or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung appeals final judgment in first Apple v. Samsung California trial, drops asserted SEPs from second
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung appeals final judgment in first Apple v. Samsung California trial, drops asserted SEPs...

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
As expected, Samsung appealed a California district court's final judgment of the original Apple vs. Samsung patent trial, and a day later dropped declared standard-essential patents from a second upcoming case slated to begin at the end of March.

Galaxy Nexus


Samsung last Thursday filed a notice of appeal with the federal circuit less than one day after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its final judgment of the 2012's Apple vs. Samsung patent trial.

The Korean company is appealing presiding Judge Lucy Koh's ruling that awarded Apple $929 million as a result of Samsung's infringement of multiple patents.

As noted by FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, the 2012 Apple vs. Samsung jury trial that originally awarded Apple $1.05 billion, is now ripe for appeal after the conclusion of a November retrial over vacated damages due to juror error and a December appeal from Apple over a denied injunction against 23 Samsung devices.

Apple ultimately won $290 million from the November action, while Judge Koh recently denied the renewed motion for a sales ban of 23 Samsung products. The Cupertino, Calif., company may appeal the injunction decision again if it finds reasonable grounds to do so.

On Monday, Judge Koh ordered a $95.6 million bond be released to Apple as an end to the initial preliminary injunction motion.

Second Apple vs. Samsung California trial



As for the second Apple vs. Samsung California trial, Samsung recently entered a stipulation dismissing three asserted standard-essential patent claims against Apple, paring the company's case down to two claims from two patents.

In the joint filing, Apple also withdraws its claims and counterclaims pertaining to Samsung's now-dropped SEP claims. Apple still has five claims from five patents to assert against Samsung when the second trial begins on Mar. 31.
post #2 of 41
Quote:
and a day later dropped declared standard-essential patents from a second upcoming case
"No, we really didn't meant to file this. It was a paperwork error.
Please don't hold it against us."
post #3 of 41
Apple vs. California?
post #4 of 41

Sometimes I wonder if courtrooms have a revolving door. Jury comes back, verdict's given, then everyone walks out and right back in again for the next appeal.

post #5 of 41

Are we all watching this comic?  Judge Lucy Koh presiding. 

27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
post #6 of 41
My iPad was updated and received new features and improvements today.

My iPhone was updated and received new features and improvements today.

Who the f*ck is Samsung today?
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
post #7 of 41
Watch how the haters try to spin this. The EU investigates Samsung over SEP's. Shortly afterwards Samsung drops SEP injunction requests in 5 European countries. The FTC already said they were "continuing to monitor" Samsung and their use of SEP's after the veto. Now Samsung drops SEP's from this case.

Is there anyone who thinks the FTC's prior announcement wasn't the reason they were dropped thus time?


Forgot to add. I agree with the outcome in the first case with the exception of the wilful infringement part. I don't agree with Koh when Samsung said they didn't think the patents were valid and so weren't infringing wilfully. Seems to me anyone can use this "excuse" in the future and this sets a dangerous precedent.
post #8 of 41
Eric,

I was kinda of looking forward forward to the SEP and FRAND counterclaims to be argued in court. That stuff needs to get settled once and for all. The Moto/MS was a good start.

Of course Samsung withdrew the SEPs, like they did in the EU. It would be silly for them to argue that something they claimed was good for European consumers should be different for American consumers. Samsung kinda shot themselves in the foot when they made those comments when trying to avoid further EU investigations or possible fines.
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

Eric,

I was kinda of looking forward forward to the SEP and FRAND counterclaims to be argued in court. That stuff needs to get settled once and for all. The Moto/MS was a good start.

