case.

Remember this is just one skirmish in their global battle. Maybe Samsung can
get some sympathy elsewhere.

Better go out and get that Samsung now. It's months overdue. The HTC Hero is
obsolete.

.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yay. The good guys won.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:08 PM EDT
Much of this is about design patents.

If GM copied a Ferrari or Porche 911 design of their car, Ferrari or Porche
would certainly win a design patent lawsuit. Yes, cars have the same basic
parts, but it is the design of the car that differentiates them. GM can easy go
about designing its own cars - which they do.

Samsung, on the other hand, clearly and overtly copied the iPhone piece by
piece. It even had an over 100 page analysis and instruction to do it - the
smoking gun.

Smartphones can come in various designs - combining the various pieces - such as
rectangles and such - into unique configurations. These can be design patented
just as books can be copyrighted - books being unique collections of words.

Samsung, the evil copyist, was slapped hard by the jury and clearly told to be
more original. The parts can be the same but the design cannot.

Respect the jury.

The judge bent over backwards for Samsung - even minimizing Samsung's
destruction of evidence from the jury, even letting Samsung's lawyers flagrant
abuses of procedure go.

Respect the jury.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let the Appeals Begin
Authored by: EnragedBeaver on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT
You all know this is going to be appealed, right?

---
The Enraged Beaver wants to help gnaw away at anti-OSS claims

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why no damages report?
Authored by: jheisey on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT
Why did this judge not require the parties to have experts prepare damages
reports like the judge in the Oracle/Google trial did? How can damages
determined by lay people with no technical training be of any worth? This
surely would be appealable by Samsung.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855,000
Authored by: cassini2006 on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT

I can't see this stopping Samsung. It needs to make a few user interface design changes, and to stop making product that is so similar to Apple's.

I really wonder about the sanity of a patent system that permits this to continue. The long-term danger is that foreign competitors start spamming the US patent office the same way Apple, IBM and Microsoft do. After a while, every American company will become patent violators, and congress should (may) get the message.

Also, I wonder if some of the trial was fundamentally fair to Samsung. Firstly, Samsung lost on a number of software patent issues. Secondly, I wonder if Samsung fully understood the process and was able to fully present the evidence it had. In particular, the 25-hour limit helps the company with the simpler story to tell, and hurts the company that is trying to present the avalanche of previous advances.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How high would the damages need to be...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
...to make it unprofitable for Samsung
(and other Android phone makers) to
continue to sell phones in the USA?

As I understand it, patent verdicts go by
percentages of profit; so pushing prices
up does not pay for a future lawsuit
(though it can help pay for a previous
verdict). Given the minefield that is
patents, it seems likely after this verdict
that more court cases, against other
phone manufacturers, will follow...

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,051,855,000
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:44 PM EDT
Since the judge disallowed Samsung from submitting evidence of designs predating
the iphone, the jury probably HAD to find them accountable for infringement.
I'm not sure about the 3G patents, although I thought that licenses aren't
typically transferable between manufacturers. In fact, I thought Apple tried to
license them but complained that the fees (~2.5%?) were unreasonable. To me,
what really erodes all credibility on the part of the jury, is the
non-infringement of the utility patents. Particularly obvious is the '711
patent which covers all aspects of playing music in the background. It
describes exactly what the iphone does, and probably every other smartphone as
well. It might not be a strong patent in my amateur opinion, and I don't know
if it would stand up against reexamination, but it's valid and should have been
recognized by the jury. It's the easiest Samsung patent to understand in the
case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT
A bit surprised that no one caught this yet, but after the jury
corrected some "inconsistencies" in the jury form the damages
were reduced slightly (at least according to the Verge live-
blogging)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung ~Reality
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT
What I think needs to be said is that Apple is probably in the hole for this
entire exercise. Their worldwide legal fees probably exceed the damages won so
far.

Samsung had global revenues of $247 Billion and net income of $18.3 Billion.

Apple has global revenues of only $108 Billion but a net income of $25.9
Billion.

Apple has fewer real assets, $116.371 billion vs Samsung's $384.3 billion.

Both companies can afford to pay the legal fees and the judgments. Apple is more
a figment of the market that Samsung.


