Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's $1B Patent Award From Samsung Gets Cut By $450M

Posted by Soulskill on from the snip-snip dept.

New submitter charlesj68 writes with news that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has cut Apple's $1.05 billion patent infringement award from Samsung down by $450.5 million. She also said Samsung deserves a new trial over claims related to some of its smartphones. "Koh rejected Apple’s request to enhance the jury’s award, saying the amount Samsung owed was heavily disputed and the jury wasn’t bound to accept either side’s damages estimate. 'It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury’s factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation,' Koh said in her ruling. Apple is entitled to additional damages for sales of infringing products that weren’t considered by the jury, Koh ruled, saying she intends to calculate the amount beginning on Aug. 25, the day after the jury reached its verdict. As the case has been appealed, Koh said she would delay considering evidence of actual post-verdict sales and pre-judgment interest until the appeals are completed."

56 comments

  1. No Job for Her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Looks like Lucy won't be getting a "consulting" job with Samsung once the smoke clears...

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/28/uk-judge-who-ruled-against-apple-hired-by-samsung

  2. Seriously does anyone care? by Lefty2446 · · Score: 0

    This stoush has been going on for so long with dirty tricks from both sides about hardware that is obsolete.

    my 2c

    1. Re:Seriously does anyone care? by erroneus · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's still a very current event and one that is quite relevant to "the new PC." In case you haven't been paying attention, the notion of the smart phone is still developing quite rapidly. Also, the thing about patents... software patents, F/RAND patents, standards critical patents and all that. This one trial encompasses many hot issues. Also it involves Apple whose new empire no longer cares about the computers it was once known for and now the devices and the media it sells... err... I mean "licenses."

      You might be bored already and that's understandable. You have been conditioned like all the rest of the sheeple to only being able to care about something for a short time. How's that conditioning working out for you? Works great for slaves to have no long term memory, no long term vision of the future and only cares about today and what you can buy with that little you have + whatever credit you qualify for.

      (sorry, that's a bit rough, but it's rather true of the larger demographic in the US today... they can't care about anything for any amount of time and can't begin to understand why anyone else cares about anything else.)

  3. Re:luton to w2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashcode. It's what this site runs, and it's probably the best blogging software on Earth. It's written in Perl, so you know it's easy to maintain, and the look and feel is superb, just look at Slashdot's leading edge high quality clean design.

  4. Too little, too late by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Too little, too late by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

      If that was the case, how come shes still practicing law? In other civilized countries we have laws against judges preciding over cases where they have personal stakes in the outcome of the case - She should receive the judicial version of curbstomping if the bolded is correct.

    2. Re:Too little, too late by Lisias · · Score: 1

      It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

      If that was the case, how come shes still practicing law? In other civilized countries we have laws against judges preciding over cases where they have personal stakes in the outcome of the case - She should receive the judicial version of curbstomping if the bolded is correct.

      Yep. But on these same civilized countries, one must first file a denounce. The denounce is studied and, if accepted, a lot os legal proceddings (including a trial) is needed before the judge is discharged from his/her duties.

      I don't see no denounce being filed. Yet. But things can change - mainly by the fact that Samsung's case didn't had a very... up to the letter... treatment under this judge's rule.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    3. Re:Too little, too late by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      I look forward to compelling evidence of your charges against judge Koh. In the future, you may want to include that with the charge.

    4. Re:Too little, too late by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

      I suspect that Koh pretty much handed Samsung grounds for appeal when she ruled the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury. Groklaw saw this coming from day one.

      Further Groklaw noted months ago that

      The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything

      .

      And of course there was Lucy Koh shooting off her mouth about the Galaxy 10 being in obvious infringement (even imposed an injunction, since lifted), when in fact it was found not to infringe by the jury. Ooops, how embarrassing.

      Koh is probably going to get overturned entirely on this trial. It hasn't even gotten to the appeal stage yet.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

    6. Re:Too little, too late by NettiWelho · · Score: 0

      It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

      .... [Citation needed] ..?

    7. Re:Too little, too late by theVarangian · · Score: 1

      It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

      .... [Citation needed] ..?

      Have no idea if Samsung is bribing /. posters to astroturf, seems like a waste of money since half the people on this forum would do that for free. He was right about Samsung's ad budget though, it appears to be bigger than Apple's, HP's, Dell's, Microsoft's and Coca Cola's budgets combined: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-samsungs-massive-marketing-budget-2012-11.

    8. Re:Too little, too late by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Check out icebike's comment above. If you were really "looking forward", you wouldn't have much trouble finding the evidence you claim to seek.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Too little, too late by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Samsung really doesn't need to astroturf anything. Apple's recent attempts to patent everything in sight, including Star Trek's "PADD" haven't earned them a lot of friends.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    10. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other half apparently are getting paid to shill for Apple. I'm surprise bonch hasn't appeared yet. That's the main shill account used by Apple marketing contractors.

    11. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is full of shit.