Of course Samsung withdrew the SEPs, like they did in the EU. It would be silly for them to argue that something they claimed was good for European consumers should be different for American consumers. Samsung kinda shot themselves in the foot when they made those comments when trying to avoid further EU investigations or possible fines.
They will be settled in court. Samsung will have to file a suit that deals specifically with licensing fees for their SEP's. This is what Apple wants - for a judge to decide the fees. Samsung wants to negotiate under the threat of an injunction hoping to get more than they deserve.
post #10 of 41
Wheeeeeeeeee! Wheeeeeeeeee! Wheeeeeeeeee!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 41
Three years and still no justice. What is the point in having a patent system if patents are not enforceable?
post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

Three years and still no justice. What is the point in having a patent system if patents are not enforceable?

It's all part of the "Full Employment for Judges and Lawyers Act".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

They will be settled in court. Samsung will have to file a suit that deals specifically with licensing fees for their SEP's. This is what Apple wants - for a judge to decide the fees. Samsung wants to negotiate under the threat of an injunction hoping to get more than they deserve.

I don't think Samsung will bring these issues anywhere near a federal court regardless of a single judge or jury trial. Maybe to the ITC, but their comments in the EU would sink their case. Apple may be ok with this.

But I still think these issues of SEPs and FRAND obligations need more clarity. The IEEE and ITU have been sitting on their hands.

Looking for more info on the Apple/Moto via Qualcomm suit in San Diego.
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post
 

Wow.. If you call $1billion in damages not enforceable then I'm not sure what to call it.

If, on the other hand, you are expecting the judge to ban a $900 handset with a gazillion features just because one of those features is a rubber band effect (which was since removed), then you really need to lay off the cannabis for a bit as your head is turning to mush.


Click on the 'ripe for retrial' link and read that article. Florian Mueler thinks that Samsung may win the opportunity to have it tried for a third time with this time a good portion of the Apple patents thrown out. Really? A third time? We are not talking appeals of an existing verdict but going back for a third trial over the same stuff.

post #15 of 41
FOSSPatents posts that Apple claims Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 per device in royalties for those 5 patents if they had negotiated a standard business license and the simply passed that on to consumers. In a rare turn Mueller also says Apple may have lost their mind. It doesn't help their SEP royalty discussions with regulators either by his reasoning.

EDIT: missed link
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/at-upcoming-trial-apple-wants-samsung.html
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/11/14 at 5:22am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FOSSPatents posts that Apple claims Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 per device in royalties for those 5 patents if they had negotiated a standard business license and the simply passed that on to consumers. In a rare turn Mueller also says Apple may have lost their mind. It doesn't help their SEP royalty discussions with regulators either by his reasoning.

 

I must have missed the part where it's stated that the 5 patents that Apple are using in this case against Samsung are SEP patents and therefore subject to FRAND terms. 

post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I must have missed the part where it's stated that the 5 patents that Apple are using in this case against Samsung are SEP patents and therefore subject to FRAND terms. 

You're also missing the part where patents don't have to be a SEP in order to license.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post
 

Wow.. If you call $1billion in damages not enforceable then I'm not sure what to call it.

If, on the other hand, you are expecting the judge to ban a $900 handset with a gazillion features just because one of those features is a rubber band effect (which was since removed), then you really need to lay off the cannabis for a bit as your head is turning to mush.

 

What did Motorola/Goolge say when they were seeking injunctions against Apple and Microsoft, with their SEP patents no less ............. oh yeah ........... "It only takes one bullet to kill".  What's good for the Google is good for the gander. 

 

And just to put in perspective how much $1B is going to hurt Samsung .......

 

http://www.androidauthority.com/reuters-samsung-14-billion-ads-marketing-galaxy-other-devices-this-year-320700/

post #19 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You're also missing the part where patents don't have to be a SEP in order to license.

 

 

Which is why I don't see anything wrong with asking a $40 per device in licensing fees if they are not SEP patents.

post #20 of 41
How can you appeal a final judgment? It's not a final judgment if it can be appealed. It's no wonder we're in the shape we're in.
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post


Which is why I don't see anything wrong with asking a $40 per device in licensing fees if they are not SEP patents.

