Jury: Samsung Owes Apple Another $290 Million

http://allthingsd.com/20131121/jury-samsung-owes-apple-another-290-million/

by samspenc • 13 years ago

44 65 13 years ago

aroch5• 13 years ago

So a ~$930mm final judgement. Now for another 5years of appeals

IBM3• 13 years ago

I think the original amount was cut to $600 million so the total would be $890 million. I don't think Apple is too concerned about the size of the judgement either way.

EDIT: I stand corrected!

aroch5• 13 years ago

The first judgement was cut to $639mm [1]

Q: How much money is this retrial about? A: It's about a replacement amount for a $410 million portion of the August 2012 $1.049 billion verdict. The replacement amount could be more or less than the original one. Apple will be awarded (subject to an appeal) $639 million plus the replacement amount.

1: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/the-truth-is-neither-cour...

josteink• 13 years ago

I seriously can't believe how much money Apple has been able to troll out of those rounded corners and that end-of-list overscroll effect.

And now, to top it off, iOS 7 is built on the holo-principles of Android. It's almost like Apple is doing it merely to taunt its foreign competitors, saying very, very clearly: "Sorry guys. I'm untouchable".

Utterly disgusting.

At least their attempts to outright ban products have been less successful as of late. There's some hope for a civilized world.

rlt3• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure there was more to it than rounded corners.

IBM3• 13 years ago

You should probably read more than the title and abstract of a patent.

patmcguire• 13 years ago

How did no one create the account IBM until 30 days ago?

stevenwei2• 13 years ago

Yeah, it's not like they went screen by screen through the iPhone and said 'hey, we need to do what they're doing...'

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluat...

rayiner2• 13 years ago

This is the stuff that gets missed in these debates. It's not like Apple's attorneys got up in front of the jury, drew a rectangle with rounded corners, wrote PATENTED across it, then sat down.

Rather, stuff like what you linked to is what causes juries to award $1 billion. E-mails along the lines of "let's make this look more like the iPhone." Presentations along the lines of "why isn't this more like the iPhone?" Surveys along the lines of "75% of people thought this looked like an iPhone." Market data on customer confusion, etc.

This particular presentation is pure gold. Slide after slide that basically convinces the jury that Samsung didn't "play fair" and copied someone else's work instead of doing their own.

JumpCrisscross• 13 years ago

Apple got a presidential pardon for its IP transgressions vis-à-vis Samsung. That's what makes this seem unfair.

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1....

pazimzadeh• 13 years ago

Number 108 is my favorite: http://cl.ly/SbXa "Fun factor is created."

iQuercus• 13 years ago

I think if you "can't believe" it might be beneficial to read the case and the patents in depth. It's a little more nuanced than is presented in most articles I've seen.

It might help move you to "I disagree, but I can see how..."

bitcrusher2• 13 years ago

I seriously can't believe that there is an entire sub-culture of people that are still trollololing about 'rounded corners' without understanding the context.

Design Patents are Different than Technology Patents.

emn132• 13 years ago

In sort of the way chemical weapons are different from nuclear weapons?

Indeed, they're quite different, yet the world would still be a better place without them.

TruthSHIFT• 13 years ago

What's a holo-principle?

patrickaljord4• 13 years ago

At this point, for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict. Samsung is eating Apple's lunch and the US is trying to stop that. The US gov keeps pushing for more free market worldwide (which is great), except that when one of its industries or great companies is in danger because of international competition, protectionism is the way. How can they be taken seriously?

threeseed3• 13 years ago

How can you be taken seriously when you post such illogical dribble ?

To imply that US judges have been 'bought off' by Apple or by the US government is a huge claim to make that deserves substantiation.

Samuel_Michon• 13 years ago

for most people watching this from outside of the US, it looks like protectionism racket disguised as a legal verdict.

If that is so, how would you explain that Apple has gotten several injunctions (Australia, Germany, Netherlands) and won lawsuits against Samsung outside of the US? Even in South Korea a court ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents. Also, let’s not forget, Apple is far from the only company suing Samsung over mobile patents.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

It's not protectionism, but rather an attempt to enforce particular rules of the game in the face of changing economic profiles.

In a nutshell, American IP policy is predicated on the understanding that the production of IP is America's competitive advantage. The U.S. can't compete with asian countries for low-cost manufacturing, but still dominates when it comes to software, design, etc. There is a reason phones designed and built in China run software written in California.

Thus, the U.S. wants to enforce rules that treat design as a protectable asset. The reasoning is this: if Apple spends a bunch of money coming up with a really effective design, Samsung shouldn't just be able to get the benefit of that work for free. It's the mirror of the physical property rules which ensure that if Samsung invests a bunch of money in some new manufacturing facility, Apple can't just get the benefit of that work for free.

I think such suits will become more common as developed economies keep transitioning away from manufacturing. The law quite easily protects the output of China's industrial production (physical things). It's not as effective in protecting the output of America's industries (content, designs).

aroch5• 13 years ago

So we're going to ignore the German and EU patent battles that Apple has won against Samsung? Way to provide not only biased but willfully wrong information in order to support your argument

a_c_s• 13 years ago

It isn't 'trolling' if you are actually using the patents in your products. You don't have to agree with the lawsuit, but please quit diluting the term.

dllthomas• 13 years ago

While I can see cases where a sharp divide mightn't make sense (token feature or token product) this is prominent look & feel in a flagship product. Which is to say "I agree" - I have mostly negative sentiments about patents in general and this one in particular, it's not really fair to call this "trolling".

josephlord4• 13 years ago

If illegally copying those things and being more iPhone like than other Android devices had any bearing on Samsung getting their current market position then it was a bargain even at a billion dollars. Apple and Samsung are both raking in billions every quarter; you have to consider the market size when considering the appropriate penalty.

