Why even have jury trials anymore?
Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.
Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice. Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.
Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.
Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.
Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?
The fact that some of the patents Apple used in the trial have been peliminarly ruled invalid on all claims is not going to help Apple in a new trial unless they can get the patents re-instated....
By the way, I am sure Apple appealed these rulings... Any news on where that stands????
In the end, Apple will have spent about as much as they get. And Samsung will have been handed the best advertising bang for the dollar that they could have ever hoped for....
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.
Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice. Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.
Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.
The problem is either party has a right to have a jury decide the case. Apple has a chance still on appeal in the Vimet case.
That was a "with prejudice" thing; they don't have an appeal.
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
She didn't overturn the juries willful infringement finding. She just didn't further determine there was objective willfullness, one of two parts needed (the other is subjective) for enhanced damages to be appropriate.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122908093/Denial-of-Enhancements
While a jury always determines the first prong, whether infringement was willful, the judge always determines the second:
Whether the infringer relied on a competent legal opinion they were not treading on another's IP. Judge Koh found that Samsung had a reasonable and supportable belief they were not guilty of infringement, even tho they were aware of the infringement claims by Apple.
In no way should that mean I support Samsung in this. I do not. It's just the factual opinion of the court.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.
Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?
Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish really hard... something magical WILL happen. 
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
PATENTS
In this case, she felt that anyone with knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents could be invalid, and thus there can be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.
Note that it does not matter for this part, whether Samsung thought they were invalid or not. It only matters what the judge thinks an objective observer would think.
So that knocked out extra damages for the patents.
TRADE DRESS
As for trade dress award enhancement, that is not done as punishment, but only to compensate for any extra loss that the jury award misses.
Here, the simple jury award form that Apple pushed so hard, later came back to haunt them. By lumping all awards together for each device, Apple could not later claim that the jury had not considered everything together in its award amounts.
Thus, no extra damages for trade dress, either.
So the original jury awards were left as they were, which was still much more than Apple themselves had valued their IP at... something most people don't realize.
I'm confused, wasn't this the same forum that was praising Koh a few months ago for her due diligence and love of American style justice?
Now she is the scum of the earth and apparently on the payroll of Samsung. The evidence you are presenting is overwhelming. /s
Sarcasm aside, for those who think Samsung is going to fork Android, they will not. They are branching out with a new OS called Tizen 2.0 - if they forked Android, they would doom themselves because they would cut themselves off from the Play store. Also, LG, HTC are not dead and are making good comebacks with some of their phones. The HTC One is due out soon and has a lot of good buzz going for it. LG has been on the receiving end of some good sales lately which is something they dearly needed.
All I have to say is that Cook needs to follow through on his "Good stuff coming soon" comment the other day and get a 46" Apple TV out there or even the Apple SmartWatch (before the Pebble and the others get a strong foothold) because the iPhone is slowly falling behind. The iPhone brand will always have it's loyal consumer base but the 1080p phones, the true multitasking and all the other neat innovations are happening right now (HTC's Zoe software looks really interesting) and Apple does not have anything in the pipe for the iPhone for another 6-7 months. I strongly believe they need to move to a 6 month cycle and start cutting their profit margins in order to stay in the game long term.
Except both devices would be commercial failures, leading to actual reason for Wall Street to be against Apple.
You're naive if you think that will shut them up. It will please them for a week, after which they will continue their bitching. Apple doesn't need to get anything "out". One bad product will damage their brand and do long term damage more than any kind of stock manipulation will. Then, the media, wallstreet , and consumers will REALLY eviscerate them.
In this case, she felt that anyone with knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents could be invalid, and thus there can be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.
Note that it does not matter for this part, whether Samsung thought they were invalid or not. It only matters what the judge thinks an objective observer would think.
So that knocked out extra damages for the patents.
TRADE DRESS
As for trade dress award enhancement, that is not done as punishment, but only to compensate for any extra loss that the jury award misses.
Here, the simple jury award form that Apple pushed so hard, later came back to haunt them. By lumping all awards together for each device, Apple could not later claim that the jury had not considered everything together in its award amounts.
Thus, no extra damages for trade dress, either.
So the original jury awards were left as they were, which was still much more than Apple themselves had valued their IP at... something most people don't realize.
Are you referring to this current judgement?
If so, I re-read it again and se nothing about what you stated above. Actually Apple will be awarded supplemental damages. Ko just did not dise with the way Apple wanted to calculate supplemental damages (As a proportion of all infringing devices v. the exact amount of sales for each infringing device that was sold sold after the original trial). However, since there are still appeals and the fact that sales numbers on these devices are not know or avail to the court to make this determination, she will wait until the appeal process completes before hearing evidence on this.
Also, I see nothing about the award form causing an issue or affecting how any of her determinations were made. The issue's for a re-trial on damages being necessary were two fold:
1) The Galaxy Previal (I incorrectly mentioned the Samsung Fascinate above) was only found to infringe on utility patents. However, her determination was that the award was made on lost profits or included lost profits in the calculation. Lost profits are not legally permitted for solely a utility patent infringement. Since it was much higher then the compensation Apple requested, the fact Apple did not provide an amount for a reasonable Royalty, and since there is no way to determine what would be considered the excess (i.e. amount just attributed to lost profits), a new trial was ordered to determine damages for this item.