Obviously Apple was unwilling to accept those terms.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #22 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeangflo View Post

How can you appeal a final judgment? It's not a final judgment if it can be appealed. It's no wonder we're in the shape we're in.

It's the final decision of that court, but there are higher courts one can appeal to.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Obviously Apple was unwilling to accept those terms.

 

I think you're misreading the original post. It's Apple that is claiming that the 5 patents they are suing for would cost Samsung $40 per device. Obviously it was Samsung that was unwilling to accept thoses terms, but used the patents anyway. 

post #24 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I think you're misreading the original post. It's Apple that is claiming that the 5 patents they are suing for would cost Samsung $40 per device. Obviously it was Samsung that was unwilling to accept thoses terms, but used the patents anyway. 

Samsung was never offered that.
Quote:
A damages expert will argue on Apple's behalf that, if the parties had acted reasonably and rationally in a hypothetical negotiation, Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 -- forty dollars! -- per phone or tablet sold as a total royalty for the five patents-in-suit, which relate to (but don't even fully monopolize) the phone number tapping feature, unified search, data synchronization, slide-to-unlock, and autocomplete.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Samsung was never offered that.

 

I know that. What I was questioning was how the original post cited that Mueller said that Apple was shooting itself in the foot by stating that their patents are worth such a high licensing fee, when they were also fighting a case against Samsung for the high fee they wanted for their SEP patents. But if the 5 patents Apple is suing for are not SEP, then what does it matter how much they ask for and how is it hurting  Apple with their case against Samsung abusing their SEP patents?

post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I know that. What I was questioning was how the original post cited that Mueller said that Apple was shooting itself in the foot by stating that their patents are worth such a high licensing fee, when they were also fighting a case against Samsung for the high fee they wanted for their SEP patents. But if the 5 patents Apple is suing for are not SEP, then what does it matter how much they ask for and how is it hurting  Apple with their case against Samsung abusing their SEP patents?

Did you look at his blog for his reasoning? Doesn't mean his opinion should be everyone's, but he does try to explain how regulators might look at it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I know that. What I was questioning was how the original post cited that Mueller said that Apple was shooting itself in the foot by stating that their patents are worth such a high licensing fee, when they were also fighting a case against Samsung for the high fee they wanted for their SEP patents. But if the 5 patents Apple is suing for are not SEP, then what does it matter how much they ask for and how is it hurting  Apple with their case against Samsung abusing their SEP patents?
Don't waste your time. They both understand EXACTLY what you meant, as did I and everyone else. As usual they're trying muddy the waters.
post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Don't waste your time. They both understand EXACTLY what you meant, as did I and everyone else. As usual they're trying muddy the waters.

No sir, then that would be Mr. Mueller trying to muddy the waters if that's the case.

"I face the first situation in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind... $40 per unit. For five software patents. Give me a break. Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this.

I have repeatedly criticized, and won't ever support, Samsung's 2.4%-of-total-device-sales royalty demand for its portfolio of wireless standard-essential patents (SEPs)...
But 2.25% or 2.4% of the price of a $500 iPhone would be $12 per unit -- less than third of what Apple wants for five software patents, and Samsung and Motorola hold a far greater number of wireless SEPs.

I still believe that SEP and non-SEP issues must not be mixed up in connection with injunctive relief. But when it comes to the FR part of FRAND ("fair and reasonable"), the question of double standards is legitimate... few people would probably think that patents relating to things like autocomplete are inherently more valuable than wireless SEPs.

If patents are not encumbered by a FRAND licensing pledge, a patentee can ask for anything, but here we have a situation where Apple's damages expert argues that Samsung would actually have paid the amount at the end of a hypothetical, perfectly rational negotiation. And that theory undermines Apple's FRAND arguments big time, at least psychologically, because Samsung and Motorola would also argue that Apple would have paid them $12 per phone at the end of a reasonably-led negotiation. Antitrust authorities have probably been aware of Apple's non-SEP royalty theories for a while. I still hope regulators will give meaning to FRAND, but it's only human if some decision-makers note a major discrepancy between Apple's positions on reasonable royalties and if this makes them less inclined to impose drastic sanctions on Apple's rivals.

