Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too

Posted by timothy on from the you-may-not-seek-quite-so-much-rent dept.

SternisheFan writes with this news from the Register: "Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the U.S., but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its patent infringement case against the Korean firm, it set about pursuing another win in the form of permanent injunctions on the products in the case. The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobile phones and tablets in the U.S., but the judge said the company hadn't done enough to legally support such a ban." More details at Groklaw.

6 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Apple must be wondering... by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... whether all this was worth it.

    I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.

    I personally doubt that it was worth it.

    1. Re:Apple must be wondering... by gutnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apparently the publicity works both ways, so much that the judge in the UK requested Apple to put the disclaimer on their home page. (reasoning was that the publicity of Apple victories in other countries of the world was impacting negatively the judgement in favor of Samsung)

      The real confirmed loser here is the rest of the Android makers. In small mobile shop, 3/4 of the shelves are filled with Samsung models, I don't remember having seen a brand so dominating the shelve space before. IMO that is not good for Android to have only Samsung and Amazon as steward, but I have been told that's ok because the Galaxy S3 is a great phone :-/

  2. Re:Why the register? by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    from the PCMag link above: "Among the considerations, "the Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss," Judge Koh said. On the damages front, Apple argued that $1.05 billion alone was not enough, but Judge Koh was not convinced. "Apple's licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it," she wrote. "Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp

  3. Re:Thank the gods. by somersault · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence.

    Why do you think that makes things even? The prosecution could take years to prepare a case before submission if they want to. They have all the time in the world. So the defending side obviously will always have less time.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  4. A pretty good job by jbolden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the judge here has handled this rather well. With the exception of the handling of the F700 evidence, I think the entire case was handled rather well. There were major breakthroughs on patent issues where MeeGo (now Sailfish), Windows 8, and BBOS (9 and 10). Many of the specific patent issues were ruled on.

    Taking these bans off the table is a very good thing. While I think Samsung most certainly engaged in patent violations and deserve the penalty, they aren't a criminal enterprise, they are going to pay reasonable fines and comply with the law.

    1. Re:A pretty good job by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you didn't understand the judge's rulings on the issue of design patents. They were all essentially ruled invalid. This, of course, will be appealed by Apple. But the judge's remarks on the matter make plain sense. The design elements essentially lack "design." Sure, the design of Apple's devices capitalize on simple, clean appearance and construction, but the other side of that approach is that it moves in the direction of "functional design" which is not patentable.

      And because so much of Apple's case has been called into question (to put it mildly) the awards in the case will have to be reassessed. And given that the methods of calculation for the damage awards were so... well, "weird" and inconsistent, there will be no effective means to update the damages award to match the updated infringement rulings. This will then require a new trial.