"...but I'm going to do it anyway by cutting it by 40%".
Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain.
A big problem was with the jury decision form that both sides had worked out ahead of time.
Apple and Samsung were more worried about checking off what infringed, than leaving room for having the jury explain exactly how they came up with figures.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } Congratulations to the judge for her 'sudden' windfall of x million dollars.
Swiss bank account? Payments to relatives? Brown paper bags stuffed with cash?
Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain.
Indeed.
Given that the judge gave a legal explanation for her decision, impugning her character is not only unjustified, it debases the character of the accusers.
"It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury's factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation," Koh said, commenting on the ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain.
So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?
Which was it?
The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.
I thought the amount would get reduced, so not surprised by this. Still surprised at the wilful infringement decision. That one still has me scratching my head.
That's because it was never willful in the first place.
Fanboys want to paint a different picture of them to boost their egoes.
So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?
Which was it?
The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.
It's not REDUCED, the calculations were wrong, so the amount in question, for the patents and products in question, are going back to trial to be reviewed by a new jury for to-be determined damages. She's not reducing ANYTHING, she's asking a new jury to review and come up with a finding because of the errors by the previous jury.
She even says it's not her place to make this decision and thus is requiring a new trial.
Question is, will Apple appeal, push for a new trial, or try to settle? Cook never wanted to sue; they did win an important victory, though, money aside. Might deter future manufacturers from copying.
Having said that, looking at Samsung's passbook "competitor" they haven't really learned much of anything.
Question is, will Apple appeal, push for a new trial, or try to settle? Cook never wanted to sue; they did win an important victory, though, money aside. Might deter future manufacturers from copying.
Having said that, looking at Samsung's passbook "competitor" they haven't really learned much of anything.
Samsung needs to be taught a lesson and the sooner the better
Absolutely disgusting. Samsung's new wallet app shows that not only has the company not at all been deterred from their shameless knockoffs, but they seem to be going out of their way to do this, in an effort to mock and provoke. Again, disgusting. Never before has there been such a clear cut case of a company copying every single aspect of another company to attain their success, and shows just how useless the courts are in this case. A $1 billion verdict would have been less than a slap on the wrist compared to what Samsung has gained from their actions, but by the time this over Apple will probably be paying Samsung money. What the **** is the point of even having a jury?
The only silver lining of Samsung's success is that eventually they're going to **** Google up the ass, and either completely rebrand Android or fork it into something else completely. Android will become utterly irrelevant as a mobile OS if Samsung switches, and they're already doing their best to replace as many of Google's services as they can. People are now buying "Samsungs" or "iPhones"- all the other Android makers are completely fucked, relegated to the "other" category.
They maintain $600 million plus whatever additional damages the new jury sees those devices infringing upon patents. In short, it could cost Samsung more.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"...but I'm going to do it anyway by cutting it by 40%".
Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain.
Meh, it's still a lot of money!
A big problem was with the jury decision form that both sides had worked out ahead of time.
Apple and Samsung were more worried about checking off what infringed, than leaving room for having the jury explain exactly how they came up with figures.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Congratulations to the judge for her 'sudden' windfall of x million dollars.
Swiss bank account? Payments to relatives? Brown paper bags stuffed with cash?
Could be one... could be all.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain.
Indeed.
Given that the judge gave a legal explanation for her decision, impugning her character is not only unjustified, it debases the character of the accusers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury's factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation," Koh said, commenting on the ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain.
So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?
Which was it?
The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrustyMcLovin
Meh, it's still a lot of money!
It's peanuts. It's the equivalent of you or I losing a nickel or a dime probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I thought the amount would get reduced, so not surprised by this. Still surprised at the wilful infringement decision. That one still has me scratching my head.
That's because it was never willful in the first place.
Fanboys want to paint a different picture of them to boost their egoes.
Wondering at what point they have to start writing checks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
It's the equivalent of you or I losing a nickel or a dime probably.
Well, it's (i.e., the ~$400M) more like a $1000 for someone who's a one-millionaire....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner
Wondering at what point they have to start writing checks?
To have people whacked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?
Which was it?
The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.
It's not REDUCED, the calculations were wrong, so the amount in question, for the patents and products in question, are going back to trial to be reviewed by a new jury for to-be determined damages. She's not reducing ANYTHING, she's asking a new jury to review and come up with a finding because of the errors by the previous jury.
She even says it's not her place to make this decision and thus is requiring a new trial.
Question is, will Apple appeal, push for a new trial, or try to settle? Cook never wanted to sue; they did win an important victory, though, money aside. Might deter future manufacturers from copying.
Having said that, looking at Samsung's passbook "competitor" they haven't really learned much of anything.
Absolutely disgusting. Samsung's new wallet app shows that not only has the company not at all been deterred from their shameless knockoffs, but they seem to be going out of their way to do this, in an effort to mock and provoke. Again, disgusting. Never before has there been such a clear cut case of a company copying every single aspect of another company to attain their success, and shows just how useless the courts are in this case. A $1 billion verdict would have been less than a slap on the wrist compared to what Samsung has gained from their actions, but by the time this over Apple will probably be paying Samsung money. What the **** is the point of even having a jury?
The only silver lining of Samsung's success is that eventually they're going to **** Google up the ass, and either completely rebrand Android or fork it into something else completely. Android will become utterly irrelevant as a mobile OS if Samsung switches, and they're already doing their best to replace as many of Google's services as they can. People are now buying "Samsungs" or "iPhones"- all the other Android makers are completely fucked, relegated to the "other" category.
They maintain $600 million plus whatever additional damages the new jury sees those devices infringing upon patents. In short, it could cost Samsung more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Judges out of control as usual!
Why even have jury trials anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?
Which was it?
The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.
I don't know whether you're intentionally acting as tho you don't get it, or it's really just going right over your head,