Apple's royalty-type damages claim for five software patents is also far out of the ballpark of anything that has ever been claimed or rumored to be paid in this industry for entire portfolios. "


I should note that I personally have a lot of issues with some of his stands. AI and many of its members not so much.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/12/14 at 11:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

You're also missing the part where patents don't have to be a SEP in order to license.

That is a wholly inaccurate statement. There is no requirement that a patent be licensed if it is not a SEP.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

That is a wholly inaccurate statement. There is no requirement that a patent be licensed if it is not a SEP.

Nowhere did I say that there was a requirement to do so.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FOSSPatents posts that Apple claims Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 per device in royalties for those 5 patents if they had negotiated a standard business license and the simply passed that on to consumers. In a rare turn Mueller also says Apple may have lost their mind. It doesn't help their SEP royalty discussions with regulators either by his reasoning.

EDIT: missed link
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/at-upcoming-trial-apple-wants-samsung.html

 

So far, it's not the regulators that Apple has to be concern about, it's the judges. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


No sir, then that would be Mr. Mueller trying to muddy the waters if that's the case.

"I face the first situation in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind... $40 per unit. For five software patents. Give me a break. Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this.

I have repeatedly criticized, and won't ever support, Samsung's 2.4%-of-total-device-sales royalty demand for its portfolio of wireless standard-essential patents (SEPs)...
But 2.25% or 2.4% of the price of a $500 iPhone would be $12 per unit -- less than third of what Apple wants for five software patents, and Samsung and Motorola hold a far greater number of wireless SEPs.

I still believe that SEP and non-SEP issues must not be mixed up in connection with injunctive relief. But when it comes to the FR part of FRAND ("fair and reasonable"), the question of double standards is legitimate... few people would probably think that patents relating to things like autocomplete are inherently more valuable than wireless SEPs.

If patents are not encumbered by a FRAND licensing pledge, a patentee can ask for anything, but here we have a situation where Apple's damages expert argues that Samsung would actually have paid the amount at the end of a hypothetical, perfectly rational negotiation. And that theory undermines Apple's FRAND arguments big time, at least psychologically, because Samsung and Motorola would also argue that Apple would have paid them $12 per phone at the end of a reasonably-led negotiation. Antitrust authorities have probably been aware of Apple's non-SEP royalty theories for a while. I still hope regulators will give meaning to FRAND, but it's only human if some decision-makers note a major discrepancy between Apple's positions on reasonable royalties and if this makes them less inclined to impose drastic sanctions on Apple's rivals.

Apple's royalty-type damages claim for five software patents is also far out of the ballpark of anything that has ever been claimed or rumored to be paid in this industry for entire portfolios. "


I should note that I personally have a lot of issues with some of his stands. AI and many of it's members not so much.

 

Well, it doesn't matter what Mueller thinks. Obviously, Samsung didn't think this was going to help their case, otherwise they wouldn't have dropped the SEP patents from their suit against Apple. 

post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Well, it doesn't matter what Mueller thinks.

Hold that thought. 1biggrin.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeangflo View Post

How can you appeal a final judgment? It's not a final judgment if it can be appealed. It's no wonder we're in the shape we're in.

And why do they call it a judgement when it was decided by a jury?  Its not a judgement if the judge didn't decide. It's no wonder we're in the shape we're in.

post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

And why do they call it a judgement when it was decided by a jury?  Its not a judgement if the judge didn't decide. It's no wonder we're in the shape we're in.


Judgement is the evaluation of evidence to make a decision. That task was given to a jury. The judge in this case only presided over the proceedings.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

Eric,

I was kinda of looking forward forward to the SEP and FRAND counterclaims to be argued in court. That stuff needs to get settled once and for all. The Moto/MS was a good start.