---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm the "xenos" in xenophobe
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:21 AM EDT
Sure, it could be expected that a home town jury would give the
home team a win. Remember this game was played under home rules.
But the jury seem to have let their eye(s) stray off the ball for a moment
and it's not over yet, a steward's inquiry will certainly be called.

All the other teams seem to have designed around the offending patents.
But what I'd like to see is a flood of those $15 "iPhones"
as a salutary lesson on copying, and customer confusion.
How to get them in? A border that leaks $12Bn illicit drugs
wouldn't notice a few truckloads of cellphones.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now , this will not be the last word
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:52 AM EDT
No, this will not be the last word.

Sorry Koh. Your verdict will be overturned becuase you didn't let the jury see
the Samsung or LG phones, the visually obvious precursors to the Apple iPhone.

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Samsung-F700-LG-Pra
da-Phone.jpg

Yes, both these phones were from 2006. The iPhone was introduced in 2007.

BTW, did you see this?

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/07/30/apple-vs-samsung-us-trial/

"Shin Nishibori, the designer Apple hired from Sony to create a
Sony-inspired iPhone prototype, no longer works for Apple and Nishibori’s lawyer
wrote in a letter to the court yesterday that his client has no plans to testify
in the upcoming trial."

Hmmm. Why wasn't Apple's chief designer in court?

No plans to testify? Why would Koh accept that? I can't see what stops her,
unless he lives abroad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unlike Hyundai, Samsung copied.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:55 AM EDT
Unlike Hyundai, which designs cars with a unique and creative flair and style
all its own, which compete
extremely successfully against other companies including Toyota, Lexus, Mercedes
Benz, GM, Ford, etc,
Samsung has no design skills. And unfortunately, it decided to copycat Apple.


Copycatting is commonly done in Asia when the society is in an immature level of
technological prominence.
Japan use to copycat a lot of American products. However, when Japan matured,
it started developing its own
unique designs in products. And in many areas - such as in cars, consumer
electronics, etc. - Japan leads the
US in design. Unfortunately, Samsung is stuck at the immature copycat level,
unlike Hyundai.

It was obvious, unlike Sony, RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, LG etc., that Samsung very
closely copied Apple's designs.
Apple argued successfully that you have to be blind not to see it. And even if
you were blind, if the design was
made palpable, you can easily feel the similarity just like reading Braille.

As Florian Mueller predicted, Apple won by slam dunk over Samsung. With this
verdict, Samsung is now known
worldwide to have intentionally and willfully copied Apple. Thus, like
Microsoft being branded a monopoly, this
verdict will seriously affect Samsung going forward in other patent lawsuits.

---
From Florian's FOSSPatents blog:

This ruling is not thermonuclear on its own, but in its aftermath, we will not
only see a lot of wrangling over a
judgment as a matter of law to overrule the jury and over injunctive relief but
there will also be, even more
importantly, a push by Apple to enforce many more design patents and utility
(hardware and software) patents
against Samsung. Since Samsung has been found to have infringed intentionally
and recklessly (partly on its
own, partly in conjunction with its "partner in crime", Google), the
United States District Court for the Northern
District of California will adjudicate more of Apple's asserted patents in the
future. In particular, Apple has the
right to reassert all of the patents it dropped ahead of this trial in an effort
to narrow the case. Apple's legal
team -- in-house lawyers as well as the law firm managing its offensive claims,
Morrison & Foerster, with a
team led by Harold McElhinny and Michael Jacobs -- made just the right picks to
focus on slam dunks for this
trial. Some of the patents that were temporarily withdrawn are harder to
enforce, but they could do much more
damage to Samsung, and we will see them resurface soon. Also, Apple has a second
California lawsuit going,
which was filed in February over eight more patents, which are on average also
more impactful than the ones
the jury found Samsung to infringe. And courts around the globe will hear and
read about a finding that
Samsung knew full well what it was doing -- a fact that was clearly established
by Apple's mountain of
evidence. I wrote more than two weeks ago that "Samsung can hardly explain
away all of Apple's smoking guns
for intentional copying".

Today's verdict also shows that the only country in which Samsung can score any
serious win with its own
patents -- some of which are standard-essential and the rest of which isn't
impactful -- against Apple is Korea.
Samsung already lost three German lawsuits against Apple (four more will go to
trial between mid-September
and mid-October, and I'll attend all those trials) and it lost in France and
Italy. In the Netherlands, it will only
receive a tiny amount of damages -- but not an injunction. Samsung has now lost
on all of its offensive claims
against Apple in California.

