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

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.

Comments

Thank the ghods.

[ZorinLynx]

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

Re:Thank the ghods.

[SternisheFan]

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.

Re:Thank the ghods.

[arbiter1]

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.

Re:Thank the ghods.

[the computer guy nex]

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.

Re:Thank the ghods.

[jeffmeden]

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?

Re:Thank the ghods.

[IamTheRealMike]

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?

Re:Thank the ghods.

[jkrise]

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.

Re:Thank the ghods.

[micheas]

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.

Why the register?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

Re:Why the register?

[SternisheFan]

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...

[bogaboga]

... 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.

Re:Apple must be wondering...

[dotancohen]

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.

Re:Apple must be wondering...

[venicebeach]

Perhaps they will factor in the one billion dollars they won.

Re:Apple must be wondering...

[gutnor]

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 :-/

fuck this

[Redmancometh]

I just read the words "sammy mobes" on slashdot...fuck..you...brain...hurts

Re:fuck this

[Sponge Bath]

Sounds like a character from The Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins and Sammy Mobes set out on an adventure.

Re:Thank the gods.

[somersault]

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.

A pretty good job

[jbolden]

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.

Re:A pretty good job

[erroneus]

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.