    12. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, they kind of are a gigantic company present in a lot of markets and market segments. Samsung likely is a direct competitor of all of the companies they outspend (Coca Cola is active in certain segments of chemical research). You'll have to compare to a company of similar breath to get a realistic picture.

    13. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites.

      .... [Citation needed] ..?

      Quite obviously http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507985&cid=43050307

    14. Re:Too little, too late by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Well, they kind of are a gigantic company present in a lot of markets and market segments. Samsung likely is a direct competitor of all of the companies they outspend (Coca Cola is active in certain segments of chemical research). You'll have to compare to a company of similar breath to get a realistic picture.

      If only we were talking about all of Samsung and not just Samsung Electronics. But we aren't talking about Samsung (Fine) Chemicals, nor Insurances, nor Engineering, nor Heavy Industries, nor etc. Only Samsung Electronics. Not that much breadth left.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:Too little, too late by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Samsung really doesn't need to astroturf anything. Apple's recent attempts to patent everything in sight, including Star Trek's "PADD" haven't earned them a lot of friends.

      Samsung still has several times as many patents as Apple. Esp. design patents.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    16. Re:Too little, too late by thedarknite · · Score: 1

      Samsung Electronics also covers their home appliances. I've seen more advertising for Samsung fridges and washing machines than phones/tablets.

      --
      A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
    17. Re:Too little, too late by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Do any of Samsung's design patents attempt to teleport Star Trek's designs into the future so they can't qualify as "prior art"?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    18. Re:Too little, too late by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Do any of Samsung's design patents attempt to teleport Star Trek's designs into the future so they can't qualify as "prior art"?

      Yes. And way before Apple too. Why do you ask?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    19. Re:Too little, too late by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Samsung Electronics also covers their home appliances. I've seen more advertising for Samsung fridges and washing machines than phones/tablets.

      Good one. And still doesn't account for spending more on advertising than Coke.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    20. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. Coke sells a relatively tiny number of products compared to Samsung electronics. Worse, the products Coke does sell compete with one another - so it would destroy Coke if they advertised most of their products most of the time.

  5. You couldn't make this stuff up by Severus+Snape · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I feel like these patent cases have more in common with a TV drama than a court of law. We already know there is going to be another trial anyway rending all this completely moot. No doubt there will be many more twists and turns to come after that. What makes it even more ridiculous is that the $1B in the first place simply amounted to a small rebate for the money Apple give Samsung to make chips for them.

    And the winners are: the lawyers.

    1. Re:You couldn't make this stuff up by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Correct. This is not your typical frivolous or meritorious personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff doesn't pay the barrister unless they win. The only thing better than 11,000 billable hours at the Cadillac Corporate Rate for the first trial? Why, the sequel.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:You couldn't make this stuff up by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Partly true there... but the other part is that she was not prepared for what she had. She saw Apple as most people generally do from the beginning. "Winner" was her presumption. Following the ["what's the point of having a trial at all!?"] trial showed how things were stacked against Samsung, "the evil asian company who couldn't possibly do anything but shamelessly copy honest American companies" AMIRITE? As the trial went on, she began to see things a bit differently. But the Jury foreman made his mind up long before the trial had begin -- his dream of revenge had come true and he couldn't hold back.

      This truth is most certainly stranger than fiction. Good fiction has basis in fact. This trial had less of that.

      Another commenter accurately observes that the appeals would likely trash her whole case in a most humiliating way if she didn't do something herself. And for a while there, it looked like she wasn't going to do anything at all!! This makes me wonder what thing occurred to spur her into action on this issue. Still, she maintains her stance on the matter of Jury Misconduct -- she won't call it that at all... won't even come close to it. But I'm really curious about what revelation caused Koh to take action.

      She needs to order a new trial. Not just one for the damages. The jury's rulings themselves are in as much question as the damages. And to say "these damages make sense but these others don't?" I'm sorry. But I can't see logic or reason behind this sort of selective editing. The jury was screwed up and all over the place. A whole new trial is warranted here.

    3. Re:You couldn't make this stuff up by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      That's an impressive amount of speculation into the judges motivations and thoughts. Do you have anything other than your opinions to back that up?

    4. Re:You couldn't make this stuff up by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Her behavior, actions and reaction spoke volumes. Yeah sure, it's all speculation even if she were to personally respond to my commentary personally admitting or denying everything I said. But based on what people do, it's not often hard to peice together what motivates a person to have done them.

      At some point, when a thing is so broken that you can't possibly piece it back together with any coherence, you just have to toss it out and get a new one.

    5. Re:You couldn't make this stuff up by symbolset · · Score: 1

      You can practically see Apple HQ from the roof of the courthouse.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  6. Argument against IP laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope someday people realize that ideas are not scarce goods (queue jokes about common sense). Apple's invention - rounded corners and all - was built on the collective shoulders of all of civilization. Likewise Samsung's ideas built on the same thing - possibly including some ideas put forward by Apple. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. In fact, what I just describe is exactly how Markets work.