Of course Samsung withdrew the SEPs, like they did in the EU. It would be silly for them to argue that something they claimed was good for European consumers should be different for American consumers. Samsung kinda shot themselves in the foot when they made those comments when trying to avoid further EU investigations or possible fines.

 

@Spacepower: No, go back and read Mueller's blog:

 

 

"There's nothing in the stipulation that indicates why Samsung made this decision, but whatever the reason(s) may be, it's a good thing in my view. Samsung has already prevailed over Apple on SEPs in different jurisdictions (including at the ITC last year, though an import ban was ultimately vetoed). It makes sense for Samsung to focus on non-SEPs at the upcoming trial, and especially on its proven defensive strength."

 

Further, in the EU, Samsung has only offered not to seek injunctive relief for 5 years and extend the negotiation period to 1 year.  This is far from abandoning SEP based legal strategy altogether. 


Edited by tooltalk - 3/11/14 at 9:20am
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post
 

 

@Spacepower: No, go back and read Mueller's blog:

 

 

"There's nothing in the stipulation that indicates why Samsung made this decision, but whatever the reason(s) may be, it's a good thing in my view. Samsung has already prevailed over Apple on SEPs in different jurisdictions (including at the ITC last year, though an import ban was ultimately vetoed). It makes sense for Samsung to focus on non-SEPs at the upcoming trial, and especially on its proven defensive strength."

 

Further, in the EU, Samsung has only offered not to seek injunctive relief for 5 years and extend the negotiation period to 1 year.  This is far from abandoning SEP based legal strategy altogether. 

 

Samsung has won a few SEP decisions (as they should have). Apple is using Samsung IP in certain devices. Apple has never claimed they don't use any Samsung SEP's - they have only argued against the amount Samsung is seeking.

 

And while Samsung has a few victories under their belt, they are all very minor. I don't think Apple has paid out more than a couple million (as in single digit millions) for ALL of the Samsung SEP victories combined. I most case the legal bills would have been higher than the actual penalty. And the injunctions that were handed out are no longer relevant as devices aren't sold anymore. Samsung has done NOTHING to hamper Apple in any way whatsoever.

 

And in the US where the ITC ruled in their favor, Samsung has again struck out. Now they're forced to do the one thing they never wanted to - ask a judge to decide the rate for their SEP's. They have lost the bargaining power that an injunction would have given them. And just like Motorola suffered a catastrophic loss to Microsoft, I'm betting we're going to see just how little Samsung gets for their SEP's as well. Plus we'll get to find out what Samsung was really asking vs what they get - and find out if Samsung was being "reasonable".

 

As for Samsung and the EU, I doubt the EU will agree to Samsung's suggestion of 5 years without seeking injunctions. That's like saying "we'll behave for 5 years, and after that we'll go back to doing what got us into trouble in the first place". That's hardly a concession. Samsung doesn't get to decide their punishment.

post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Samsung has won a few SEP decisions (as they should have). Apple is using Samsung IP in certain devices. Apple has never claimed they don't use any Samsung SEP's - they have only argued against the amount Samsung is seeking.

And while Samsung has a few victories under their belt, they are all very minor. I don't think Apple has paid out more than a couple million (as in single digit millions) for ALL of the Samsung SEP victories combined. I most case the legal bills would have been higher than the actual penalty. And the injunctions that were handed out are no longer relevant as devices aren't sold anymore. Samsung has done NOTHING to hamper Apple in any way whatsoever.

And in the US where the ITC ruled in their favor, Samsung has again struck out. Now they're forced to do the one thing they never wanted to - ask a judge to decide the rate for their SEP's. They have lost the bargaining power that an injunction would have given them. And just like Motorola suffered a catastrophic loss to Microsoft, I'm betting we're going to see just how little Samsung gets for their SEP's as well. Plus we'll get to find out what Samsung was really asking vs what they get - and find out if Samsung was being "reasonable".

