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.

[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.

[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?

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...

[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.