2) As far as the other damages that were set aside, it was due to the fact that Apple's expert stated starting damage amounts for ALL infringing devices/patents based on the 1st notice date on Aug 4, 2010. However, her determination was that Apple did disclose one specific patent on that date and she could not find any proof that Samsung was told specifically that they were infringing on the other patents at that time. Only that Apple mentioned that they were infringing on other patents (not specifically what those patents were) until April 15, 2011. Since the Experts numbers were based on the Aug 4, 2010 start date and the fact that the jury's award was an exact percentage to the dollar, based on those figures, the Jury's award took into account infringement for certain patents during the period where judge Ko determined there wasn't any infringement due to insufficient notice (Between 2010-2011). Since Apple's expert did not break down sales figures and damages by Samsungs devices within this period (were only broken down by fiscal quarter), there was no way for Ko to make the correction. Thus, a new trial for damages on those devices.
3) Apple asked for extra damages wich were denied. The basis was that Apple stated that the award should be increased since the Jury awarded less then the amount by Samsungs own expert. It was only denied because there is a longstanding rule that the 7th amendment prohibits judicial increases to awards made by a jury. In addition, the Jury is not bound by the amounts given by any expert.
In regard to #2, there could be good reason for the lack of any proof of earlier notification. Did Judge Ko and other forget about all the document shredding Samsung was doing prior to the trial? On this alone she would of had reason to side with Apple and deny Samsung their motion. IMO, the onus should have been on Samsung to prove in some way that they were never notified since the court could have claimed that there was a high probability that they destroyed evidence to the contrary.
Also, Lucy Ko's actions of making both parties pair down their cases played a part in this as well. I would have figured that first there would have been determinations made as to the each patent and their corresponding "infringement dates". As well as hearings on sales figures etc within those dates for both sides. Then there would have been a trial to determine if in fact either party infringed on each other patents and the award dates and sales figures would have been pre-determined from the prior hearings.
Are you referring to this current judgement?
Nope. As noted, I was responding to the question about willfulness that she ruled on at the end of January.
Several people had wondered how a judge could "change" what the jury said. (The short answer is that she didn't change their finding. However the jury is only part of the overall legal requirement for willfulness.)
Sad, but true. At the end of the day, in business as in war, it's not about the fairness of it.
Which is why I've come to the conclusion -- despite the fact that it rankles some folks here no end, and I myself find it a bit distasteful -- that Apple has to truly ratchet up its game.
'Mr. Nice Guy' doesn't cut it much anymore. That was one lesson that SJ seemed to have taken to heart (after his ignominious losses to MSFT) and never compromised on during his second stint. The current management somehow does not signal the same resolve, at least not to me.
Because of its incorrect, nationalist, long-disproven nature.
Because that's something that could actually be the case, unlike your claims.
Where? If you see that sort of thing, report it.
Yet just a few months ago, some people thought she was a California business friendly, Samsung hating judge who overruled their pleas to include important evidence.
People can be so fickle.
Quote:
Works both ways. If the jurors had spent more time (as was expected), their results might not have been so screwy, and the court's time might not have been wasted with another trial.
What I wonder is, cannot the jurors be summoned back and asked for clarification? Or are they too tainted now by finding out the things they missed?
1- The same guys that praised Koh when her decisions were anti-Samsung now despise her. You guys are totally sane of mind, it's obvious.
2- Those same guys obviously have only read the title (kind of misleading), and definitely not the contents...
You know, either you consider that you have to trust Justice and stop whining when Koh's decision don't flatter your sense of what should be, either you just disregard Justice and consider that big business is just a matter of who has most power, and you stop whining.
Either way, stop whining :D
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
They're both right, TS. What you're doing and writing here could actually get you prosecuted... It's a really nasty thing to consider people based on their origins, or to smear people because their decisions do not fit your view of the world...
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Fine. Enjoy being a laughingstock for all eternity.
For… removing potentially racist posts? I don't think so.
The frick am I doing and writing here?!
Man this thing is dragging out. Why do people on this forum care so much about this, I really would like to know. It's just two heartless multi-billion dollar entities going after each other and has zero baring on our lives personally. Yet the lot of you defend Apple as if they were part of your immediate family. No company is above reproach and I'm absolutely positive that if you cracked opened Apples basement all kinds of unsettling things would come oozing out. However once a person buys an Apple product they feel like they just joined a magical club or something instantly turning them into a self righteous douche-bag.
Apple doesn't care about you, if you like their products great keep the conversations about that. Once we start passing judgment on other companies and the people involved that supposedly wronged Apple in some way makes it turns us into grade A a**holes. We never have all the facts to these things, we don't know what questionable things Apple themselves has done so can we please stop it. This lawsuit has nothing to do on how we use or how we can better use or computers which is the whole reason why a lot of us come here. Leave the gossip to the tabloids please.
Legalized intellectual property theft doesn't have bearing on consumers? Really?
This is completely and utterly meaningless. No.
Legalized intellectual property theft doesn't have bearing on consumers? Really?
This is completely and utterly meaningless. No.
Legalized, a little melodramatic aren't we and Samsung was found liable so they didn't get away with it. The statement wasn't useless as members of this forum are very biased when it comes to other company's Apple is legally engaged in. Apple isn't all puppy dogs and rainbows, they sell inanimate objects and are not curing cancer so my question of who cares is still opened. What will be said if Motorola, Samsung or any of the others win their suits against Apple, I guarantee it will be something on the lines of unfair or the jury were idiots.
