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."

Comments

Groklaw where art thou?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to Groklaw!!!

Re:Groklaw where art thou?

[i kan reed]

From wikipedia:

On August 20 2013 an article appeared on Groklaw saying it was to be closed down due to government monitoring of the internet, particularly e-mail.[6] Jones wrote "What I do know is it's not possible to be fully human if you are being surveilled 24/7... I hope that makes it clear why I can't continue. There is now no shield from forced exposure."

The NSA scared them out of business.

Re:Groklaw where art thou?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tells you how a tight a grip the US government has on its people. Pretty convenient actually, don't like an activist website? Send them a secret order to make them snoop on the website's participants, website shuts down on its own accord without any messy arguments over one amendment or the other.

Re:Groklaw where art thou?

[jareth-0205]

Seriously? WTF did Groklaw do that would warrant such a thing?

That is a terrible way of looking at it...

Re:Groklaw where art thou?

[interkin3tic]

Probably a terrible way of PHRASING it. "What functions did groklaw carry out that were compromised by NSA spying?" was maybe closer to what he meant. That was my first reaction when I heard that news: I thought they just explained laws to anyone who was curious, didn't make a whole lot of sense why they needed secrecy for that.

I remember asking a similar question, and I forget the answer. I think it was something like "lawyers could talk to Jones and about their cases confidentially."

There was also something about the original point of the blog, exposing SCO bullshit, was finished.

Re:Groklaw where art thou?

[jafac]

If you're being monitored by the NSA, and if you're a journalist, that excludes a huge amount of potential sources who might talk with you. Certain sources would shy away from any contact which might be monitored by the NSA. (this is true whether any of Snowden's revelations were true or not - only if the revelations were credible).

Re:Groklaw where art thou?

[marcosdumay]

I thought they just explained laws to anyone who was curious, didn't make a whole lot of sense why they needed secrecy for that

No, you are not seeing the big picture. GL more than once gathered (and published) evidence of wrongdoing of well connected people. The entire point of mass surveilance is punishing such kind of behaviour.

That's a lot of nickels.

[intermodal]

Hope Apple's ready for all those coins./

Have you noticed?

[i kan reed]

Have you noticed these summaries never include what the patents are anymore? Samsung didn't even claim they didn't intrude on the patents, just that they made what their market research said was a good idea.

All you have to do is comprehensively patent every element of your design, and if any of it is a good idea, you'll get to sue anyone in the same field.

Re:Have you noticed?

[ackthpt]

Have you noticed these summaries never include what the patents are anymore? Samsung didn't even claim they didn't intrude on the patents, just that they made what their market research said was a good idea.

All you have to do is comprehensively patent every element of your design, and if any of it is a good idea, you'll get to sue anyone in the same field.

It's all a crap-shoot anyway. Odds are Apple holds a patent for something they don't use, but if you develop it independently and roll-out to market, you get shot down because they see you as encrouching on their turf*.

Next up, in a month or two: The reversal.

*everything, everywhere.

Re:Have you noticed?

[Nerdfest]

And if you try your case in certain places, you'll win. With Apple, apparently even if you lose, you win.

Re:Have you noticed?

[ausekilis]

The real question is at what point do these ideas become "common knowledge" enough that the patent should be no more. After all, every TV is rectangular in shape, with button (touch) controls in the lower right or right hand side. That's right, this is the USA where the patents are made up and the durations don't matter.

Re:Have you noticed?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was only a trial on DAMAGES. Therefore, it was irrelevant whether Samsung infringed Apple's patents, because that was already determined to be the case.

Re:Have you noticed?

[Pinhedd]

Samsung can't argue that they didn't infringe on the patents, that was already settled in the case. This was simply a retrial on assessment of damages. Samsung can (and is) appealing the original verdict and will most likely appeal the new damages as well.

Re:Have you noticed?

[ackthpt]

And if you try your case in certain places, you'll win. With Apple, apparently even if you lose, you win.

Apple's legal research team are working on splitting the Litigon, a particle with quantum spin which is capable of detecting where and when someone has violated their Intellectual Property.

Re:Have you noticed?

[Areyoukiddingme]

Which doesn't preclude him from acquiring a granted patent...

Re:Have you noticed?

