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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @03:13AM 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.

25 of 156 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thank the ghods. by ZorinLynx · 2012-12-18 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.
This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P
1. Re:Thank the ghods. by SternisheFan · 2012-12-18 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When Apple's attorneys wanted to submit a huge amount of paperwork evidence, she asked them, "Are you on crack?!"
  That's when I got a good feeling about her ability to remain fair and impartial.
2. Re:Thank the ghods. by arbiter1 · 2012-12-18 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.
3. Re:Thank the ghods. by the+computer+guy+nex · 2012-12-18 03:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.
  Sigh, this again.
  
  The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.
4. Re:Thank the ghods. by jbolden · 2012-12-18 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  The jury's verdict meets the reasonable man standard. While the foreman may have been more hostile than warranted and Samsung has grounds to have the evidence looked at, in an appeal the burden will be on Samsung not Apple. I don't see how Samsung, based on what we know at this point can possibly meet that increased burden.
  As for prior art, the comments below apply.
5. Re:Thank the ghods. by jeffmeden · 2012-12-18 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not alive to celebrate his thermonuclear war flops.
  Yeah... they could only squeeze a billion dollars in damages out of that verdict... I mean... it's like a token verdict... I mean, Apple technically won, but reality is the damages they were awarded really means they lost. What can you even buy with a billion dollars these days? a cup of coffee? a gumball? a postage stamp? A billion dollars isn't even worth the ink and paper it's printed on! So maybe they can recycle the paper in the money and get something for their troubles... recycled note pads or something...
  Samsung electronics had $148Bn in revenue last year. So let's just say you earned $50k last year; this is like losing a court case about how your work was supposedly derived totally on the designs of someone else, and you being ordered to pay $335 and being told you are OK to keep "doin' your thang".
  So the question is, how big of a deal is $335?
6. Re:Thank the ghods. by IamTheRealMike · 2012-12-18 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the OPs point was that the way the jury behaved was very questionable in many respects. Their verdict was inconsistent with itself and had to be sent back for them to try again not once but multiple times, if I recall correctly. Also, the foreman pretty much admitted to presenting himself as an expert and telling the jurors things that are simply not true about patent law. Not to mention the general bogosity of the patents themselves.
  The question here is, if this case is not re-tried and cannot be appealed, what does that say about the reliability of the US legal system? How could anyone sanely subject their company to a jury trial about patents when the process appears to ignore its own rules of engagement?
7. Re:Thank the ghods. by jkrise · 2012-12-18 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah... they could only squeeze a billion dollars in damages out of that verdict...What can you even buy with a billion dollars these days?
  
  Very true. Which is why the idiot Steve Jobs said:
  
  "I don't want your money. If you offer me $5bn, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."
  
  So the Judge Koh has denied Steve Job's death wish. Besides, as I understand she has yet to rule on the $1 bn damages figure, arrived at by the jury. And again, even if she upholds it, it looks very likely that Samsung would prevail on an appeal, since many of the underlying patents based on which Apple brought this case, are looking very shaky on review, around the World.
  
  --
  If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
8. Re:Thank the ghods. by micheas · 2012-12-18 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The question "Are you on crack?" was not in response to them wanting to submit a huge amount of paperwork. It was about claiming that they could go through a large number of witnesses in the remaining time and that Samsung should have to prepare for them.
  The game that they were trying to play was to make Samsung guess which witnesses would be called in the last two days. MoFo (Apple's lawyers) tried this because they were getting away with similar tactics leading up to the trial.
  
  --
  Work bio at MMWD
9. Re:Thank the ghods. by micheas · 2012-12-18 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  No, but the billion dollar award is not official until several motions by Samsung are heard.
  On the other hand Apple has been ordered to pay damages for the injunction against the galaxy tab that they got granted.
  News reports on the day of the trial: Samsung lost a billion dollars to Apple. Actual payments ordered so far: Apple has to pay 2.6 million (IIRC).
  It is far from clear who is going to win this trial, but MoFo has scored some impressive wins for Apple.
  
  --
  Work bio at MMWD
10. Re:Thank the ghods. by Quila · 2012-12-18 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  Why? Even the great Steve Jobs himself said, "good artists copy, great artists steal".
  Out of context. Jobs was referring to the Picasso quote. The meaning is that good artists just copy what others do (Samsung). Great artists find forgotten inspirations and make something revolutionary from it.
  The iMac G4 was inspired by Luxo Jr. from Pixar, which in turn was inspired by the Luxo desk lamp Lasseter had on his desk. You can't say the iMac is a copy or a rip-off from the lamp, but you can see the unique inspiration that led to the creation of an entirely new piece of design work.
  
  The real problem with Jobs refusing to even consider payment for Apple's IP is that it can retard progress.
  
  I can agree with you there. But our scheme of copyright/patent is designed to give some period of exclusivity. Apple does put a lot of $$$ into those designs, and wants a payback.
  
  It's good for Apple because they don't have to put as much work into coming up with improvements to their products to remain competitive
  That might make sense if Apple hadn't invested billions into its mobile products. The original iPhone was a $150 million gamble. Since then they've bought a billion dollars worth of flash memory and semiconductor companies to improve the products (years later the work results in the custom A6 chip). Apple has invested billions more into manufacturing technologies. We're still waiting to see what that hugely expensive exclusive license with LiquidMetal will pay off with, since Apple has had metallurgists and fabrication specialists working on that one for a few years now.
  They're working as hard as, or harder than, anyone else.
Why the register? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?
1. Re:Why the register? by SternisheFan · 2012-12-18 03:33 · 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
Apple must be wondering... by bogaboga · 2012-12-18 03:21 · 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 dotancohen · 2012-12-18 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  On a more important note, the judge is smokin hot:
  http://www.cultofmac.com/185127/u-s-district-judge-lucy-koh-apples-lawyers-are-smoking-crack-in-samsung-case/
  You need to get out more.
  
  --
  It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
2. Re:Apple must be wondering... by venicebeach · 2012-12-18 03:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Perhaps they will factor in the one billion dollars they won.
3. Re:Apple must be wondering... by gutnor · 2012-12-18 03:53 · 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 :-/
Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! by erroneus · 2012-12-18 03:37 · Score: 2

The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.
I hope every sane person will realize that both Apple and Samsung will appeal the rulings. And I agree with the concensus that the just was simply tired of dealing with both parties and the mess that this case had become.
The more interesting rulings over Apple's design patents, though, I hope remain. The matter of jury misconduct, I hope fails. Even if Samsung "should have known" in advance is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The juror did not properly answer the screening questions and thus had violated any oaths and qualifications for being a jurist. Further, the jurist provided his own evidence and became a biased party in the case. In my view, jury misconduct is clear and obvious.
Re:Thank the gods. by mk1004 · 2012-12-18 03:41 · Score: 2

I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.

--
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
fuck this by Redmancometh · 2012-12-18 03:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I just read the words "sammy mobes" on slashdot...fuck..you...brain...hurts
1. Re:fuck this by Sponge+Bath · 2012-12-18 04:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sounds like a character from The Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins and Sammy Mobes set out on an adventure.
Re:Thank the gods. by somersault · 2012-12-18 03:58 · 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
A pretty good job by jbolden · 2012-12-18 04:09 · 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 · 2012-12-18 04:46 · 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.
Re:fed law disallowed any consideration of errors by TaoPhoenix · 2012-12-18 05:24 · Score: 2

"Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial."
Isn't that the loophole of the century? The way to play Jury 2.0? Sneak a biased member onto the jury who says them, and then jury errors don't matter?!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine