Slashdot Mirror
Judge Koh Rules: Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe
sfcrazy writes "In a nutshell there won't be a new trial in the Apple V. Samsung case, as Samsung wanted, because the judge thinks that the trial was fair despite allegations that the jury foreman could have been biased. She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple as the iPhone maker failed to prove they were 'undercompensated' by the jury. The most important ruling was that she found that 'Samsung did not willfully infringe.'"
With this ruling neither side are going to be happy (and frankly it's somewhat self-contradictory as well)...
Both sides will be writing up appeals no doubt so this story is far from over yet - it'll be very interesting to hear what gets presented to the higher court and what their take on the foreman is.
Where this entire farcical trial will be laughed at and the judgement thrown out.
Seeking treble damages is SOP for these kinds of suits. You do it because you have a reasonable chance of succeeding and there is no penalty for the attempt.
Anyway, don't be quick to jump to Samsung's defense because they're on the other end of Apple in this suit, or because they make your favorite smartphone. Samsung pretty much owns the SK govt and aggressively attacks its overseas competitors in every manner you could imagine. There are plenty of blogs detailing Samsung's domestic abuses of power (That far predate any smartphone). Samsung isn't a friendly company and they aren't looking out for you. Like any company, they just want your money.
If I'm not mistaken Apple will have to pay California income tax on the money they get from Samsung. With a corporate tax of nearly 9% that'd be close to $90M added to the coffers. If one was into conspiracy theories this would be an interesting avenue to pursue.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Ignoring the obvious in a decision should now be called "being Koh'd"
Judge Koh knew that she has seriously fcuked up in the original trial.
This second round ruling - that Samsung does not "willfully" infringe on Apple's patents - is nothing less than a face saving move.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I don't think that "the fat lady" has sung yet in this opera! Personally, I think that at the end of it all, either A&S will enter some sort of x-licensing agreement, or Samsung will kick Apple's butt to the curb and Apple will end up with a lot less proprietary IP than they started with. If Apple is smart, they will come to some sort of licensing agreement with Samsung.
She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple
From the article:
So, Samsung owes Apple US $1 billion for a non will ful infringement.
u must drink the apple kool aid a lot. nothing was stolen from crapple. they stole their ideas from sony but sany isnt whinibg like they are.
No. Because she doesn't find her jury foreman to be a disturbing failure of vor dire. It's a patent case and he's a wannabe patent troll. If she doesn't find that problematic, one wonders what it would take.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'd guess "none", given, strangely enough, Koreans aren't racial stereotypes. I know, it's hard to believe, but they're actual human beings! Imagine that!
If I'm not mistaken Apple will have to pay California income tax on the money they get from Samsung. With a corporate tax of nearly 9% that'd be close to $90M added to the coffers. If one was into conspiracy theories this would be an interesting avenue to pursue.
I don't think you have any idea how much money the state gets in Tax. State spending was $127 billion in 2011
General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.
This had *nothing* to do with feelings. Apple is unable to maintain its massive mark-ups of rebadged foxconn phones through innovation; its massive market share gone; the days of the iPhone killer long behind us; its marketing machine pushing it as the *one* phone turning on Apple. When Jobs went thermonuclear on Android he should have been spending money on diverse product lines; Company acquisitions....hell competed on price, but instead he deicide to *litigate* over a few interface patents on devices covered by thousands of patents, often shared at little or no cost between traditional phone manufactures.
This court case was a massive win for Apple, but without product bans...toothless. I suspect even with them there are simply too many compelling Android phones; from a diverse collection of manufactures. All with an Mountain!? of there own patents [Hell even Google has them now]...Apple is terrified of them forming a cartel.
The bottom line is this is nothing to do with feelings this is everything about poor corporate strategy.
Yes, you're right, theft is theft. But theft is also completely unrelated to this case as no theft is even alleged to have happened.
This case is not about theft, it's about patent infringment. Something not in any way related to depriving someone of their physical property.
how did Samsung unwillingly infringe? By copying the complete design of the original iPhone, they were just doing what a lot of Koreans do: make copies of original American products. My ex-gf was involved in a sportswear company and it was part of her job to create infringing designs so people would believe they were buying original clothes from the famous labels she stole the look from.
... like we're supposed to believe a Slashdotter even has an ex-gf?
Samsung was manufacturing real products and not using litigation as a business method until Apple started the legal war.
The fact that all products (including Apple's) are based on products that went before is normal in engineering, and only Apple seems to think that square panels with rounded corners are a unique concept which must not be copied by their competitors.
No. Because she doesn't find her jury foreman to be a disturbing failure of vor dire. It's a patent case and he's a wannabe patent troll. If she doesn't find that problematic, one wonders what it would take.
A "disturbing failure of voir dire" means "Samsung's lawyers failed to ask relevant questions of the jury, failed to investigate the jurors, and failed to look through their own records of who they've sued in the past"... or really, it means Samsung absolutely knew who Hogan was and held the past conflict in check in case the jury decided against them. Who are we kidding - if the jury had decided for Samsung on every count, would they be demanding a new trial because of Hogan's past? Of course not. Since they had every opportunity to investigate that past and likely knew of it, they can't play "ace up our sleeve" and spring it on the court post-judgement. Trials only work like that in the movies.
Hard to demonstrate it is more likely than not that Samsung willfully infringed.
I happen to believe they knew full well what they were doing, as they described the difference between their own handsets and the iPhone as being "like the difference between Heaven and Earth."
Pretty much every South Korean is heavily invested in Samsung through their retirement plans. They are like Brits with BP stock in this respect.
What's even more concerning is the fact he said his ex-girlfriend worked at a sportswear company. Someone should really call his mom and see if they can get PERT down there with a crowbar and pry open the basement so they can give this poor guy the kind of help he so desperately needs.
jsepeta - listen carefully, those girls in /home/jsepeta/pr0n/* are not really your girlfriends, they are paid actresses.
One very important sentence in the groklaw article:
Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market.
[cough]iPhone snags its highest U.S. market share ever[/cough]
https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQte-5G3PGg *Worldwide* Q4 post earning release from a real market analyst. However you spin it Apples share of the pie is shrinking. In Larger markets than the US like China Apple have no market share...and don't have a competitive product in that market. You should reread my post, its pretty good.
Can you explain to me exactly how he was a) a wannabe patent troll, how b) that makes a damned bit of difference either way to the case and c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?
The guy had filed for a patent before, doesn't make him a troll, he might be, but I certainly don't have enough info to say he was and I doubt you do either
Samsung wasn't arguing against patents, or against design patents, they were arguing that they didn't violate Apple's patents and only as a backup that the patents were invalid. Having filed for a patent and being in favor of patents doesn't really give any implied bias.
Judges have incredibly limited capacity to overturn a juries finding of fact in any case whatsoever, we might not like this all that much, but it's none the less true. Juries don't have to tell you how they decided anything and can use pretty much whatever insane logic they like. They shouldn't of course, but there's not much a judge can do about it (ya see this is how Slashdot's favorite pet rule of Jury Nullification works). This is for the blindingly obvious reason that if judges can simply overturn the findings of juries on a whim, we may as well just get rid of juries all together and give everyone bench trials with all that that entails.
I know that groklaw is violently anti-patent and in this case is violently anti-apple and so any legal decision which is made in Apple's favor must ipso facto be a huge screw up, but just because you don't like the result doesn't mean that the result wasn't fair, nor does it mean that the judge can do a damned thing about it whether it's fair or not.
And the facts are that they're retaining their 70% profit share of the industry, and their userbase growth is still accelerating. Samsung are not eating into Apple's potential market, they're hoovering up the standard phone market as it transitions to an all-smartphone industry. Apple have never, ever expressed an interest in that section of the market, making their *relative* decline in it irrelevant. So their corporate strategy is in fact still serving them very well - and given they're the second biggest company in the world I'd say it's objectively one of the best corporate strategies there is.
There is no such thing as *profit share* there are only profits, and nobody will ever suggest that Apple *right now* are not making money hand over fist, although that [dubious] 70% figure for *hardware profits* does not include *future profits* or profits from *advertising* *content* [ignoring intangibles], ironically its why Apple have lost 35% of their market cap losing the crown of *largest* company in the world.
[Part of] My point is that Apple are none existent in certain markets China/Brazil, markets Apple have said are their *primary focus* for obvious reasons, Android is going to get Apps from those markets while Apple get none...falling behind even more.
Apple is selling more phones that it ever has...but is experiencing slower growth that the market is growing, with its potential customers reaching saturation, with customers opting for its cheaper [lower margin] models.
I agree Apple re-badging foxconn phones at a massive mark-up has been wonderful, but its looking a weak strategy in a maturing market with competitors with arguably better hardware software and value, and the stock market agrees.
how he was a) a wannabe patent troll
I'm not the original poster, so can't comment on this. I would just say more generally that he was a possible patent enforcer
how b) that makes a damned bit of difference either way to the case
He has a vested interest on patent infringement damages being awarded regardless of the content of the patent. In this concrete case he manipulated the jury to disregard the instructions to consider the validity of the patents. It's like having an insurance company owner deciding on a case of insurance coverage.
c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?
The judge could have annulled the jury decision based on them not following the jury instructions and she could have sent them back to do their work properly.
The relevant questions were asked of the jury. Hogan gave misleading answers to those questions.
If the jury had found for Samsung on every point, despite Hogan's possible bias against Samsung and their position, of course there wouldn't be a basis to demand a new trial. A better question might be whether Apple would be demanding a new trial had an anti-Apple zealot made it onto the jury by concealing their past history with Apple and then browbeating the other jurors into ignoring and misinterpreting law in a way that favoured Samsung.
And I think we all know the answer to that one.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Judge Koh was Korean .... Judge Kohrean.
He has a vested interest on patent infringement damages being awarded regardless of the content of the patent. In this concrete case he manipulated the jury to disregard the instructions to consider the validity of the patents. It's like having an insurance company owner deciding on a case of insurance coverage.
Vested interest... I do not think that means what you think it means. I'm looking for details on the 20-year old patent lawsuit that bankrupted [Hogan]... but there is so much trash in the news, I can really only see that he also "purchased a house under mysterious circumstances."
I'm sure he has not forgotten the lawsuit that bankrupted him. But a 20 year old patent would have expired, well, up to 20 years ago. A vendetta is not a vested interest. So, how does he make money off of this? Apple stock?
c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?
The judge could have annulled the jury decision based on them not following the jury instructions and she could have sent them back to do their work properly.
I am not sure that a judge has that power, unless there is proof of wrongdoing on the part of the jury, or improper communication for example between the plaintiffs and the jury foreman, I always thought it was the jury who had the power to annul, as in the case when a judge says clearly "if this then that, you must deliver a guilty verdict."
The jury can then go and discuss "well yes, both this and that, but we're still going to say he's not guilty." That's jury nullification. I don't want to sound like I'm talking out of my ass too much, I am not a lawyer, and I know that this is a civil trial, and those words are used to mean a verdict in a criminal proceeding.
Still, as much as we all hate patents around here, I would expect the Slashdot crowd to be more supportive of this guy who worked so hard and finally got his come-uppance in a round-about sort of way. He was able to deliver a verdict against the company that bankrupted him. Sort of. Seagate-Samsung corporate alliance is going down. Why does everyone want to take that away from him? Don't we like to support the little guy over the cartel?
Why aren't there any other Android tablets with GPS? (Besides ASUS.) Why is there only one MIPS android tablet, and it's crap? These are the questions that I want answers to. I suspect that they are both because patents.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Is patent law broken in the US? Yes. But just because the Law is an Arse does not mean it's not illegal.
Lots of things are illegal. In my state most of them aren't, cause we're not that insane. Except for patents and copyrights, we're still stuck on stupid.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No. Because she doesn't find her jury foreman to be a disturbing failure of vor dire. It's a patent case and he's a wannabe patent troll. If she doesn't find that problematic, one wonders what it would take.
Because, in a trial concerning patents, they allowed someone on the jury who supports and makes money using patents? Wow, how so very disturbing indeed!
I didn't say it wasn't illegal, but I won't call patent infringment theft just as I also don't call shoplifting rape, because they are completely different and unrelated laws.
The only reason anyone ever calls this stuff theft is to try to confuse people and make it sound more serious than it really is.
She was heavily biased in favour of Apple until she got smacked down by another judge who said that her ruling was unconstitutional. Now she's changing her tune and pretending not to be a huge Apple shill.