or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury modifies Apple v. Samsung damages but final amount unchanged, calls Google involvement 'interesting' [updated with verdict form]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jury modifies Apple v. Samsung damages but final amount unchanged, calls Google involvement...

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
After being recalled to clarify an issue with Friday's verdict, the Apple v. Samsung jury on Monday modified the award amounts for various claims, but left Apple's share of damages unchanged at $119.6 million.



With the determination handed in, reporters were able to speak with jurors in the case, including Foreman Thomas Dunham, who explained there was no single piece of evidence or expert testimony that ultimately swayed the jury, according to in-court reports from Re/Code.

The initial verdict awarded Apple $119.6 million, though counsel discovered an issue with claims against Samsung's Galaxy S II. The jury found the device in infringement of certain Apple patents, but assigned no damages award to the handset.

Following a two-hour session, the jury decided to award $4 million for the Galaxy S II, but modified payouts for other products, leaving the combined damages total at $119.6 million. Dunham, an former IBM executive, called the issue a "clerical error" in which incorrect figures were logged in a few boxes.

Most substantial of the various additions and subtractions from the original verdict was a $4.6 million deduction of damages relating to the Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Samsung's AT&T version of the handset.

The first verdict form, which was made public on Friday, showed a bulk of damages -- some $99 million -- came from Apple's '647 patent covering data detectors or so-called "quick links."

As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however.

During trial proceedings, it came out that Google was contractually obliged by Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) documents to pay for the defense of certain patents claims made against Samsung. In addition to the undisclosed figures, the company would also take on responsibility for those same patents if Samsung were to lose the trial.

"It was interesting but it didn't change any of our thoughts," Sage said. "It didn't change our decision making in any way."

Update: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has made the final jury verdict form available for public viewing. A copy of the document is embedded below.

post #2 of 95
"As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however."


Does this mean we go after google next?

One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.

They were both wrong.

Reply

One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.

They were both wrong.

Reply
post #3 of 95
What a joke this jury system is !




http://flic.kr/p/ndWNKe

..
.
Edited by Yojimbo007 - 5/5/14 at 3:00pm
post #4 of 95
I'm glad that the 4 million dollar error was just a clerical mistake. Sheesh. I question how overnight common people can become experts in patent law. The press reports there was an IBM executive, and now suddenly he's the expert because after all he's an IBM executive. I would rather see a group of judges schooled in this area handle these cases. I think the outcome of the trial was ridiculous and pretty much gives license to any foreign company to copy at will.
post #5 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

"As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however."


Does this mean we go after google next?

The two patents Google was indemnifying, and so apparently part of stock Google Android, were not infringed. Only what would likely be Samsung-modified features were dinged. Google wouldn't be responsible for any of the damages according to the contract with Samsung nor do any Google Android features seemingly infringe on any of the Apple-asserted IP in the case.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/5/14 at 2:48pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 95

You know that old expression, Garbage In, Garbage Out? Here we have a perfect example of dumb jurors deliberating, dumb verdict being reached. This goes for that mindless twit of a judge in this case, who cannot make up her mind which way she wants to think, and who doesn't have the spine to impose sanctions on Samsung, even after catching them lying to the court.

 

This is utter garbage.

post #7 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

"As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however."


Does this mean we go after google next?

 

If Apple chooses to go there you might not be far off.  In regards to Apple: 

"If they really feel Google is the cause behind this, then don't beat around the bush," Dunham said.

post #8 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

"As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however."


Does this mean we go after google next?
it probably means the jury was wondering why Apple went after Samsung instead of Google.
post #9 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aslo Higgens View Post

I'm glad that the 4 million dollar error was just a clerical mistake. Sheesh. I question how overnight common people can become experts in patent law. The press reports there was an IBM executive, and now suddenly he's the expert because after all he's an IBM executive. I would rather see a group of judges schooled in this area handle these cases. I think the outcome of the trial was ridiculous and pretty much gives license to any foreign company to copy at will.

BINGO! There needs to be a division of the legal system that is fully educated in both law, and IT. Until that happens, trials like these will continue to have ridiculous and useless outcomes.

 

You think a $119 million fine will stop Scamsung from doing this again? This is chunk change to those thieves, and just a cost of doing business the way they have been.

 

A $15 BILLION fine and sales ban would make them stop stealing ON THE SPOT.

post #10 of 95

So, will Apple pursue Google next?

post #11 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post
 

So, will Apple pursue Google next?

 

Probably not.

 

First there is the appeals process to get through.

 

Newer Samsung phones and more patents.

 

Until Apple get injunctions which is when Samsung will settle.

 

In the mean time Samsung will continue to steal whatever they want and make hay while the sun shines.