[VortexCortex]

Apple's legal research team are working on splitting the Litigon, a particle with quantum spin which is capable of detecting where and when someone has violated their Intellectual Property.

We have been studying matter vs Litigon collisions for quite some time at Apple's Hardly Imaginary Particle Smashing Toroidal Experiment Research fascillity (aka: The HIPSTER Collier). Through friction with other manufacturers Apple's outsourced supply chain provides a never ending stream of Litigons -- Sometimes even through interaction with itself (as TFA demonstrates).

When Litigons collide with normal matter in reality they produce a veritable golden shower of Bogons. This led to the discovery of the Bogosity Field; Now known publicly as the "Apple reality distortion field" in guerrilla marketing campaigns. Apple holds the exclusive patent for the Bogosity Field retroactively and in perpetuity through creating new devices with which to fill the blank in: "Bogons on a ___." [computer, phone, PDA / tablet, set-top box, watch, glasses, Maxwell Smart's shoe, etc.]

Due to the nature of quantum uncertainty it is not observation of the Litigon itself which detects the location and time of infringement, but rather via inference after witnessing the speed and direction of the technology segment's charged Progress particle (The Progress-ion), after collision with Apple's Bogons.

Re:Have you noticed?

[alvinrod]

They're not, but when there are an ever increasing number of patents to comb through, it becomes impossible to determine if there are any out there that you violate. Add in a number of inane patents like "X, but on a computer!" and it just becomes cheaper to deal with the legal consequences after the fact. Whether a person thinks software should be able to be patented at all, I think everyone can agree that the system as it is needs an overall.

Re:Have you noticed?

[Hognoxious]

system as it is needs an overall.

Sounds messy, I'll get my overhauls.

Re: Have you noticed?

[Areyoukiddingme]

Which would be be invalidated if it was ever leveraged.

You have a thoroughly unjustified faith in the "justice" system.

Re:"APPEL FANBOI LOL" commenst aside...

[ackthpt]

The verdict clearly shows that Samsung did capitalize on Apple's enormous investment into R&D and should pay.

Tech R&D or Legal R&D?

It's so hard to tell these days without a scorecard.

I have an idea!

[HussamAl-Tayeb]

Samsung should pay the 290 million dollars to Apple in 5 cent coints and take it to Apple headquarters in trucks!

Thermonuclear war

[Tough Love]

Apple remains obsessed with thermonuclear war instead of introducing products that people want. Meanwhile its market share keeps slip, slip, slipping away.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[Tough Love]

But its profits stay sky high.

You know Roadrunner vs the Coyote? You know how Coyote dangles in the air for a while before cratering? It's like that.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[amicusNYCL]

Market share is only relevant because Samsung and other Android phone makers have dumped countless cheap worthless phones on the market, and get to claim market share.

Hyperbole aside, another way to state that would be to say that many many people find Apple's price point too high for what they get. You can make a blanket statement to make it seem like all Android phones are cheap and/or worthless, but that is demonstrably untrue. The top 10 smart phone list is a good microcosm of the market in general. The highest ranked phone is the iPhone 5S, and likewise the iPhone is also the single best-selling phone. Out of the other 9 places on the list, 8 of them run Android and 1 is Windows Phone. That sounds about accurate. Out of those 8 Android phones, not a single one can be described as either "cheap" nor "worthless" by anyone without a large anti-Android bias.

yes in fact people really do want their phones and tablets.

Some people do, sure. My mom and dad both use iPhones, in fact they work great for older people. But in this market the iPhone is starting to look like the cookie-cutter option, it is the Toyota Prius of smart phones. The iPhone has lost its status symbol luster, it's no longer the phone that people buy to be seen with like it was during the first couple models. Samsung and HTC phone have replaced the iPhone in that regard. The iPhone is just the phone for people who are already locked into the Apple environment. I have the HTC One, which is second on that top 10 list. My phone has a quad-core 1.7GHz processor, compared with the 5S's dual-core 1.3GHz chip. My phone has twice as much RAM as the 5S. My phone has a larger screen (4.7 in), higher resolution (1920x1080), and higher pixel density (468ppi vs 326ppi) than the 5S. My phone can also stream native HDMI. It is objectively a better device. The only part of the 5S that you might consider to be superior is the software, and that is completely subjective. You might think iOS is fantastic. Quite obviously, a large segment of the market does not agree with you. I was not lamenting the lack of iOS when I paid $600 to buy the One outright.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah so there's this giant market called "China"....

