or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple motion for Samsung device injunction, tosses jury misconduct claims
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Apple motion for Samsung device injunction, tosses jury misconduct claims

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Apple on Monday was denied a motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung products found to be in infringement of certain design and utility patents, while a Samsung motion for a retrial on the basis of jury misconduct was also denied.

Samsung Phones


In a pair of rulings on Monday, Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request to permanently ban sales of 26 Samsung products a jury found to infringe on patents owned by the Cupertino, Calif., company as part of a $1.05 billion decision in August. The jurist also struck down a motion from Samsung requesting a new trial be held due to alleged jury misconduct.

Judge Koh said that in weighing the factors and arguments presented by Apple, she found no causal link that justifies an injunction against the infringing devices. Apple claimed that it suffered monetary injury from Samsung's infringement of six utility and design patents, including revenue from lost customers and downstream sales. Judge Koh concluded, however, that the arguments were not strong enough to justify a sales ban.

"Apple must have lost these sales because Samsung infringed Apple?s patents," she wrote in the order. "Apple has simply not been able to make this showing."

Judge Koh noted that it would not be in the public's best interest if consumers to deprive them the right to buy Samsung products when only a limited number of features were found to be infringement. She went on to point out that the two parties' status as direct competitors also does not justify an injunction.

From Judge Koh's order:

In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung?s illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution), Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple?s motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED.


According to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple will undoubtedly appeal the ruling as it is highly unusual for a motion to be denied in full despite having multiple findings of infringement from a federal jury.



As for the Samsung's claims of jury misconduct, which were aimed squarely against jury foreman Velvin Hogan, Judge Koh said the juror's post-verdict statements do not constitute extraneous prejudicial information, a requirement for taking them into consideration.

Explaining her decision, Judge Koh wrote that a juror?s understanding of court instructions is not considered "extraneous prejudicial information." If the Court were to hear testimony regarding how jurors understood the instructions, the action would be in opposition of the ?crucial assumption? that serves as the basis of the U.S. jury system. As per a Supreme Court case ruling, a verdict cannot be changed based on allegations that the jury may not have understood a court's instructions.

From the juror misconduct order:

In sum, the integrity of the jury system and the Federal Rules of Evidence demand that the Court not consider Mr. Hogan?s post-verdict statements concerning the jury?s decision-making process. None of the cases Samsung cites suggests otherwise. Because the Court cannot consider these inadmissible statements in determining whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, there is no evidence properly before the Court to require such a hearing. Instead, the Court must apply the well established presumption that the jury followed the law.




Monday's orders are the first post-trial decisions in the Apple and Samsung's ongoing California litigation. The two companies are also involved in a separate case being heard in the same court involving the alleged infringement of a number of utility patents.
post #2 of 47
I'm a tad confused about the injunction thing. If the items are in violation shouldn't they be banned from sales.

Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.

So perhaps its not that odd a move.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #3 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

I'm a tad confused about the injunction thing. If the items are in violation shouldn't they be banned from sales.
Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.
So perhaps its not that odd a move.

 

She's not saying Samsung didn't do anything wrong or that Apple isn't entitled to some form of damages. She's just saying a permanent injunction is denied, meaning she probably thinks a monetary stettlement is more suitable than an injunction.

 

It's a win for Samsung as there's no pressure on them to settle with Apple without the threat os sales bans.

 

The bigger news is the jury mis-conduct ruling. Just think of all the nerd raging going on tonight as haters everywhere are in complete dis-belief that Samsung's attempts to discredit Hogan and the jury didn't amount to a hill of beans.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #4 of 47

If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?

post #5 of 47
So in short%u2026it's OK to steal. Glad she cleared that up.
post #6 of 47
So no misconduct on the jury's part? Let the lamentations of the Samsung apologists begin.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

So no misconduct on the jury's part? Let the lamentations of the Samsung apologists begin.

 

Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.

post #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?

 

Correct, Apple is adding the GS3 and other new Samsung devices to their other patent lawsuit due for trial next year, which as it turns out, Judge Koh is also presiding over.  

 

As for this case, her injunction denial noted that 23 of the 26 infringing devices were no longer sold, and the remaining three had patent workarounds in progress.  Furthermore, those three did not infringe on Apple's trade dress, so Apple could not continue to claim trade dress dilution.

 

As for stopping sales of those three because of past infringement, she pointed out that since Apple had been willing to license the patents to Samsung, Apple could not later claim that they had always wanted exclusivity.  Also, Apple did not prove that anyone bought Samsung devices just because they had things like bounce back.  Thus, monetary compensation should be sufficient. 

post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Correct, Apple is adding the GS3 and other new Samsung devices to their other patent lawsuit due for trial next year, which as it turns out, Judge Koh is also presiding over.   I suspect she's not lovig that anymore.

 

As for this case, her injunction denial noted that 23 of the 26 infringing devices were no longer sold, and the remaining three had patent workarounds in progress.  Furthermore, those three did not infringe on Apple's trade dress, so Apple could not continue to claim trade dress dilution.

 

As for stopping sales of those three because of past infringement, she pointed out that since Apple had been willing to license the patents to Samsung, Apple could not later claim that they had always wanted exclusivity.  Also, Apple did not prove that anyone bought Samsung devices just because they had things like bounce back.  Thus, monetary compensation should be sufficient. 


Thanks.

 

But my point is this: Is it worth Apple's trouble to appeal this and fight for sales ban of old products?

post #10 of 47

What ever happened with Apple's request for additional damages of ~$500M on top of the $1B?

 

I'm hoping Apple can also bring a case against Samsung on the Chromebook, that thing looks like a copy of the MacBook Air. Samsung has no shame about ripping off Apple's products. I wish I worked in Samsung's R&D group, and could just get paid for spending time surfing Apple's website.

post #11 of 47
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post
I'm hoping Apple can also bring a case against Samsung on the Chromebook, that thing looks like a copy of the MacBook Air. Samsung has no shame about ripping off Apple's products. I wish I worked in Samsung's R&D group, and could just get paid for spending time surfing Apple's website.

 

It really seems like it'd be cheaper and easier for Apple to just poison the entirety of Samsung's executive and "design" teams, since laws seem to be protecting only thieves these days.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

But my point is this: Is it worth Apple's trouble to appeal this and fight for sales ban of old products?

 

Oh, I see, you said to appeal.  Most companies wouldn't even try, but Apple's lawyers don't give up easily.  They have previously appealed her rejection of an injunction -- and they ended up getting it before the trial started.

 

And there's this:  Apple's injunction request was very broad and included all future devices that used their patent.  You have to figure that they would love to still try to get leverage that's that powerful. 

 

Still, I don't think an appeal would get such a broad result, so the most they'd get would be just the S2 ban.  Whattaya think?   Doesn't seem worth the trouble, considering they have another trial coming up soon.  IIRC, discovery for that is due to be finished by Feb 2013 or so (already extended from right now).  Too much work to do!

post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Judge Koh noted that it would not be in the public's best interest if consumers to deprive them the right to buy Samsung products when only a limited number of features were found to be infringement.

OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

So no misconduct on the jury's part? Let the lamentations of the Samsung apologists begin.

except for the small matter of a BILLION DOLLARS.

post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.

Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.

post #16 of 47

Judge Koh's orders are an island of sanity in a sea of shit.

post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

She's not saying Samsung didn't do anything wrong or that Apple isn't entitled to some form of damages. She's just saying a permanent injunction is denied, meaning she probably thinks a monetary stettlement is more suitable than an injunction.

 

It's a win for Samsung as there's no pressure on them to settle with Apple without the threat os sales bans.

 

The bigger news is the jury mis-conduct ruling. Just think of all the nerd raging going on tonight as haters everywhere are in complete dis-belief that Samsung's attempts to discredit Hogan and the jury didn't amount to a hill of beans.

What's a hill of beans? Never heard/read that one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2stepbay View Post

So in short%u2026it's OK to steal. Glad she cleared that up.

I thought she said it's not ok to steal but Samsung did not steal. Might have misunderstood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

It really seems like it'd be cheaper and easier for Apple to just poison the entirety of Samsung's executive and "design" teams, since laws seem to be protecting only thieves these days.

Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

Judge Koh's orders are an island of sanity in a sea of shit.

Actually, most court orders I've read until now were quite sane. That includes the UK judge who bashed Apple for playing stupid, which was all the more ridiculous that his initial position was clearly in favor of Apple.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.

Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...

 

I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging.  It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...

 

By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.

 

Get real.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...

 

You do know that she is of Korean background.

 

You want her to die twice, or what?

 

Maybe they can make a new TV series, M*A*S*H crossed with Hogan's Heroes.

 

Samsung's lawyers can be Colonel Klink and Sergeant Shultz.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Thanks.

 

But my point is this: Is it worth Apple's trouble to appeal this and fight for sales ban of old products?

 

According to Foss Patents, a permanent injunction would have given Apple leverage since they could then ask the court to add new products to the list so long as they can demonstrate that they have the same infringing features. In other words, Samsung would need to keep applying the workarounds. With a damages award, theoretically Samsung can continue to infringe, racking up damages along the way. It becomes, in effect, a pricier licensing agreement.

 

Koh has been reluctant to grant sales bans from the beginning. It took an appellate court ruling to get the temporary injunctions.

post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.

 

As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again.  Glad they have Internet in the waiting room.  Anyway...

 

In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.

 

Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.

 

No, but you're on the right track.  It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product.  For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent?   No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.

 

Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone.   To quote Judge Koh's denial:

 

Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):

 

“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.

 

The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.

 

Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."

post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...

 

I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging.  It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...

 

By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.

 

Get real.


Over the top rant warning.

post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

I'm a tad confused about the injunction thing. If the items are in violation shouldn't they be banned from sales.
Of course she's just opening it up for Apple to appeal over her head, just as Samsung will likely do in regards to the general order so perhaps that is her logic. Let it wait until as high as it can go and if Apple is still the winner let them file again where there's no chance of a reversal and Samsung suing Apple for lost sales.
So perhaps its not that odd a move.

 

 

The Supreme Court came out with a case a while ago that a lot of Courts are interpreting to mean injunctions aren't proper when money will compensate for the use. So while Samsung was found to violate the patents, the Judge thinks money will make Apple whole. Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use. 

post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again.  Glad they have Internet in the waiting room.  Anyway...

 

In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.

 

Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.

 

 

No, but you're on the right track.  It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product.  For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent?   No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.

 

Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone.   To quote Judge Koh's denial:

 

Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):

 

“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.

 

The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.

 

Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."


It did come down to her sense of the 'infringement sum', and that Apple did not 'prove' that the infringing devices were selected over the Apple devices. From what I read, this will is a tricky ruling that will be studied closely as this will affect future IP rulings. Would it have been better if this was not a trial by jury for the precedence aspects?

post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Can someone explain this jury qualification thing to me? Here, you end up in a jury pool and your number is drawn. Either side can reject a certain number of potential jurors but there's no scope for ascertaining their background.

 

 

The issue was each side got to ask the potential jurors questions to figure out who to disqualify. Supposedly, one of the questions had to do with whether the jurors had ever been involved in any civil litigation (or something similar). The Hogan guy allegedly said he hadn't been involved in any litigation. He later claimed he thought the questions asked if he had been in any litigation in the last 10 years. I am not sure we really know who was right or wrong there. Anyway, turns out he had been sued by Seagate, which caused him to file bankruptcy. Seagate later became owned by Samsung. So, Samsung's claim is that because Samsung owns Seagate and Seagate sued Hogan, Hogan likely feels distain towards Samsung. He than allegedly used that distain to get the other jurors to rule in Apple's favor. 

post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

As chance would have it, I just called up for jury duty again.  Glad they have Internet in the waiting room.  Anyway...

 

In order to decide whom to reject, potential jurors are questioned about many things, including their background and past associations.

 

Lawyers these days will even Google jurors on the spot.

 

 

No, but you're on the right track.  It depends on how important and how much those features are to the overall product.  For example, would you ban an entire automobile with click-feedback steering wheel audio controls, just because it infringed on a click-feedback steering wheel audio control patent?   No, it's not only a small part, but there's no way to prove / believe that people bought that car just because it had click-feedback.

 

Likewise, the bounceback etc patents were a small part of all the thousands of piece of a smartphone.   To quote Judge Koh's denial:

 

Finally, this Court has previously noted the relevance to the present situation of Justice Kennedy’s observation in (a previous case):

 

“When the patented invention is but a small component of the product thecompanies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”547 U.S. at 396-97.

 

The phones at issue in this case contain a broad range of features, only a small fraction of which are covered by Apple’s patents. Though Apple does have some interest inretaining certain features as exclusive to Apple, it does not follow that entire products must beforever banned from the market because they incorporate, among their myriad features, a few narrow protected functions.

 

Especially given the lack of causal nexus, the fact that none of thepatented features is core to the functionality of the accused products makes an injunctionparticularly inappropriate here."

 

 

Good explanation. Part of the problem though with Judge Koh's conclusion is that she forced both parties to whittle their patent claims way down to just a handful of patents. This was to make it easier for the jury to understand the issues. Consequently, this was just the first of what likely will be several trials. For instance, Judge Koh is presiding over a second trial as well.

 

So, on one hand it may be true that the patents at issue in this case only make up a small part of the product, but on the other hand Judge Koh forced the parties to narrow the number or patents at issue. Had Apple been allowed to keep all its initial patents as part of this trial and had Samsung been found to violate those patents, the scope of Apple's patents at issue would have ben much greater. 

post #27 of 47
Samsung smartphones before iPhone, as always "ignored" on purpose by AI -dishonest and misleading- "illustration"...


Samsung SGH-F700, introduced at the 3GSM World Congress in February 2007 and demoed at the Cebit 2006... Mentioning facts surely deserve a ban...
Edited by Sensi - 12/18/12 at 6:59am
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


The Supreme Court came out with a case a while ago that a lot of Courts are interpreting to mean injunctions aren't proper when money will compensate for the use. So while Samsung was found to violate the patents, the Judge thinks money will make Apple whole. Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use. 

That appears to be the key issue.

Issuing a permanent injunction is reasonable (and allowed by a recent Supreme Court decision) if, and only if, a cash payment will not make the patent holder whole. It would be up to Apple to prove that they would never license those patents under any terms to anyone in order to justify an injunction. Since they were willing to license the patents to HTC, it is difficult, if not impossible to make that claim. This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).

As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.

The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post Part of what is weighing against Apple in that regard, is the fact that Apple agreed to license its patents to HTC. When a company licenses a patent to another, it is essentially saying money is enough to compensate it for the use. 

They also licensed those same patents to Nokia and IBM according to a "prominent patent blogger".

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Samsung smartphones before iPhone, as always "ignored" on purpose by AI -dishonest and misleading- "illustration"...


Samsung SGH-F700, introduced at the 3GSM World Congress in February 2007 and demoed at the Cebit 2006... Mentioning facts surely deserve a ban...

It's ignored because it's a myth. It wasn't Cebit 2006 it was actually Cebit 2007. This is just a rumour spread around to rouse the easily lead.

Even the Androidcommunity.com website debunks your attempts to claim that this phone came before the iPhone.

 

http://androidcommunity.com/who-was-really-first-apple-vs-samsung-story-truly-debunked-20110420/

 

OK, facts restored. Find a new angle to whinge about Fandroid.

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Reading this, it feels like some hurt kid complaining about the teacher, it really does...

 

I think Judge Koh is a very good Judge, and I find the way Apple fanboys here have been bashing her for every decision she's made that's not fanning over Apple seriously deranging.  It feels like the problem to you guys is she's not ordering every Korean in the US put to the sword, and hence she's a traitor and should die...

 

By your own standards, Apple should stop operating immediately for having swindled customers for years with a "buy" button in iTunes that actually doesn't allow you to buy stuff, but only to get a lifelong license to use that stuff personally, and should payout all of their money to those customers, and also issue an apology.

 

Get real.

Whenever there's a ruling, the click through links provide quotes indicating some amount of explanation behind a given ruling. Most of the time the rants on here are simply bias without any kind of reason. The two aren't comparable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

You do know that she is of Korean background.

It has been mentioned enough times. She is of Korean descent. It really shouldn't anger people.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).

Such as test would have only applied to a portion of those tested.

post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

If I am not mistaken, the case they tried in California did not include Galaxy S III? In that case, how important is the sales ban on Galaxy II and other non-current products?

 

That's a good point. If all the products are basically off the shelves anyway there's no point to an injunction. If Samsung tries to revive them without any changes then slap them down cause they know that's a huge no no. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Yeah, well, anyone who thought Samsung would get any traction on that one, especially since they knew the guy's background going in, was living in a fantasy world.

 

Samsung's argument was that they didn't know it. Because he didn't properly answer the question. So they could have gotten some traction. Of course if they are allowed to search public record on the potential jurists and the guy's name would have popped up easy peasy and they didn't take that action then it is rather on them. So long as the guy answered the questions properly and didn't perjure himself or such. If the record shows that they asked the question he claimed and there was no doubt as to the question and he didn't answer as asked then he would have been in trouble. So my guess is that they didn't ask a firmly clear question in the view of the Judge. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


OK, now I understand. Only if an unlimited number of features are infringing may an injunction be granted.

 

Not at all. A ban can be based on one feature. But Judges tend to limit such bans based on the nature of the feature and other factors. Especially if they know the banned party is going to turn around and appeal and drag out the case. 

 

In this particular case the factors were

1. Apple was awarded a huge cash payment for damages

2. Apple couldn't prove that they would truly be wounded by the 3 items still being on sale in terms of lost sales for their products

3. Apple couldn't prove that anyone was buying Samsung's stuff strictly because of this patent's product

4. Apple had been willing to license said patent to Samsung so they aren't opposed to it being in said phones (just that it wasn't paid for)

5. Samsung claims they are working around the issue to remove it. If they don't in a timely fashion Apple can always kick it back to the courts that they are in contempt and dragging their heads etc. At which point an injunction might be granted at least until Samsung can show a ready for market device that isn't infringing. 

 

and so on. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).

As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.

 

Even though it might make them look like school kids there is always the argument that the patent isn't FRAND and thus they have every right to license and deny to whomever they want and it shouldn't matter that they said yes to this group and not to this other since that is within their legal rights regarding a non SEP. The HTC argument has the odor of saying that in fact all patents must be licensed to everyone that wants it if you license to one group even if they aren't a SEP and thus under FRAND. 

 

re: your aside, the reason for the lack of injunctions on FRAND items is that they are generally things that are vital to making said products which is why FRAND exists at all on those patents. Asking for an injunction on something you refused to license to someone to block them out of the market or you are trying to squeeze them is a total douche bag type move and the courts are saying no way to it. You are required to license and do so fairly so you will take the money (per the courts decision on fairness etc) and be happy. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That appears to be the key issue.
Issuing a permanent injunction is reasonable (and allowed by a recent Supreme Court decision) if, and only if, a cash payment will not make the patent holder whole. It would be up to Apple to prove that they would never license those patents under any terms to anyone in order to justify an injunction. Since they were willing to license the patents to HTC, it is difficult, if not impossible to make that claim. This is a reasonable interpretation, although Apple certainly had the opportunity to try to show that licensing to HTC couldn't hurt them but licensing to Samsung would (perhaps due to Samsung's eagerness to make slavish copies of Apple products).
As an aside, that is essentially the reason why no one has been able to get an injunction based on FRAND patents, at least in the US (and in Europe which apparently has similar rules). If you're willing to license your patents, you can't argue that a judgment for reasonable fees is insufficient and an injunction is required.
The really surprising thing here is that this is the second judge who said that Apple was never able to prove that market confusion cost them sales. They couldn't find someone to testify that they had planned to buy an iPad but bought a Tab instead because it looked so much like an iPad? Both courts were apparently looking for that kind of smoking gun. Neither judge was willing to accept expert testimony in the matter. And, in the case of Koh, it wasn't enough for the attorneys to be unable to distinguish the products. Apple actually had to prove that some number of people bought Samsung products instead of Apple products due to the patent infringement. That's an extremely high barrier (and possibly an unreasonably high barrier).

 

I agree that it is strange Apple couldn't find evidence to show market confusion. I for one was standing at Best Buy at the front of the store waiting for somebody last year. There was a Samsung display with a phone that looked remarkably like the iPhone. While I stood there for about five minutes, at least two people referred to the phone as an iPhone. 

post #37 of 47
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying: theft is being rewarded, doing the right thing is being punished. Something illegal would have resolved the dishonorable actions of Samsung faster and with more certainty than something legal.

 

Irony.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They also licensed those same patents to Nokia and IBM according to a "prominent patent blogger".

 

Not sure how the blogger would have access to confidential settlements that weren't made public, like the HTC settlement. Nonetheless, I am not sure Apple could be considered to willingly (at least in the true sense of the word) license anything to Nokia since they were both going toe to toe in a big patent fight. Nokia had a lot of guns. The way Apple described the settlement, is that it licensed some lessor important patents to Nokia. On the other hand, HTC was getting its butt kicked by Apple in the Courts. 

post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Even though it might make them look like school kids there is always the argument that the patent isn't FRAND and thus they have every right to license and deny to whomever they want and it shouldn't matter that they said yes to this group and not to this other since that is within their legal rights regarding a non SEP. The HTC argument has the odor of saying that in fact all patents must be licensed to everyone that wants it if you license to one group even if they aren't a SEP and thus under FRAND. 

It goes to the Supreme Court ruling. An injunction can only be issued in cases where cash won't recompense the patent owner. There is a presumption that willingness to license SOME companies is evidence that cash does make up for use of the patent.

Apple certainly had the option to try to prove why licensing it to Samsung was different (and, as I indicated in the post you were responding to, there is even a decent argument for that). They apparently failed to do so convincingly, so the court accepted that "money is sufficient remedy".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I agree that it is strange Apple couldn't find evidence to show market confusion. I for one was standing at Best Buy at the front of the store waiting for somebody last year. There was a Samsung display with a phone that looked remarkably like the iPhone. While I stood there for about five minutes, at least two people referred to the phone as an iPhone. 

I agree completely. There were public comments from people who bought Samsung products thinking they were Apple products. In fact, I think Samsung even presented evidence that a significant percentage of their customers were confused and thought they were buying an iPad. That aside, Apple failed to prove it to the judge's satisfaction in both cases where it came up, so either Apple was unable to prove the point or the standards set by the judges were too high.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #40 of 47
Quote:

Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 

Sure seems like something Apple would do, being the good guys and all.

 

 

I'm going to take it that this is as beautifully sarcastic as I think it is? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple motion for Samsung device injunction, tosses jury misconduct claims