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 #12 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

So, will Apple pursue Google next?
God no, I can only hope we're done with lawsuits now.
post #13 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aslo Higgens View Post

I'm glad that the 4 million dollar error was just a clerical mistake. Sheesh. I question how overnight common people can become experts in patent law. The press reports there was an IBM executive, and now suddenly he's the expert because after all he's an IBM executive. I would rather see a group of judges schooled in this area handle these cases. I think the outcome of the trial was ridiculous and pretty much gives license to any foreign company to copy at will.

They can't, that's how counsel wants it. I had jury duty last year for a (I kid you not) a patent case. When they found out I had a Bachelors in computer science along with my BS in accounting & MBA both sides wanted me gone. Strange because it dealt with financial and technical issues.
post #14 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

So, will Apple pursue Google next?
God no, I can only hope we're done with lawsuits now.

heck no. next one will be about the 2013 Samsung models.  We will see a lawsuit every year until either Samsung stops infringing or they settle.  Apple will attack them like bees defending a raid on their honeycomb. While the stings won't kill, they start adding up. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #15 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aslo Higgens View Post

I'm glad that the 4 million dollar error was just a clerical mistake. Sheesh. I question how overnight common people can become experts in patent law. The press reports there was an IBM executive, and now suddenly he's the expert because after all he's an IBM executive. I would rather see a group of judges schooled in this area handle these cases. I think the outcome of the trial was ridiculous and pretty much gives license to any foreign company to copy at will.
The justice system is broken.. Big time !
http://flic.kr/p/ndWNKe
post #16 of 95
Saw this on Gruber's site. Good for a laugh.

Galaxy S5 Explained: UX and Back Panel

From a post on Samsung’s official weblog:
Quote:
Morever [sic], while in previous Galaxy flagships, the features in the settings were only shown in a list, in the Galaxy S5, they can be seen in three types of views such as a grid, list, and tab (category). Thus, with an easy-to-see icons and interface, you can clearly say that the Galaxy S5 is a trendy smartphone.
Clearly.

Quote:
However, there is another reason the UI of the Galaxy S5 looks so clean and simple.

The Galaxy S5 has 40 applications only, which is much reduced compared to, for example, the Galaxy Note 3 having 51 apps. 40 applications in the 2 pages. That’s it. If wanted, other relatively less frequently used apps can be easily downloaded through Galaxy Essential and Galaxy Gift widget.
Sounds great.
post #17 of 95

As soon as I heard that the jury reached a decision "a few minutes" before the end of the day Friday, I assumed it was going to be bad for Apple. The indication was the jury didn't want to deliberate over the weekend and was rushed into reaching a verdict quickly. The next few days should yield some "interesting" information over this decision. I look forward to it. I hope at the Apple appeal, a different judge/jury will be better suited to punish Samsung.

 

For a very informative view on just how evil Samsung is/was in it's past practises, take a look at this Vanity Fair article. It opened my eyes even further to what a corrupt corporation Sammy really is.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #18 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Saw this on Gruber's site. Good for a laugh.

Galaxy S5 Explained: UX and Back Panel

From a post on Samsung’s official weblog:
Clearly.
Sounds great.

Sounds like bloatware central, reminds me of Windows PC OEM's...

 

No thanks, will stick with iOS.

post #19 of 95

So Apple got..5% of what it asked for. How fucked up. 

 

The message this sends is it's not worth patenting anything anymore. Patents are worth absolutely nothing. 

post #20 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

If Apple chooses to go there you might not be far off.  In regards to Apple: 

"If they really feel Google is the cause behind this, then don't beat around the bush," Dunham said.

 

And how would the damages be measured exactly?  If the jury can barely comprehend numbers, how would they begin to comprehend Google's business model with Android?

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #21 of 95

So the jury make errors in working out the damages owed, go back to go over their findings again & also take into account the SGII, then afterwards, including the SGII, the outcome remains exactly the same?

 

Sounds very fishy to me. What are the odds on that happening?

post #22 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 

heck no. next one will be about the 2013 Samsung models.  We will see a lawsuit every year until either Samsung stops infringing or they settle.  Apple will attack them like bees defending a raid on their honeycomb. While the stings won't kill, they start adding up. 

In which case Samsung will still continue to pay next to nothing for what they steal and sell. You haven't caught onto that yet?

post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
 

I hope at the Apple appeal, a different judge/jury will be better suited to punish Samsung.

 

I think Apple should initiate settlement with Samsung now, before Samsung appeal goes ahead (A Sammy lawyer said they would appeal).  Tide has turned against Apple, it seems.  