---
As Pamela Jones wrote to us numerous times: Respect the Jury.

I surely hope Samsung can mature and gain design acumen. It should compete like
mature companies do. As a
copycat company, it is distasteful to me to use Samsung products even if they
are competent. I value originality,
ingenuity and individualism - American ideals. Not pack or lemming mentality as
Samsung would argue for.

And I am definitely not a troll. Using such a label is an invalid argument - an
argumentum ad hominem.

I am simply stating a position that is politically incorrect on Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Apple Lawsuit!
Authored by: sonicfrog on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT
Breaking News! Apple Patents Breathing – Lawsuit Against Biosphere Iminent! Fresh off its stunning billion dollar victory over rival phone / tablet maker Samsung, Apple has revealed it owns the patent for breathing and plans to take the biosphere to court next week. It is unclear if they are going to demand damages, or demand a cease and decease desist order against all breathing animals on the planet. If the company does decide to pursue the latter strategy, New York University bio-ethics law professor Medina Clorion sees a potential silver lining in an Apple victory. “A win in this lawsuit would have many positive effects for the environment” he says. “Yes, people would die, but a win here for Apple would take care of so many of the problems that humans are so reticent to correct: starvation, plagues, global warming, you name it!. There would of course be no more war, and that would certainly earn Apple the Noble Peace Prize, a very rare accomplishment for a large modern corporation to earn!”. It is unknown at this time if plant life will be covered in this lawsuit. But, with its victory over it very powerful competitor, many speculate that Apple is feeling like it is in a position to act in a bold fashion. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Easier to recognize what NOT to buy
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT

Well, OK, now we know Apple has the patent on rectangles with rounded corners.
Presumably, Samsung's and everyone else's phone won't.

Now we'll know instantly what phone is an Apple -- and we'll know instantly
which one not to buy.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung said this leads to less choice
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:17 AM EDT
A Samsung spokesperson said the following: ""Today’s verdict should
not be
viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will
lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices."

I would argue that this is a win for American consumers because it will lead to

MORE choices, MORE innovation.

If Samsung could design its smartphones more originally - like Microsoft,
Nokia, Sony, LG, RIM, Apple, etc. do - then consumers would have MORE
design choices and MORE innovation.

This is why we have copyrights and patents: to force innovation and stop
copycats.

Certainly some patents are standards essential and cannot be worked around.
But such patents generally have very reasonable costs and licenses. But when
you have a proprietary patent, you can work around it - unless you are lazy
and prefer to copycat despite the risk of litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The challenge for the jury
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:26 AM EDT
We have seen many times how juries work really hard to understand what the judge has explained to them about the law and what the facts of the case actually mean in the eyes of the law. That is what the jury instructions are for; to explain to the jury what the law means with respect to the questions put by the verdict form.
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
This jury is the exception that proves the rule.

From Jury Instruction No. 18:
Apple accuses Samsung of diluting Apple’s Registered Trade Dress No. 3,470,983. This trade dress relates to the iPhone. Apple also accuses Samsung of diluting two unregistered trade dresses relating to the iPhone. Finally, Apple claims that Samsung has diluted and infringed its unregistered trade dress relating to the iPad.

For each of Apple’s trade dress dilution and infringement claims, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the Apple trade dress is protectable (or valid). An asserted trade dress is only protectable if the trade dress design as a whole, as opposed to its individual features standing alone, is both distinctive and non-functional...

Apple’s trade dress infringement claim will require you to resolve different issues. You will need to determine whether Apple’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before Samsung started selling its accused products, and whether Samsung’s accused products are likely to cause confusion about the source of Samsung’s goods. If you decide that any Apple trade dress is both protectable and has been infringed or willfully diluted by Samsung, you will then need to decide the money damages to be awarded to Apple. Samsung denies that it has infringed or diluted any Apple trade dress and argues that each asserted trade dress is not protectable. If a trade dress is not protectable, that is a defense to infringement and dilution.
So, 'wilful dilution' means that Samsung wilfully ' cause[d] confusion about the source of Samsung’s goods'.

From the Verdict Form:
14. Trade Dress Dilution

Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are famous?