The largest smart phone market, actually. Samsung has a market share of 21%, while Apple has a market share of 6%. China has several domestic vendors also.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[_merlin]

I use a Galaxy S3, and I hate iOS and its locked-down ecosystem, but your comparison of select numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Android typically needs more RAM than iOS for the same tasks because the app platform requires JIT compilation and garbage collection. These developer conveniences come at a cost. Also, clock for clock the new Apple CPU cores outperform the more popular ARM cores by a pretty wide margin. You need to compare a real-world task rather than core count or clock speed. That said, I still think my Galaxy S3 is objectively better because it can do circuit-switched video calls, scan directories on an SD card for photos/music, side-load apps, and have its firmware upgraded/downgraded painlessly over USB. Clock speed and RAM don't even come into it.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[Smauler]

From your linkie : "Only about 51% of the smartphones in peoples' hands in the US are Android phones."

That's a lot. The percentage is growing.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[Tough Love]

A lot of Apple's product stasis comes down to the idiotic decision (from Jobs?) to go with fixed pixel resolution which really limits their room to manoeuver on screen resolution and aspect. While Android scales everything on the fly, Apple apps have to be recompiled, probably the source code has to change too. To dig out of that mess Apple needs to bite the bullet and go to variable resolution just like Android. But the logistics of doing that are apparently just too scary for pencil pusher Tim Cook.

Look, even Steve Wozniak says this is stupid. I say, totally typical Apple. When Jobs died Apple lost the mojo but kept the hubris.

Tim Cook: wears the turtleneck, but doesn't fill the shoes.

Re:Thermonuclear war

[_merlin]

It isn't. Apple acquired PA Semi a few years back, whose main claim to fame was designing low-power PPC cores. The two most recent generations of the iPhone/iPad SoC have used ARM cores designed in-house by former PA Semi employees. It isn't used in any other devices. But I think you're missing my point - the CPU performance isn't even close to the top of my list of priorities for a mobile phone.

It's not about innovation

[ggraham412]

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

This isn't an example of bad Samsung capitalizing on Apple's good ideas. This is about major corporations being encouraged to stick their flags in the obvious and make else everyone pay. Whether you pay Apple or whether you pay Samsung (who then has to pay Apple), you're paying up and up for a fucking rectangle and whatever else is in their catalog of the obvious.

Re:It's not about innovation

[unrtst]

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.

Granted, the GP oversimplified the design patent, but what in that patent really made it all that worth of the design patent? If they had submitted just a rectangle, it would have been rejected, right? So there is a level of simplicity that is rejected. The elements they have laid claim on from that patent are, IMO, not only obvious, and with past precident, but natural to that type of device. Rounded corners? duh... no one would want really sharp corners in their pocket. Grid layout of icons? a grid... really... a grid? Square icons with round corners? Nah, I've never seen that before, nor would be be extremely obvious on a device that has both horizontal and vertical orientations, right?

I get what your'e saying, but you haven't listed all the features that made it worthy, and you provided no justification for them, and just made it sound more complex than it really was. The GP didn't list them all either, and over simplified it (to make a point). I read the GP's post as saying he believes the design patent covered far to simple/obvious of a thing, and it's silly that it was granted. I'm not sure if you're saying it was deserving of the patent or not, but I don't think anyone would argue it was for more than a rectangle. The question is, was it enough? The rectangle, and in particular the proportions, size, and contour, were at the center of the case, regardless if that is not all that was in the patent.

Re:It's not about innovation

[Smauler]

If everything Apple designed was so obvious, then why is it that no one made the iPhone before Apple did?

LG Prada. Go look it up. Look what it looks like.

Re:It's not about innovation

[LordLucless]

The patent you're speaking of was a design patent ... and the claim you're referencing was but one of many included in that particular patent...Suggesting that someone was able to patent merely "a rectangle" is a gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.

Here is the patent in question. Please show me the "many" claims other than the rectangular shape that demonstrate the OPs "gross mischaracterization".