Edited by hjb - 5/5/14 at 4:20pm
post #24 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAPLfanboy View Post

So those nasty slitty eyed dwarf South Koreans who thieve at will live to steal another day. No morals at all. USA Government should nuke the lot of them.

There's no way you're an Apple fan. You're just some racist troll acting as one to build more hate.
post #25 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Probably not.

 

First there is the appeals process to get through.

 

Newer Samsung phones and more patents.

 

Until Apple get injunctions which is when Samsung will settle.

 

In the mean time Samsung will continue to steal whatever they want and make hay while the sun shines.

 

Apple also has to petition the court to treble damages on the patent that was found to have been willfully infringed by Samsung.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

Can't tell if Apple][ or Tallest Skil.  The racist remark suggests Apple][ but the desire to attack South Korea with a nuclear weapon suggests Tallest Skil.

 

No need to libel Apple][ or Tallest Skil. Flag the offending poster and move on. 

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #27 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The two patents Google was indemnifying, and so apparently part of stock Google Android, were not infringed. Only what would likely be Samsung-modified features were dinged. Google wouldn't be responsible for any of the damages according to the contract with Samsung nor do any Google Android features seemingly infringe on any of the Apple-asserted IP in the case.

Source?

You use the word "likely", which suggests you're merely hoping/conjecturing.

post #28 of 95

If Google is indemnifying Samsung, that seems like a nice reason to impose a punitive award of triple the jury's assessment. Can't have companies thinking they can infringe others' IP just because it won't cost them anything.

post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

If Google is indemnifying Samsung, that seems like a nice reason to impose a punitive award of triple the jury's assessment. Can't have companies thinking they can infringe others' IP just because it won't cost them anything.
Under Google's indemnity clause with Samsung they are obligated to defend them on any patent infringement claims arising from the use of Google-supplied software. In this case that extended to two of Apple's 5 patent claims: U.S. 6,847,959, applicable to the Google Search Box , and U.S. Patent 7,761,414 claimed against Gmail. Neither Apple patent was found to be infringed. If Google had supplied software unmodified by Samsung and accused of infringing it's both logical and reasonable that Samsung would have insisted on indemnification on those too isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Source?
You use the word "likely", which suggests you're merely hoping/conjecturing.
That's why I used the word "likely" as there could be some odd and unclear rationale for Google not covering some pure Google feature but it seems unlikely. The contract is linked here if you want to read thru it to see if anything jumps out at you where Google could be let off the hook for an IP problem directly connected to their software.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221640909/Samsung-MADA-With-Google

Additionally the only patent the jury found for "willful infringement" was the '172 which Judge Koh ruled infringed before the trial had even begun AFAIK that makes ii the only one where damages attributed specifically to it could be trebled. But there's another problem with that one. After the trial began the USPTO announced new questions about the validity of the patent, an argument Samsung also made during the trial tho they weren't permitted to mention the USPTO re-exam in progress (for good and legal reasons).

At least that's the way I read it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/5/14 at 4:37pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 95
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Additionally the only patent the jury found for "willful infringement" was the '172 which Judge Koh ruled infringed before the trial

I've read that the jury found willful infringement on 3 of 5 patents.

post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TogetherWeStand View Post

So the jury make errors in working out the damages owed, go back to go over their findings again & also take into account the SGII, then afterwards, including the SGII, the outcome remains exactly the same?

Sounds very fishy to me. What are the odds on that happening?

Jury' doesn't have to make sense. They may have agreed on a number, or range, and filled in the blanks to fit it. When they realized they missed a blank they may of just adjusted it to fit the value they had already agreed on.
post #32 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

I've read that the jury found willful infringement on 3 of 5 patents.

Source?
... and if/when you find it you can confidently tell them they're wrong.

See page 7 of this document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221694599/Apple-v-Samsung-Jury-Verdict-Form
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/5/14 at 4:58pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleCPA View Post


They can't, that's how counsel wants it. I had jury duty last year for a (I kid you not) a patent case. When they found out I had a Bachelors in computer science along with my BS in accounting & MBA both sides wanted me gone. Strange because it dealt with financial and technical issues.

What you experienced (a peremptory challenge) is the usual setup, similar to lawyers & doctors being dismissed from certain case types.

Perhaps each side's limited number of challenges were used up before he was selected, and he passed the judge's sniff test,

which usually goes "despite having worked in this arena, would this bias your impartial judgement?"   I wish Groklaw were still around

to cover this minutiae.   Oh yes, for those who wonder why people who "know too much" are subject to dismissal, it's usually because

the adversarial system with strict rules of evidence is a rather different approach to getting at "the truth" than is the scientific method.

