or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge whittles Apple v. Samsung case down as Schiller concludes testimony [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge whittles Apple v. Samsung case down as Schiller concludes testimony [u]

post #1 of 97
Thread Starter 
Continuing the Apple v. Samsung retrial, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Friday entered a motion that takes four patents-in-suit out of consideration for damages on lost profits, while Apple's Phil Schiller further explained how his company was harmed by Samsung's copycat devices.



Judge Koh ruled Apple cannot pursue damages due to lost profits for four out of the five patents leveraged in the retrial, though the inventions are still in play in regard to Samsung profits and possible royalties.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple complied with a pretrial order not to bring the four properties up for argument in regard to the $114 million it is seeking for lost profits, making Koh's order somewhat of a formality. The company, therefore, has one patent-in-suit for lost profits -- the '915 patent for "pinch-to-zoom" -- on which the jury can decide an appropriate payout.

Apple and Samsung are currently duking out a retrial over damages Judge Koh vacated in March after she found the Apple v. Samsung jury to have inaccurately calculated awards applied to 13 Samsung devices.

As for Schiller, the Apple executive finished up his testimony from Thursday, saying Samsung's copying of the iPhone and iPad's designs diluted the Cupertino company's cachet. According to in-court reports from Reuters, Schiller drilled home the idea that Samsung's patent infringement hurt Apple not only in the short term, but hurt consumer trust in the company

"It's much harder to create demand and people question our innovation and design skills like people never used to," Schiller said. "[Samsung] weakened the world view of Apple as this great designer and innovator."

Samsung counsel William Price went on the offensive in cross-examining Schiller, brining into question the validity of Apple's design patents.

"Apple doesn't own a patent on a product being beautiful or sexy, isn't that correct?" Price asked.

"The industry does tend to follow trends of products that are doing well," Schiller replied.

Price went further, hinting that the iPad mini was a direct response to Samsung's small-size tablet offerings.

"[The mini] had nothing to do with competition," Schiller said. "We were simply trying to make our product better."

Bressler Testimony
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad. Before Judge Koh ruled that Apple could not seek damages for lost profits on four patents, the Cupertino company was seeking roughly $380 million from Samsung. For its part, Samsung admits infringement, but sees damages at a much less substantial $52 million.

As of this writing, Samsung is calling expert witnesses to the stand. So far, testimony has been in regard to correct damages payouts and Apple' production capabilities at the time of Samsung's infringement.

Judge Koh said witness testimony should conclude on Monday, with final arguments from both parties to be offered on Tuesday. The jury will then deliberate and render a verdict in due course.

Editor's Note: This article has been updated to clarify Apple's four patents are not to be considered for lost profits only, and are still active in other facets of the case.
post #2 of 97
Feels like we've done this before.

"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 #3 of 97

Wow. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see her consulting for Samsung in the coming years.

post #4 of 97
Was there no merit to the 4 patents she dismissed?
She obviously does not care that this looks biased, but is she legally correct to do so?
post #5 of 97

So with Samsung admitting guilt, does it mean that there is no appeal possible? Yes, they may appeal the damage, but will they be able to appeal the "guilty" verdict from the first trial? Any I will never buy a product from Samscrum.

post #6 of 97
From her comments, I think she already is consulting for Samsung Bruce ;-)
post #7 of 97

Thankfully, the Rockstar patent suits are being held in Texas. Koh is a bad judge, IMO.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #8 of 97
Just when you think the judge has reached the bottom she hits you with a lower lowest. Incredible how shortsighted she's allowed to be.
post #9 of 97
By the time this is done she'll co-opt the jury and award Apple 99 cents in damages. Advantage, Korea. Only the lawyers will have won.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #10 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype View Post

Judge Koh sounds like a Samsung shill. Maybe she's defending her asians.

 

There's no call for racism.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MazeCookie View Post

Judge Koh is the first District Court Judge of Korean descent. Coincidence? I think not.

 

Same goes for you.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 97
Like Charles Dickens' "Bleak House," after years of wrangling the matter is exhausted and the plaintiff is left with a victory and no money left to claim. What a ridiculous exercise in legal futility!
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #13 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

Same goes for you.

Please explain how linking somebody with Korean descent to a Korean company is racism.

post #14 of 97

She's slipping. She could have canned the four patents before the retrial she ordered because she didn't like the first one even started, like she renders her verdicts.

post #15 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonl View Post
 

She's slipping. She could have canned the four patents before the retrial she ordered because she didn't like the first one even started, like she renders her verdicts.

 

I agree. Apple should pursue this matter further under a different judge.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 97
The 2 real questions are:

1: why didn't this judge make this ruling a long time ago?

2: Why is this judge still a judge?

What a joke.
post #17 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Like Charles Dickens' "Bleak House," after years of wrangling the matter is exhausted and the plaintiff is left with a victory and no money left to claim. What a ridiculous exercise in legal futility!

 

One has to wonder what the value of patents are if judges fail to allow companies and individuals to properly defend them. 

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #18 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

There's no call for racism.

 

Oh please. She's Korean and is shilling for a Korean company. That SHOULD raise some eyebrows.

post #19 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MazeCookie View Post

Judge Koh is the first District Court Judge of Korean descent. Coincidence? I think not.

Wow, a good number of people on this and other sites loved her last year, thinking she was hard on samsung. Now, after this, she becomes nothing more than a biased Korean? Wow.
post #20 of 97
So ashamed wife gotNote3, sole reason screen size, time for Apple to copy Samsung
post #21 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD MBA View Post

Wow, a good number of people on this and other sites loved her last year, thinking she was hard on samsung. Now, after this, she becomes nothing more than a biased Korean? Wow.

Koreans are cool, Samsung not so much
post #22 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

One has to wonder what the value of patents are if judges fail to allow companies and individuals to properly defend them. 

 

The gentry class only likes battles between the rich killing the poor (pulling down the powerless), rich on rich they never want to enforce anything.

post #23 of 97

Apple really needs to put Ben Bernanke on the board (as some financial adviser) as he is near the retirement from the FED!  This will resolve all the issues (From WS bashing to Copycat companies) :err: 

post #24 of 97
This argument ' Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad.' , leads me to believe the Samsubg is 'as good or better' than the Apple. My HTC looks like that design but is admittedly a lower tier hardware device. So, no valid argument based on design. This is akin to comparing the Ford Fusion grille to the Aston Martin. Can Aston claim lost sales to a Ford just because the grille design is an obvious ripoff? I think not.
post #25 of 97
This argument ' Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad.' , leads me to believe the Samsubg is 'as good or better' than the Apple. My HTC looks like that design but is admittedly a lower tier hardware device. So, no valid argument based on design. This is akin to comparing the Ford Fusion grille to the Aston Martin. Can Aston claim lost sales to a Ford just because the grille design is an obvious ripoff? I think not.
post #26 of 97
Not so sure that the comments about Judge Koh are racist in the strictest sense. She's not being denigrated because of some perceived inferiority based on her race. She's being accused of being biased because of a race-based conflict of interest. Psychology has long shown that people instinctively cut others slack if they share some profound commonality with them. Judges obviously have to fight against this in themselves constantly. But because the argument is between two parties who represent Korean and American interests, even the perception of bias should be avoided. A wise Judge would put that perception before any ego-based impulse to prove that her racial/cultural background does not effect her fairness.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #27 of 97
This makes no sense. Samsung previously tried to have major portions thrown out because Apple patents wee being reexamined by the USPTO and were "temporarily" invalid. Koh ruled against Samsung basically because the patents were valid at the time of the trial and there was no way to know if they would eventually be invalidated or stay valid in full or part.

I'd like to hear her reasons. Is there any source posted yet that goes into this in detail?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #28 of 97
So I thought this case was purely about damages for the patents, which a jury already found Samsung guilty of infringing, which Samsung's attorneys came out and admitted.

So where does removing four of them fit into the scheme of things?