Also note that both sides had many more patents that they thought applied but had to be selective and discard many early in the case. They got to choose the most promising ones but it is hit and miss. There may be many more patents that would actually have applied.

alexeisadeski3• 13 years ago

Apple go awayyyyy

rfnslyr• 13 years ago

Apple can get fucked until they come out with a bigger sized screen. Then I hope Samsung pillages them with lawsuits.

Glyptodon2• 13 years ago

I feel sorry for Samsung. I don't know how anyone can buy an Apple product without feeling ashamed anymore.

Yes, Samsung made products that looked kind of similar to Apple ones. Big whoop. Competition over litigation, I say.

bennyg• 13 years ago

I don't feel ashamed at all. The iPhone is literally a better and more pleasant phone to use/develop for in my opinion. That's why I buy it, and probably will continue to buy it.

A lot of companies sue over dumb shit - Samsung included. That's the nature of the corporate battleground. I really don't care as long as they aren't suing end users for things that I do with a phone (which includes pretty much every thing you can do with a phone).

ykl• 13 years ago

You obviously haven't read the Galaxy S1 design docs then.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluat...

WaterSponge• 13 years ago

Serious question... Is it not a normal thing to hardcore analyze your offerings against your competitors?

And if so is it a bad faith to do these types of analysis inside your company on your products since it exposes you in court?

How has the auto industry get getting along so long without suing each other into the ground?

Glyptodon2• 13 years ago

I just don't see what's wrong with it. Evaluating a competitor's product and improving on/comparing with your own is what any company should be doing... Especially since a lot of the comparisons are pretty much statements of the obvious, too.

I'd bet Samsung didn't really have a well developed UX design group behind their software/UI initially. Then they were brought to their senses by a competitor and did a thorough analysis and comparison to improve their products and compete. I just can't see what's wrong with that.

threeseed3• 13 years ago

I feel sorry for Samsung's competitors. And that includes all the other industries Samsung executes the same "innovation by duplication" approach.

Not everyone Samsung copies is a huge multinational:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24023430

dba7dba2• 13 years ago

Just for fair argument sake, Apple copies too.

jlgreco• 13 years ago

@dba7dba You are hellbanned. This means that most users cannot read your comments.

bluthru• 13 years ago

I'm glad that the laws reward those who invest time and money to be first to market with new ideas. These laws also force the competition to not merely copy, but to actually compete with new ideas.

argumentum• 13 years ago

You feel "sorry" for a multi-billion dollar family owned conglomerate that's existed since 1938?

Though I don't believe anything "intellectual" should be property, I buy products because they are good, period. As long as Apple continues to make better products, I'll continue to buy them without any sense of shame whatsoever.

wnevets• 13 years ago

If apple doesn't acknowledge loses from foreign courts, why should Samsung?

threeseed3• 13 years ago

Are you saying that Apple isn't complying with international court orders ?

Care to provide some evidence of this.

bigjoecumbo• 13 years ago

It's unbelievable how much money Apple is extorting from other companies for a simple UI technique. Disgusting.

emn132• 13 years ago

But let's be honest, the value of bouncy scroll - as in the cost for an independent invention to come up with something equally good would have been hundreds of millions, so at least it's reasonable, even if it's unethical.

narcissus• 13 years ago

Completely off topic, but it's days like these that I truly miss Groklaw...

josephlord4• 13 years ago

It was never as good with the patent issues especially when Google were involved it never felt balanced (with SCO there really wasn't any need for balance or bias as SCO were so far out there you could report it straight and still have clear bad guys).

WildUtah3• 13 years ago

It was fine for Oracle v. Google as reporting that one straight provided an obvious bad guy, too.

And Samsung v. Apple I also provides many obvious bad guys if you follow the case and understand the industry and read the patents. Apple's claims are garbage but Samsung had so much contempt for the process that they let their lawyers utterly fail to make the case. The judge lost control of the case and ended up with vague and useless jury instructions and a self-contradictory verdict (parts had to be retried recently). The jury foreman admitted to bias and misconduct in public interviews. The PTO keeps gyrating back and forth in 'final' decisions about the validity and meaning of claims to patents at issue. I never saw coverage anywhere else but Groklaw about most of the pathetic failures in the case.

Let's hope the Apple ][ and Apple /// cases are handled better.

The Motorola v. Microsoft case, on the other hand, revealed bizarre bias on the part of Groklaw. Even when Microsoft was obviously right, Groklaw manufactured sympathy for Googlerola on every issue.

But that's not really the question. The essential thing about Groklaw was that they would recruit volunteer reporters to go to court and make extensive and informative reports about what really happened they very same day. Nobody else's reporting ever came close.

pkill17• 13 years ago

I can't tell if this was an out of line assessment of the jury selection, or an actual description of what happened during deliberation...

The six-woman, two-man jury deliberated for part of three days before returning its verdict. During that time, the jury requested additional paper and pens and better lunch, as well as a copy of the sketches of them done by a courtroom artist.

As for the lawyers in the class; if a jury starts showing signs that they're overall uninterested in the trial (i.e.: asking for their courtroom portraits), what can litigators do to combat this? Is the only course to appeal for the case to be dismissed? Does it get retried if the jury is found to be negligent?

WildUtah3• 13 years ago

I miss Groklaw. The site owner used to recruit volunteers from the readers to go to the courtroom and write up accounts of the proceedings every day. It was more up to date and informative than the supposedly professional media outlets.

peterashford2• 13 years ago

Hells yeah - me too. Groklaw was IMO one of the biggest losses from the whole NSA spying saga.

shinratdr• 13 years ago

Wow, this is one of the worst threads I've seen on HN. Pretty much just /r/technology.

Jury: Samsung Owes Apple Another $290 Million

Related Stories