Re:It's not about innovation

[VortexCortex]

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.

That's bullshit mate. They patented the rounded rectangular slab with touch screen (thus few buttons) and a grid of icons. The rounded rectangle tablet was in everything from Soylent Green to Star Trek. The touch screen I had in the 90's complete with GEM desktop's grid of icons. Putting a few bits of existing tech together and documenting the only real practical design shouldn't be allowed just because you had enough legal budget to do so. At 10 paces folks can't tell the difference between my older HP IPAQ PDA and dark desktop w/ icons. They couldn't tell the difference between the iPhone / iPad and a Samsung phone or tablet either. So what.

Let me tell you something about design patents. The Fashion Industry and Automotive Industries are all about design. They market heavily on design and yet they have no design patents or copyrights in the USA. Despite NOT having such patent protections these markets are more lucrative than nearly any other patent protected markets. So, here we have clear evidence that design patents aren't needed. They're pure anti-competitive bullshit, and unless you have empirical evidence to show vs a control group that patents are beneficial then you're full of shit.

Doesn't matter how "correct" someone's statement is regarding application of current patent law -- The laws themselves are bogus. We don't know if they're harmful or helpful, only that other evidence shows design patents and copyright aren't necessary for progress in design. Anyone with half a scientific method would never agree to run world economies based on untested hypotheses.

You're bitching about some pedantic bullshit about how the laws cover this or that -- Sure, go fuck yourself though. It's like someone saying: It's bullshit that you can have design patents, then you go on for a paragraph about what a design patent is -- As if we don't already know that they're bullshit; And you have NONE -- ZERO evidence to prove they are not, in fact, harmful unnecessary burdens or beneficial in any way.

Re: It's not about innovation

[Smauler]

Here is an announcement, here is an image. Both of these date from 2006.

Re:It's not about innovation

[gnupun]

Let me tell you something about design patents. The Fashion Industry and Automotive Industries are all about design. They market heavily on design and yet they have no design patents or copyrights in the USA. Despite NOT having such patent protections these markets are more lucrative than nearly any other patent protected markets.

Only an idiot would not protect their valuable property. Check this link about Ford suing for design patent violation.

Is it a waste?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Sometimes I think that all this litigation is a terrible waste of human effort. Then I try to imagine all these lawyers doing something more productive with their time instead, and I just can't.

Actually, $890 million

[gnasher719]

Originally Samsung was ordered to pay about a billion dollars. Then it turned out that the jury had made mistakes in the calculation of damages. Therefore about $400 million of that billion had to be tried again, while $600 million of the judgment was deemed correct. So in reality Samsung is now ordered to pay $600 plus $290 million.

Re:What is more productive

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's not productive because nothing is being produced. It's just taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. It's redistributive rather than productive.

Making phones is productive. Advancing technology is productive.

US Court sides with US defendant

[msobkow]

No surprise there. Samsung apparently wins the cases overseas, Apple wins them in the US. The whole system is rigged, flawed, and useless. Down with software and "design" patents!

worst summary ever

[vux984]

"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."

Ok.

"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."

So, first they one a billion in court, then this win for 290 million.

"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."

Oh... ok... so not really a billion. 450million is being reconsidered, but there is this 290 million win. Still good for apple, though right?

"Thursday's verdict is the result of that new trial."

Wait what? So this isn't new money they won, but rather that of the 450M of previous win they we're fighting to keep, they've just lost 160M.

Wouldn't that have been the correct way to start?

Something like "Trial to reconsider $450M of previous $1B settlement has been reduced by $160M to $290M."

And that's assuming the patents stand up long enough for the checks to get written, something I understand may not happen as the patents themselves are facing invalidation.

Seriously, this article made it sound like another big win for apple, when in reality its really news that their one big win has been cut down...yet again.

Great example!

[ArchieBunker]

What an example they showed. Simply give up!

Re:"APPEL FANBOI LOL" commenst aside...

[Sudline]

My R&D department informs me that there is a troll here.

Re:Yeah, wrong link. Mod parent way down.

[mcgrew]

Ah, yes, an edit button... so you can say something funny, get it modded +5, then edit your comment to be a GNAA troll linking to goatse.

Use the goddamned preview button, that's for, you know, EDITING.