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
How does this tally with the foreman's errors? | 246 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Koh Reduces Apple Damages Award; Orders New Trial on Damages re Certain Products in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:54 PM EST
Yes once more the "Media" gets it wrong and Groklaw calls it as it
is...and people wonder why I don't bother reading the "other guys"
when it comes to Tech and the Law!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:57 PM EST


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Only
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:57 PM EST
Violators will be forced to watch 100 hours of Lawrence Welk.

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Goes Here
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 04:58 PM EST


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread .... acknwledged >acknowledged
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:18 PM EST
Please post corrections in this thread.
It may be helpful to summarize the correction in the title.

For example
acknwledged >acknowledged

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trial cost?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 05:24 PM EST
So how much does a trial like this cost by now? Is it only the lawyers who are
lining their pockets with money ultimately paid by public customers anyway?

$500K is hardly a deterrent either for that matter - whilst to you or me it
might mean a house, to the companies, ceo's, and lawyers involved it's barely
more than a rounding error.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Galaxy Tab stands?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:07 PM EST
Eh? Some do, some don't? What Apple product does the original Tab 7"
infringe upon, apart from the iPad Mini that came out nearly 2 years later after
the trial started? The one Steve Job even laughed at as nothing Apple would do
because you'd need sandpaper for your fingers to use.

I'm really confused, as the scroll/icons/everything about the Tab doesn't match
what Apple claims, how on earth is THIS product infringing? (well, all of them
obviously)

This really does appear like it's throwing a HUGE amount of ammo back to Samsung
to admit that the jury made a whopper of a mistake, and surely now they can say
"we're glad it's admitted that the jury messed up, but we disagree with the
court how much, and that a trial is ok for some products and not the others is
obviously a mistake, as you yourself say you can't work out the intent of the
jury. So there's really no other course of action than to throw this
out/restart the trial with a fair jury, and.. dare we say, a judge who allows us
to submit evidence to disprove claims?'

It's that whole 'products before the iphone/products after' slide that annoys me
so much that surely Samsung can say 'Apple products before the Samsung Galaxy
Tab/products after' to show how ridiculous it was.

/wanders off shaking head, knowing this is going to drag on forever with Apple
unable to admit ANY loss of face here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now the Firestorm starts
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:12 PM EST

All of the noise that we've heard to date will be but a tiny spark as compared to the FIRESTORM this ruling will cause. Pro-Apple bloggers are going to totally freak out over this. A lot of lawyers are going to freak out as well, they depend upon jury rulings standing up.

I'm quite sure that Judge Koh has learned a lot since taking this case on, and that she can justify this ruling. Whether it will stand on appeal of course is another issue, but the judge has just indicated that she is no longer willing to be a doormat, and that litigants appearing before her court had better behave.

This is going to be fun.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

How does this tally with the foreman's errors?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:26 PM EST
I'd be interested in commentary about how these changes match
up with the errors that the foreman persuaded the jury to
make from people who tracked the intimate details better than
I did. Do these changes rescind those errors? (In which case
it would look to me like the judge took note of that, but
didn't approach the problem directly.) Or is it an entirely
different set of errors?

[ Reply to This | # ]

the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory
Authored by: BJ on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:33 PM EST
May we construe that as advice to Jury foreman
Velvin Hogan to take a hike?


bjd



[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the invalidated patents?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:35 PM EST
Has there been any rulings on what happens to the part of the
damage that was calculated over patents that were considered
invalid? Samsung can't be paying damages over those!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Apple Fan Boy Reaction
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 08:44 PM EST

And here's the reaction from the Apple fan boy press. I've never read the Apple oriented press before, so I just typed "mac news" into Google and took results from the first page. I've helpfully categorised the stories for you by saying whether they quote Fosspatents as a source, and if user comment posts claim that this result was all due to corruption on the part of the judge.

It's a bit sobering to read stories which regurgitate PR releases disguised as blog posts as "news". Some of the people commenting on the story are taking this quite badly and seem to think the only reason for this outcome is because Samsung paid off the judge. That does little for their credibility and it tells you the value of keeping a cool head when commenting on a subject that you care about.


Appleinsider

  • Link: Appleinsider
  • Quotes Fosspatents: Yes
  • Comments claim corruption: Yes

Macdailynews

  • Link: Macdailynews
  • Quotes Fosspatents: Yes
  • Comments claim corruption: Yes

The article says their summary of the story is: "Crime pays. Very handsomely. Remember that now, kiddies."


Macrumors

  • Link: Macrumors
  • Quotes Fosspatents: Yes
  • Comments claim corruption: Yes

Macworld

  • Link: Macworld
  • Quotes Fosspatents: No
  • Comments claim corruption: No, but one claims that "they're out to get us".

It's quite interesting to see that Apple fans are taking this case quite seriously. If the damages get further reduced, a number of them might go into full "froth and rage" mode.

It's also a bit disheartening to see that some web sites are still quoting FM. Event sites like "The Register" seem reluctant to touch him anymore, although the fact that people post comments complaining about it when they do may have something to do with that. I suspect though that these Apple oriented sites are willing to quote anything that suits their agenda regardless of what they think of the source.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about invalidated patents?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 09:32 PM EST
There has been news that some patents were invalidated
during/after the trial. How does that impact this
verdict/appeal/retrial? Has that been factored into this
already?



[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not much of a victory
Authored by: maroberts on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 02:25 AM EST
Even the shaving of $4-500 million off the ridiculous award does not make the
entire award any less ridiculous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ah but .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:26 AM EST
At last, Apple called on arguing that the Law trumps facts
Authored by: mpellatt on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 03:37 AM EST
This is probably the first ruling from the Court in this case that I've read in some detail. Without re-reading it, it does seem particularly clearly- and well-argued. I also liked this slapdown:
"As in First Alliance Mortgage, these numbers are “to the dollar;” it is thus quite apparent how the jury arrived at them. Indeed, Apple does not dispute this inference in its opposition, relying instead on the purported impermissibility of acknowledging what is apparent."
I seem to remember Samsung often pointing out that Apple's "letter of the law" position was wrong measured against the facts, but not being allowed this. At last, Apple have been called on this positioning by the Judge. Big time. Karma.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the new trial find no infringement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:01 AM EST
Is the new trial purely about determining damages, or will it be wind things all
the way back to determining whether the patents are valid and the devices
infringe?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Final Judgment to come?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:35 PM EST
I've kind of lost track. Are there any more motions pending or can a final
judgment be entered?

---
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 | # ]

Journalistic Duty
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 01:36 PM EST
PJ (and MW), we thank you for doing your utmost to fulfill this duty, regardless
of who screams or smears you.

The louder they scream, the better job you are doing. Don't feel that you have
to defend your "honor" from these sleezeballs, we know you always seek
the truth and tell it like it is.

Keep up the great work!

I totally agree that if you can't compete using truthful arguments, you should
not win. All this lying and obfuscation we see in courts might be effective, but
I do believe what goes around comes around, and one day it will bite the liar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Reduces Apple Damages Award; Orders New Trial on Damages re Certain Products in Apple v. Samsung ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 07:46 PM EST
Random question, what does "appellate review" mean in:

<blockquote>
The parties are encouraged to seek appellate
review of this Order before any new trial.
</blockquote>

[ Reply to This | # ]

the jury failed to follow instructions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 07:30 AM EST
the entire trial and judgement should have been thrown out...
a retrial ordered and the jury foreman dragged in irons before the court on
contempt charges...

that idiot foreman wasted everybody's time, so he should have to face the
penalty...

perhaps juries might take their duties seriously if they knew that they could
face jail for winging it to get off early before the weekend.

[ 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 )