Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Ordered To Pay Apple $290M In Patent Case

itwbennett writes "After 3 days of deliberations, a jury has ordered Samsung to pay $290 million to Apple for infringement of several of its patents in multiple Samsung smartphones and tablets. The verdict is the second victory for Apple in its multiyear patent fight against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Last year a jury in the same San Jose courtroom ruled Samsung should pay just over $1 billion for infringement of five Apple patents in multiple Samsung phones and tablets. But afterward, Judge Lucy Koh ordered a new trial to reconsider $450 million of the damages after finding the previous jury had applied an 'impermissible legal theory' to its calculations. Thursday's verdict is the result of that new trial."

1 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's not about innovation by Anubis+IV · · Score: 0, Troll

    Before I say anything else, I want to say that I agree with your overall point. But I do take issue with the inaccurate statement that you started it off with.

    In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?

    The patent you're speaking of was a design patent (which in many ways more closely resemble trademarks than utility patents (with which we are more familiar) in how they are handled), and the claim you're referencing was but one of many included in that particular patent. For a design patent to be enforced against another entity, all claims of the design patent must hold true. So while they may have patented a design for a rectangular device, a competing device would need to infringe not only on that claim, but also on all of the other claims as well before it could be considered to be infringing on the patent itself.

    Apple's patent was no more for "a rectangle" than Bell's telephone patent was for "a device". Suggesting that someone was able to patent merely "a rectangle" is a gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred, and only serves to detract from your otherwise very valid point.