Science cognoscenti generally are a little "too curious" to be content with just the facts presented.   However, excluding juror bias

doesn't go to the level of "do you own Samsung or Apple gear"?  (Or few people except absolute hermits might sit for a jury, ha!)

post #34 of 95
Vanity Fair has an article that I'm sure Samsung won't be happy with.

Smartphone War
post #35 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

So Apple got..5% of what it asked for. How fucked up. 

 

The message this sends is it's not worth patenting anything anymore. Patents are worth absolutely nothing. 

But that's just a few patents out of Apple's portfolio of hundreds just for the iPhone.

($100M, possibly trebled) isn't bad for just one or a few! 

Seems like a regular part of negotiation -- ask for the moon and settle for less.

But in a regular out-of-court settlement, usually the two sides portfolios are "weighed"

against each other, almost like grading papers by the number of pages.  Because of

this, as a "patent early, patent often" believer, IBM extracted much in the way of tribute

from many players in the computer industry.   See the infamous account by Gary Reback, from 2002,

of how Sun Microsystems (R.I.P.) couldn't sway Big Blue on patent quality (a few good ones) vs. sheer quantity:

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

post #36 of 95

In a few days, a new headline will pop up... "Samsung Paid Jury From Second Apple v Samsung Case Millions In Incentive for Significantly Reduced Payout.  Retrial On the Way."

 

Then the REAL jury that wasn't paid off by Samsung will award Apple $2.2B with willful infringement and a recommendation for an injunction.  That's $6.6B after the damages are tripled for willful infringement.

 

Samscum needs to get off the face of the earth!

post #37 of 95

Jury should have awarded Apple more to teach Samsung a lesson.

post #38 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

If Apple chooses to go there you might not be far off.  In regards to Apple: 

"If they really feel Google is the cause behind this, then don't beat around the bush," Dunham said.

Apple seems to have been deliberate in their legal suits. It could be, and hope, that the suits are proceeding according to plan and getting their ducks in line to go after Google and Schmidt in the future.

post #39 of 95
If Apple keeps suing at some point they're going to become the bad guy in the eyes of the public. The media is incredibly anti-Apple and eventually all that negative press impacts public perception.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-says-the-consumer-is-the-loser/
"Ultimately, the consumer is the loser in all this," foreman Thomas Dunham, a retired IBM supervisor, told the San Jose Mercury News. "I'd like to see them find a way to settle. I hope this (verdict) in some way helps shape that future."
post #40 of 95
I think Apple is standing on good principle in defending its IP. Realistically, they don't even have to worry about their patents, they could just adopt a strategy of always staying ahead of everybody and not even worry about all the copycats scrambling behind them, they have the resources to do that for a long time. I know they would like to control what they license and to whom, but the patent trials are at least a way of getting a license payment and acknowledgement for use of their technology versus getting nothing. Still, they should have the choice whether to license or not.

The real question is what about smaller companies like Dyson? Spent a decade polishing and refining an idea for their main product line, did the engineering and patented the result. Along comes Samsung again, scoops it up and copies it down to the last molecule and cranks them out in grey plastic for half the cost. Dyson sued but later had to drop it A lot of innovation will be stifled in the future if people know their successful ideas will be immediately be ripped off. Why bother? Seems to me the consumer is the loser when companies can't bring product to market because there is no incentive to invest in it. Without any acknowledgement that they made a specific new protected thing, it will instead be copied and even adulterated and ruined.

Something has to happen here, and I think Apple is carrying the banner for the inventors of the world. There is more to technology than 'fashion' (which does not recognize patents for some basic obvious reasons). Engineering is tough it takes a lot of time and money. It's not right for Samsung or Google or any other company to just copy the work wholesale. I'm sure Apple expects some imitation, indeed welcomes competition and new solutions to tech, but not total copying! Didn't Samsung do this same ripoff of Sony as well? Make their camera and TV parts and next thing you know they're in the TV and camera business? I won't be buying anything built by Samsung.

Elon Musk has remarked that he doesn't think much of patents, waste of time should be abolished. Fine if you make rockets and automobiles, both fields with few competitors due to high barriers. I wish he understood the need for some kind of idea protection. Maybe this means that in the future ideas will only be developed under the auspices of 'benevolent' corporate sponsors of startup incubators. If they don't like your idea you can only do it all by yourself until they do like your idea enough to steal it.

There is the bad PR angle, I'm sure Apple has thought it through. They will do what is correct.
Just thinking out loud.
Edited by palomine - 5/5/14 at 7:02pm
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
  • Jury modifies Apple v. Samsung damages but final amount unchanged, calls Google involvement 'interesting' [updated with verdict form]
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury modifies Apple v. Samsung damages but final amount unchanged, calls Google involvement 'interesting' [updated with verdict form]