Answer: Yes on Registered iPhone and Unregisterd iPhone 3G, no on Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.
Have the jury misunderstood the question because they did not read the jury instructions? How could they find that the registered trade dress was not famous on the iPhone 3G, but was famous on all other iPhones? Have they confused registered trade dress with mobile phones registered with a mobile service provider? Did they think that the four, colourful, rounded-square icons only appeared on an iPhone 3G registered with a mobile phone service provider?

I think it's too late for a Rule 50 motion that 'a reasonable jury would read the jury instructions and see that the iPhone trade dress would not become 'famous' in the eyes of the law in the few months after the iPhone launch when Samsung began selling their own phones and that the evidence was that there was no 'confusion about the source' of Samsung’s goods'.

I wonder if the court is formally cognisant of the foreman's statement. If the court has 'heard' the comment (and I would expect them to 'hear' any comment made to a representative of the court) then the judge should declare a mistrial because the jury came to a verdict in the absence of consideration of the applicable law. If the foreman had declared to a court representative that the jury had used the 'phones in evidence to surf Groklaw about the details of the case then there would be an instant declaration of a mistrial and a sanction of the jury members.

The judge went to great lengths (reading out the instructions to the jury and keeping their attention by getting them to stand at intervals) to bring the law to their notice. The jury has, however, failed in their duty to consider the law in this case.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Which Apple patents does Android appear to violate?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:44 AM EDT
More than curious on this.

Also, any idea if Google patented the notifications system
on Android, as Apple appears to have blatantly ripped it off
on iOS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK if the Patent War has Started it is time to wage it.
Authored by: AH1 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT
First, let me say that this verdict does not shock me. After following the SCO
fiasco from start to finish, then the Oracle debacle I started becoming
optimistic that the U.S. Judicial System might actually work. Well the RESET
button just got pressed.

That being said, what can be done to deal with this, and the FUTURE bullying
(aka m$soft) techniques that apple is going to attempt to pull. For all of us
poor peons in the trenches what can we do?

Well if there is anything that PJ and Groklaw have taught me is that the power
of the Open Source community is there and can be tapped. So what can WE do to
avoid getting trampled by the tyrants.
1. It is time to start digging for prior art to provide the next
"victim" a way to press to invalidate the crummy patents before these
cases ever get to trial. Given the stupidity of the current ruling and the
ridiculous award fee that the court generated it is in Samsung's best interest
to press this case all the way to the Supreme Court. While most of us can not
help with the legal arguments that will help overturn this miscarriage of
justice, if/when it happens it will be in the best interest of the tech
community to ensure that apple NEVER has the opportunity to use these patents
again. In other words we need to find the Prior Art needed to invalidate each
and EVERY one of the patents used in this case.
2. For those current/future patents that belong to apple needs to be reviewed
for prior art. When it is found it needs to be made available to the outside
world. The ultimate goal is to devalue the apple patent portfolio to the point
where they are afraid to bring a case to court that enforces their patents for
fear of not only losing the case but having the patent invalidated.
3. Start scrubbing any/all apple applications searching for any violation of
their free BSD licenses. While apple was "too chicken" to implement
the GPL they did base their comeback on the open source community. Personally,
they have stabbed that community in the back after they became successful. It
is time for the community to remind apple that it was their work, not apple's,
that gave them the success.
4. Constantly remind the Open Source Community that we need to remain diligent
that there is an ever shifting alliance amongst the tech companies and that just
because a lying CEO embraces the community today doesn't mean they will not stab
the community in the back and "steal" their technology in the future.
There is a fine balance here, without support of the tech community it is
difficult to progress. At the same time, getting too close can put you in the
position of having your projects crippled by short sighted decisions from your
"corporate sponsors."

While this is a BIG setback, history here at Groklaw should teach us that this
is but a battle in the larger war. What I have seen is that the Open Source
community is stronger than the "Corporate Entities" have realized, and
that waging war against the Open Source community is not a good idea. This
battle is not against an "evil" corporate empire, but rather against
an "evil mindset." Sorry apple but you started the war, it is time
for the open source peons in the trenches to end it. YOU PICKED THE FIGHT if
the end result damages/destroys you DON'T BLAME US.

[P.S. I know that apple should have a capital A but that would be giving them
too much credit.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Foreman...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT

Various press reports note that the jury foreman is the holder of patent 7,352,953, which appears to be a patent for a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-PCI, filed after the first hardware (released in 2000) stopped receiving driver updates because it was obsolete... No wonder the jury found none of the patents invalid despite prior art literally being wheeled out in front of them.

