The Willful Infringement they found was for the single patent ('172 auto-complete) Judge Koh had preemptively ruled as infringed before the trial started. I mentioned this somewhere already but she'll have a difficult time now drafting a ruling that agrees with the jury's finding. Since her initial determination the USPTO has announced it has significant doubts as to the patent's validity. That was also one of Samsung;s legal arguments I think. It may be infringed at this point, but IMHO a finding of willfulness probably not. While the jury was not permitted to be notified of the Patent Office action (Federal court rules) Judge Koh would have to consider it or I don't believe it will pass the almost certain Appeals Court smell test.
As far as the level of damages why would that particularly matter to whether each was infringing? Samsung asked for very little and received even less, Apple wanted a lot and received very little, about 6% of it so far I think. Using your reasoning the jury didn't think Samsung was much of an infringer either.
FWIW I personally disagree with the way this whole thing was done on multiple levels, beginning with broad software patents as a whole and proceeding from there. Buying patents for the sole purpose of suing another company, much less a market competitor, is sad and needs to have some limiting factors put in place (Samsung). Suing a marketplace competitor for damages for using some of your products patented features when you yourself don't use the claims you're suing over doesn't sound worthy of a major ding either (Apple). You would assume both, or at least Apple in this particular case, are relying on their strongest and easiest to win patent claims. If this is the best they've got, and Koh doesn't mail Apple a fig-leaf in the guise of an injunction, then I think both need to get on with things and hammer out the details on a cross-licensing agreement. These trials aren't fixing it.
EDIT: A side-note from this mornings TV news (no not Fox). They reported Samsung was found to infringe on two Apple's patents, but for no where near what Apple wanted. They also reported tho that Apple was found to infringe on a Samsung patent. Most listeners would have no knowledge of the details and only know they both infringe and both lost.
I can't imagine Apple would really consider this a win in the court of public opinion.
We get it: you think patents are wrong and thieves should roam free. Your comments are so typically you and so incredibly weaselly. You live in a world of lies and deceit; I don't know how you do it.
Apple should look into buying a good legal team first. Samsung put on a textbook defense, even getting a judgement against Apple.
Samsung's team wisely did what they could to completely confuse the jury. Apple's team probably should've objected to the many, many times they brought wholly unrelated testimony into play. Bad on the judge, bad on Apple's team... but good on Apple's team for actually winning on two counts. I hope they employ better tactics next time to combat Samsung's "back up the trash truck and dump" approach to testimony.
I was referring to his comments about you being incredibly weaselly.
Ah, well carry on then, If you later decide to have a thoughtful discussion on any of the issues instead of holding a playground insult fest count me in. .;)
Sarcasm sometimes goes right over folks heads, particularly "haters" as they're called sometimes (I'm no fan of "tags" but some here immediately relate to them). Not always the best choice to use it in emotionally-driven threads. WE know what you meant GTR. Casual members or new visitors maybe not so much.
Sarcasm sometimes goes right over folks heads, particularly "haters" as they're called sometimes (I'm no fan of "tags" but some here immediately relate to them). Not always the best choice to use it in emotionally-driven threads. WE know what you meant GTR. Casual members or new visitors maybe not so much.[/quote
Sarcasm sometimes goes right over folks heads, particularly "haters" as they're called sometimes (I'm no fan of "tags" but some here immediately relate to them). Not always the best choice to use it in emotionally-driven threads. WE know what you meant GTR. Casual members or new visitors maybe not so much.
I didn't see a /s or -Sarcasm and though he was being serious.
Ah, well carry on then, If you later decide to have a thoughtful discussion on any of the issues instead of holding a playground insult fest count me in. .;)
You ever considered spending more time with the wife and kids rather than living on the forum?
You ever considered spending more time with the wife and kids rather than living on the forum?
See, that's much better. Everyone including me appreciates a touch of humor. Things sometimes get a little too serious and conversations become too personal when emotions start taking control.
See, that's much better. Everyone including me appreciates a touch of humor. Things sometimes get a little too serious and conversations become too personal when emotions start taking control.
I wasn't joking.
For a family man, you spend an awfully large amount of time of the internet trying to prove a point (not to mention all the 'research' you do).
quoting the same post twice (copying just like Samsung)
unnecessarily quoting the entire post (twice) (again, copying just like Samsung)
not able to read sarcasm
and if you hadn't noticed, Lotte World Amusement Park in Seoul (S Korea) (the pictures you kindly quoted twice) became how they are today because of Disneyland. Do ya' see the "innovation"?