    The sooner we stop treating ideas like real physical property, the better off we will as a society will be. Punish people for stealing actual things instead of hypothetical customers (lost sales).

    And while we're at it, every criminal must have a victim. No victim, no crime.

    1. Re:Argument against IP laws by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No victim, no crime.

      But corporations are people, and rounded corners belong to Apple - clearly if Samsung had used razor-sharp edges on their tablet, people would have bought iPads instead, and so Samsung did steal from Apple.

      This is depressing. On a slightly related note, I'm looking at my (physical) desktop and can't find one single device (including keyboards, monitors, computer cases, etc) without rounded corners.

    2. Re:Argument against IP laws by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One the biggest issues in this case was use of a double standard. The jury ruled that cause prior art couldn't run on iOS device it wasn't valid prior art. But if you use same logic the iOS patents wouldn't run on Andriod hence no infringement, but they ruled that part didn't matter and found Samsung did infringe. Its what i like to call the Political standard, commonly employed by Obama.

    3. Re:Argument against IP laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude its employed by them all.

    4. Re:Argument against IP laws by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The sooner we stop treating ideas like real physical property, the better off we will as a society will be. Punish people for stealing actual things instead of hypothetical customers (lost sales)

      You have it backwards. Physical property is worth less than good ideas (not common ones). What you call actual things are simply = good ideas (design etc) + cheap raw materials + manufacturing machines. As you can see, the most valuable factor in the above equation is "good ideas."

    5. Re:Argument against IP laws by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      * Not intended to be a factual statement

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:Argument against IP laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good ideas are easy. Actual implementation is difficult.

      Any reasonably creative and intelligent person can come up with more ideas than he can successfully implement in his lifetime.

      The ones who keep going on about needing protection for their "precious idea" are one trick ponies.

      The others who want patents are the Corporations who figure they make more money by monopolizing ideas even if they never ever get around to implementing them. Which is probably true, but it slows down the rate the rest of the world gets to benefit from all those good ideas.

  7. Ummm... by notknown86 · · Score: 2

    So Judge Koh said 'It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury’s factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation,'.

    And then proceeded... to second-guess the jury’s factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation by $450,000,000?

    Am I missing something here? I would prefer to not RTFA if at all possible..

    1. Re:Ummm... by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Am I missing something here?

      Yes, you are missing that she didn't second guess the jury's factual determination, she "identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award".

      There is a difference between matters of law and matters of fact (in a jury trial in the US, the former is the purview of the judge and the latter that of the jury, generally.)

    2. Re:Ummm... by oxdas · · Score: 2

      The jury had some problems with a few phones. In one case, they ordered the phone had not infringed and then later ordered compensation for the phone. In another instance, the breakdown of compensation didn't equal the total compensation awarded (bad math on the part of the jury) and the judge doesn't know which amount they meant. There are probably more, but those are the first two I can remember.

      So, the judge order new trials on all the phones she couldn't figure out what the jury meant or they clearly used "impermissible legal theory" in determining damages.

    3. Re:Ummm... by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sad thing about this case, its a Shorter list of what jury did right then what they completely screwed up on

    4. Re:Ummm... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe most of the good ones got booted out during jury selection... ;)

      --
  8. Re:luton to w2 by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1, Redundant

    It's written in Perl, so you know it's easy to maintain

    Ha ha. Good one!

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  9. Big Deal by slapout · · Score: 0

    450Million would only run the US Government for what, like 2 seconds?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      About an hour.

      Annual expenditure is $3.8 trillion.

  10. how do they select jurors in such a complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    case?

    1. Re:how do they select jurors in such a complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently a lot of crystal meth is involved.

  11. Fair Use ignored by DrHappyAngry · · Score: 1

    It should have been obvious that a new trial was necessary when the foreman said they completely skipped fair use because it was bogging them down. Fair use is a part of the patent system whether they like it or not. You can't just take something from a 50 year old movie and patent it.

  12. she's an ass by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with her decision and she's done too much meddling and wavering. Nobody should be happy with how things have turned out. And after all, isn't that's what compromise is about -- disappointing both parties.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  13. Corporate Antics by willem_pardieck · · Score: 1

    Something that damages any corporation and puts their stockpiles of money back into circulation into the general economy is a good thing. Lawyers are the natural parasites that feed on money and therefore this is the natural order of things. In a perfect world I would say that they should concentrate on innovation and develop new and improved products. It's not a perfect world, so this is just fine. Let them spend years and years raking over the same coals, appealing, getting injunctions and so on, all the while with lawyers sucking off of the jugular of these behemoths.

  14. No, she just jumped to a conclusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is entirely wrong for a judge presiding, but as a human she did no worse than make up her mind before getting evidence.

    You know, like many slashdotters did.

    Remember, Samsung is foreign and Apple American.

  15. Re:luton to w2 by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    just look at Slashdot's leading edge high quality clean design.

    Ha ha. Good one!