Now that the Jusge has brought ruling on infringement of patents back to the table, Apple should introduce more of them.
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 #29 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedupenuf View Post

This argument ' Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad.' , leads me to believe the Samsubg is 'as good or better' than the Apple. My HTC looks like that design but is admittedly a lower tier hardware device. So, no valid argument based on design. This is akin to comparing the Ford Fusion grille to the Aston Martin. Can Aston claim lost sales to a Ford just because the grille design is an obvious ripoff? I think not.

Ford owns Aston Martin. So Aston can't claim anything.
post #30 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez Whitey View Post

So ashamed wife gotNote3, sole reason screen size, time for Apple to copy Samsung

Might FaceTime wife on her iPad and laugh at your puny, tiny expensive Note 3 which you can poke with a stick.
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 #31 of 97
The only interesting question raised by today's ruling was "WHY" did four patents get tossed? AI totally failed to address that point. But old topics were rehashed. Par for the course.
post #32 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

This makes no sense. Samsung previously tried to have major portions thrown out because Apple patents wee being reexamined by the USPTO and were "temporarily" invalid. Koh ruled against Samsung basically because the patents were valid at the time of the trial and there was no way to know if they would eventually be invalidated or stay valid in full or part.

I'd like to hear her reasons. Is there any source posted yet that goes into this in detail?
Eric, here you go:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0J01S120131115?irpc=932
post #33 of 97
So Samsung still guilty of infringing those four patents and will pay damages for having done so. Judge Koh only ruled that additional damages for lost profits on those four wasn't proven by Apple. That's quite different than the AI article implied.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 97
They promised her to rename the country Kohrea.
post #35 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So Samsung still guilty of infringing those four patents and will pay damages for having done so. Judge Koh only ruled that additional damages for lost profits on those four wasn't proven by Apple. That's quite different than the AI article implied.

 

That makes more sense.

Tomorrow's news:   "Apple lawyers calculate and argue the valuation of the one remaining 'pinch to zoom' patent for lost profits was worth about $110 million of the $114 million they previously calculated for all 5 patents arguing 'even Samsung thinks rounded corners weren't worth much'"

 

Lawyers are fun when you yourself aren't in their crosshairs.

post #36 of 97
Wow, you're comments are as deplorable as they are completely ignorant. This article doesn't contain any information on the basis of the dismissal and the bandwagon is starting up that it's because she's Korean? Have you been following the action with Judge Koh? She is the one who has overseen the largest damage verdict against Samsung in any venue.

I'm not saying I know her to be an excellent Judge. Clearly no one here is questioning the ruling on any legal basis, at least not so far. So to champion your ignorance as to EVEN IF this is a poor ruling, you've jumped to the motive of this Judge and impugned her character.

When did AppleInsider become a haven for trolls?
post #37 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MazeCookie View Post
 

Please explain how linking somebody with Korean descent to a Korean company is racism.

 

 

 

I suppose if she was your friend, you would think of her as your "Korean friend". The judge is from the US. She's of Korean descent. All I can add is that you may want to think on that. I don't see how anyone could fail to grasp the concept given enough time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bighype View Post
 

 

Oh please. She's Korean and is shilling for a Korean company. That SHOULD raise some eyebrows.


She's not Korean outside of race. Do you refer to Black people as African? I'm familiar with the term "African American", but I suspect you do not expect your colleagues to send you spam email just because of their skin color. Your assertion here has about the same amount of validity. Right now you are pegging someone to a geographic location where they didn't grow up.

post #38 of 97
Wait she shouldnt be ruling on this case because somehow this was a part of the original trial. She didnt seem to think Apple didnt deserve a payout for the four patents when this case originally was tried.
post #39 of 97

Folks, whether the judge is correct or not this money will not have a big effect on Apple, what matters is that Samsung stops copying and Google stops facilitating the copying of Apple's IP to its partners.  The RockStar case is still on going...

 

Apple is doing a very good job protecting its IP from the likes of Google, Samsung and others and that's what matters going forward.

post #40 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

what matters is that Samsung stops copying and Google stops facilitating the copying of Apple's IP to its partners.  The RockStar case is still on going...

It seems a lot of hopes are being pinned on the Rockstar stuff.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge whittles Apple v. Samsung case down as Schiller concludes testimony [u]