I was wrong and did't realize that it was a Disney land copy. The idiot award thing I didn't copy the same post twice you must have seen an edit. I would understood if I saw a /s or sarcasum. Sorry to you and GTR. I've had sales people at my local carrier lwhen I top up my data similar thoughts to that and not sarcastic sorry I took my rage out on GTR I've got a lot against my carrier right now and took it out on him without realizing that he was being sarcastic.
I was wrong and did't realize that it was a Disney land copy. The idiot award thing I didn't copy the same post twice you must have seen an edit. I would understood if I saw a /s or sarcasum. Sorry to you and GTR. I've had sales people at my local carrier lwhen I top up my data similar thoughts to that and not sarcastic sorry I took my rage out on GTR I've got a lot against my carrier right now and took it out on him without realizing that he was being sarcastic.
Now that the results of the second patent trial in California are in I, for one, am glad to see (judging from the pitiful amount that Apple has been awarded) that the judge and jurors did not allow themselves to be hoodwinked by that uninnovative company that brought the GUI, the mouse, the modern personal computer (along with colour and style), the iPod, the iTunes Store, Apple Retail Stores, the online App Store, the iPhone, the MacBook Air, the iPad, the Mac Pro, and the world's most insecure and unreliable operating system, to the masses.
After finally having proven, not only their innocence, but that Korea, in general, is able to draw from a well of innovation that is incredibly deep,<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> I can only assume that both Samsung Executive Management and their legal team will be taking some sorely deserved time off at the Lotte World Amusement Park in Seoul.</span>
Sorry for my dreadfully hating comment towards you and that I hadn't realized that you where being sarcastic with the copied theme park. Nice touch on the theme park. Really sorry about the miss understanding as I'm mad at my carrier, there ways and there dreadfully sales people. Really sorry and I get the award now Now I realize what a well thought out comment you had! Really sorry again
Just remember, the higher that post count of yours goes, that's more opportunities you've missed to spend time on the IMPORTANT things in life.
Thanks for the advice GTR. Seriously. My son and I had fishing plans interrupted by weather this morning. Hopefully our schedules and the weather works out for us tomorrow. Perhaps you can look forward to a stress-free day too.
Samsung's team wisely did what they could to completely confuse the jury. Apple's team probably should've objected to the many, many times they brought wholly unrelated testimony into play. Bad on the judge, bad on Apple's team... but good on Apple's team for actually winning on two counts. I hope they employ better tactics next time to combat Samsung's "back up the trash truck and dump" approach to testimony.
Samsung had the advantage of bringing in Google and the claim that Android truly copied Apple. You're right the main focus was to confuse the jury which is why most cases get settled and never go to the jury. I have always wondered how this would have played out if both companies were based in the US. Not sure if it would have made a difference or not.
I always believe a jury does the best they can, the fear is the evidence is over their heads. I still believe the mindset is stealing IP is a victimless crime. It's interesting I have seen people post about patents and the US Constitution, really they date back before the Constitution many of the states used the patent system. Hard to believe laws have been around that long and we still can't get it right when it comes to enforcement.
The burden of prove is always on the plaintiff. If someone can get a criminal conviction it makes it easier to win in civil court. The defendant has no burden in any trial. In a case like this where both companies can spend large amounts of money it gave Samsung a clear advantage. Also for Samsung they create doubt with Google and Android, having an open system works to their advantage.
It was always going to be difficult for Apple to get a home run victory in this case.
Comments
The Willful Infringement they found was for the single patent ('172 auto-complete) Judge Koh had preemptively ruled as infringed before the trial started. I mentioned this somewhere already but she'll have a difficult time now drafting a ruling that agrees with the jury's finding. Since her initial determination the USPTO has announced it has significant doubts as to the patent's validity. That was also one of Samsung;s legal arguments I think. It may be infringed at this point, but IMHO a finding of willfulness probably not. While the jury was not permitted to be notified of the Patent Office action (Federal court rules) Judge Koh would have to consider it or I don't believe it will pass the almost certain Appeals Court smell test.
As far as the level of damages why would that particularly matter to whether each was infringing? Samsung asked for very little and received even less, Apple wanted a lot and received very little, about 6% of it so far I think. Using your reasoning the jury didn't think Samsung was much of an infringer either.
FWIW I personally disagree with the way this whole thing was done on multiple levels, beginning with broad software patents as a whole and proceeding from there. Buying patents for the sole purpose of suing another company, much less a market competitor, is sad and needs to have some limiting factors put in place (Samsung). Suing a marketplace competitor for damages for using some of your products patented features when you yourself don't use the claims you're suing over doesn't sound worthy of a major ding either (Apple). You would assume both, or at least Apple in this particular case, are relying on their strongest and easiest to win patent claims. If this is the best they've got, and Koh doesn't mail Apple a fig-leaf in the guise of an injunction, then I think both need to get on with things and hammer out the details on a cross-licensing agreement. These trials aren't fixing it.
EDIT: A side-note from this mornings TV news (no not Fox). They reported Samsung was found to infringe on two Apple's patents, but for no where near what Apple wanted. They also reported tho that Apple was found to infringe on a Samsung patent. Most listeners would have no knowledge of the details and only know they both infringe and both lost.
I can't imagine Apple would really consider this a win in the court of public opinion.
We get it: you think patents are wrong and thieves should roam free. Your comments are so typically you and so incredibly weaselly. You live in a world of lies and deceit; I don't know how you do it.
Nope, I don't think you get it at all.
Apple should look into buying a good legal team first. Samsung put on a textbook defense, even getting a judgement against Apple.
Samsung's team wisely did what they could to completely confuse the jury. Apple's team probably should've objected to the many, many times they brought wholly unrelated testimony into play. Bad on the judge, bad on Apple's team... but good on Apple's team for actually winning on two counts. I hope they employ better tactics next time to combat Samsung's "back up the trash truck and dump" approach to testimony.
Actually, I think he gets it just fine.
I'd even go so far as to say he's been 'particular observant'.
EDIT: This would be a great time to drop one of your funny one-liners. Everyone loves those.
I was referring to his comments about you being incredibly weaselly.
Ah, well carry on then, If you later decide to have a thoughtful discussion on any of the issues instead of holding a playground insult fest count me in. .;)
I thought your defence of Apple was admirable!
You ever considered spending more time with the wife and kids rather than living on the forum?
I wasn't joking.
For a family man, you spend an awfully large amount of time of the internet trying to prove a point (not to mention all the 'research' you do).
Not healthy.
My mistake then (yup I make some). Figured you must have been joking. I tend to doubt you concern yourself with anyone's health here on the forum.
My mistake then (yup I make some). Figured you must have been joking. I tend to doubt you concern yourself with anyone's health here on the forum.
Just remember, the higher that post count of yours goes, that's more opportunities you've missed to spend time on the IMPORTANT things in life.
I was wrong and did't realize that it was a Disney land copy. The idiot award thing I didn't copy the same post twice you must have seen an edit. I would understood if I saw a /s or sarcasum. Sorry to you and GTR. I've had sales people at my local carrier lwhen I top up my data similar thoughts to that and not sarcastic sorry I took my rage out on GTR I've got a lot against my carrier right now and took it out on him without realizing that he was being sarcastic.
You gave me a nice bloody nose.
Don't lose that passion!
Thanks for the advice GTR. Seriously. My son and I had fishing plans interrupted by weather this morning. Hopefully our schedules and the weather works out for us tomorrow. Perhaps you can look forward to a stress-free day too.
Samsung's team wisely did what they could to completely confuse the jury. Apple's team probably should've objected to the many, many times they brought wholly unrelated testimony into play. Bad on the judge, bad on Apple's team... but good on Apple's team for actually winning on two counts. I hope they employ better tactics next time to combat Samsung's "back up the trash truck and dump" approach to testimony.
Samsung had the advantage of bringing in Google and the claim that Android truly copied Apple. You're right the main focus was to confuse the jury which is why most cases get settled and never go to the jury. I have always wondered how this would have played out if both companies were based in the US. Not sure if it would have made a difference or not.
I always believe a jury does the best they can, the fear is the evidence is over their heads. I still believe the mindset is stealing IP is a victimless crime. It's interesting I have seen people post about patents and the US Constitution, really they date back before the Constitution many of the states used the patent system. Hard to believe laws have been around that long and we still can't get it right when it comes to enforcement.
Its alot easy to defend guilt then prove guilt.
The burden of prove is always on the plaintiff. If someone can get a criminal conviction it makes it easier to win in civil court. The defendant has no burden in any trial. In a case like this where both companies can spend large amounts of money it gave Samsung a clear advantage. Also for Samsung they create doubt with Google and Android, having an open system works to their advantage.
It was always going to be difficult for Apple to get a home run victory in this case.