As for Samsung and the EU, I doubt the EU will agree to Samsung's suggestion of 5 years without seeking injunctions. That's like saying "we'll behave for 5 years, and after that we'll go back to doing what got us into trouble in the first place". That's hardly a concession. Samsung doesn't get to decide their punishment.

Bloomberg posted up an article not long after Almunia/s early December comment that Samsung might have to do a little better on concessions. According to them only minor changes will be needed to get the EU chief to sign off. I wouldn't expect much longer before the EU commission officially makes a recommendation one way or another. It's been on-going for quite awhile.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-11/samsung-said-to-near-eu-antitrust-settlement-amid-apple-clash.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Forgot to add. I agree with the outcome in the first case with the exception of the wilful infringement part. I don't agree with Koh when Samsung said they didn't think the patents were valid and so weren't infringing wilfully. Seems to me anyone can use this "excuse" in the future and this sets a dangerous precedent.

It's pretty common for companies to try and dodge willful infringement claims using the argument that they did not believe the asserted IP was valid in the first place. Sometimes it works, as in this case, while other times it does not as happened just a few days ago with VirnetX and Apple. Remember that $368M royalty/damages judgement against Apple? It just went up. . . by a lot.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/ongoing-against-willfulness.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No sir, then that would be Mr. Mueller trying to muddy the waters if that's the case.

"I face the first situation in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind... $40 per unit. For five software patents. Give me a break. Reality distortion would be a total understatement for this.

I have repeatedly criticized, and won't ever support, Samsung's 2.4%-of-total-device-sales royalty demand for its portfolio of wireless standard-essential patents (SEPs)...
But 2.25% or 2.4% of the price of a $500 iPhone would be $12 per unit -- less than third of what Apple wants for five software patents, and Samsung and Motorola hold a far greater number of wireless SEPs.

I still believe that SEP and non-SEP issues must not be mixed up in connection with injunctive relief. But when it comes to the FR part of FRAND ("fair and reasonable"), the question of double standards is legitimate... few people would probably think that patents relating to things like autocomplete are inherently more valuable than wireless SEPs.

If patents are not encumbered by a FRAND licensing pledge, a patentee can ask for anything, but here we have a situation where Apple's damages expert argues that Samsung would actually have paid the amount at the end of a hypothetical, perfectly rational negotiation. And that theory undermines Apple's FRAND arguments big time, at least psychologically, because Samsung and Motorola would also argue that Apple would have paid them $12 per phone at the end of a reasonably-led negotiation. Antitrust authorities have probably been aware of Apple's non-SEP royalty theories for a while. I still hope regulators will give meaning to FRAND, but it's only human if some decision-makers note a major discrepancy between Apple's positions on reasonable royalties and if this makes them less inclined to impose drastic sanctions on Apple's rivals

Apple's royalty-type damages claim for five software patents is also far out of the ballpark of anything that has ever been claimed or rumored to be paid in this industry for entire portfolios. "




I should note that I personally have a lot of issues with some of his stands. AI and many of it's members not so much.

A non SEP patent for a feature that every phone maker wants to have in their phones is way more valuable than any SEP patent that every phone maker has to have in their phones. SEP patents doesn't make one phone any different from the next. Which is the whole point of having SEP patents. It's the non SEP patents for features that is unique and desirable in a phone that is valuable. It can make the difference between consumers buying one phone over another and paying more for it. So requesting licensing fee that is 10x, 20x or even 100x more than a SEP patent is not out of the question when the use of the non SEP patent may result in multiple X increase in sales at a higher price. Mueller got it wrong this time. (Not to imply that he's always been right)


edit: had to corrected all the SAP to SEP. Didn't notice iPad auto correct on me.
Edited by DavidW - 3/11/14 at 11:12pm
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Tianao View Post
 

Wow.. If you call $1billion in damages not enforceable

???

then I'm not sure what to call it.

You call it a judgement.

It's only enforceable when it is actually enforced.

​Pretty sure the point is, when is Apple going to collect anything?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung appeals final judgment in first Apple v. Samsung California trial, drops asserted SEPs from second