Regards,
  -Jeremy

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ouch! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:08 AM EDT
  • The Foreman... - Authored by: yorkshireman on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT
    • The Foreman... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:21 AM EDT
The US patent office should crowdsource its prior art
research. I'm sure there are a lot of people willing to pitch
in and help them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sorry US, you can't have nice things
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT
This verdict is decisive in several ways;
: it shows that technical patents are invalid for companies
that are not Apple, that you can patent shapes, and that if
you're the local hero company, you don't need to be
concerned if competition pre-dates your patents with prior
art, as it won't be allowed into the courtroom.

This is clearly going to get worse before it gets better,
and I fear that the US has possibly ruined its software and
technology sectors for a generation. I must hoping this rot
doesn't spread overseas.

I give up on the idea that the legal system that lead to
this can be made sane before it comes to a complete crisis
after realising that apple is the only remaining company
allowed to do business in any field, and that nothing can be
produced by any other companies.


[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT
I was anticipating a farcical verdict from the
beginning...right from the incident when the Judge asked the
Samsung lawyer to identify/differentiate Apple's and
Samsung's tablets (in switched-off mode) from a distance
(instead of a usable distance). It was a ridiculous test to
be used by a judge. My belief of a partisan result
consolidated when I read that the judge was not allowing the
admission of various "prior art" against the claims of
Apple's patents. Further, the manner in which jury
instructions were framed and the way in which the jury
decided to give it all to Apple, it seems the verdict was
pre-programmed.

I do not own an Apple product. After this, I will never buy
one and, as far as possible, I will ensure that my kin buy
from any company but not from Apple.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents aim to protect *American* innovation
Authored by: Winter on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:12 AM EDT
Not South Korean innovation.

Rob

---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Right On - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT
Interesting to call the verdict a farce when almost every action Samsung has
taken since intro of the iPhone and iPad has been to copy as close as possible
the look, feel, packaging etc of Apple's products. Perhaps the word you are
searching for is not farce but "obvious." Can moan all you want about
whether
Apple should have been granted the patents but the fact is they were and jury
has penalized Samsung's clear infringement. Microsoft and Nokia chose a path
that does not infringe. It can be done but it takes innovation and hard work,
exactly what should be rewarded, not a copy machine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The morning after... a considered view re: Apple v. Samsung
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:37 AM EDT
Bottom line - As Samsung has been very successful at selling Android
smartphones, they can afford to pay this fine if necessary.

Hopefully sanity will prevail and there will be a retrial.

But even if that does not happen Samsung has still pursued a very successful
strategy in the smartphones market which has made them the market leader, and
that is a very profitable position to be in.

If necessary they can make a deal to cross licence or they can implement
software updates to work around the patents at question.

The main point is they will be able to keep ahead of the law suits by producing
more and more new smartphones each year.

Keeping your eye on the prize - The opportunities in the rapidly expanding
mobile smartphones market - that’s the real key.

If securing that place means you have to take some risks and occasionally you
have to take some lumps, so be it.

If you are successful and profitable... well this is a one off hit, and you will
have many future years of very large profits to set it against.



---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 09:42 AM EDT
In the Samsung case the jury walked into the jury room with a very complex 700
question jury questionnaire and answered all 700 in 21 hours which is 1.8
minutes per question. Does anyone think they really deliberated the merits of
the case? It would take that long just to read the questionnaire and write down
an answer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What can we as a group do?
Authored by: pem on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT
If we want to channel our anger into something productive, we could do worse
than working together to attempt to invalidate the jury foreman's patent --
using google's new tool, of course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung attorney's biggest jury mistake
Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
Samsung attorney's really made a big mistake when they allowed a patent holder
to be on the jury. He ended up as the foreman, and apparently steam rolled all
the other jurists into submission to his views which were very pro patent. In
my opinion, Samsung's legal firm did a really poor job defending Samsung,
especially considering the $800+ per hour the firms partners were charging.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung ~pj - Yes, Samsung Infringes - Damages $1,049,343,540 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 10:43 AM EDT
typo: 1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ’381 Patent?
Answer: Yes, Samsung infringes Apple's '301 patent, all devices

301 should be 381

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )