Samsung argues for reversal of Apple's $930M patent infringement award
During an appearance before a U.S. appeals court on Thursday, lawyers for Samsung sought to have vacated the $930 million judgement awarded to Apple earlier this year in a landmark patent infringement lawsuit, saying the sum was "absurd."
Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan argued that the South Korean company's handsets could not have infringed Apple's design or trade dress patents because they did not feature, among other things, an Apple logo or an iPhone-like home button, according to Reuters. She then reportedly compared the basis of the award --?all of Samsung's profits from each of the offending devices --?to "awarding entire profits on a car because of an infringing cup holder."
"Apple was awarded Samsung's total profits on those (Samsung) phones, which was absurd," Sullivan is quoted as telling the judges. Apple attorney William Lee shot back, saying the iPhone "is not the cup holder."
"What Samsung is actually asking you to do ... is to substitute yourself for Judge Koh and the jury," Lee added.
Samsung was first found guilty of infringement in 2012 and ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh then struck some $450 million off of that award and set a retrial to reassess the damages, which a later jury ultimately set at $290 million.
There is no word on when the appellate court will rule.
Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan argued that the South Korean company's handsets could not have infringed Apple's design or trade dress patents because they did not feature, among other things, an Apple logo or an iPhone-like home button, according to Reuters. She then reportedly compared the basis of the award --?all of Samsung's profits from each of the offending devices --?to "awarding entire profits on a car because of an infringing cup holder."
"Apple was awarded Samsung's total profits on those (Samsung) phones, which was absurd," Sullivan is quoted as telling the judges. Apple attorney William Lee shot back, saying the iPhone "is not the cup holder."
"What Samsung is actually asking you to do ... is to substitute yourself for Judge Koh and the jury," Lee added.
Samsung was first found guilty of infringement in 2012 and ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh then struck some $450 million off of that award and set a retrial to reassess the damages, which a later jury ultimately set at $290 million.
There is no word on when the appellate court will rule.
Comments
The level at which you blatantly mimicked the iPhone form factor (and iPad as well) in addition to patented software features is what is "ABSURD"
Thetefore, an absurd amount of money to reconcile is just. Making that much money off of Apple design wasn't yours to begin with. It was Apple's.
Now trying to argue that you didn't use an apple logo? Your idiocy is showing. 98 percent plagiarism is still plagiarism.
Hope you learn your lesson.
Wouldn't be surprised for the court to slap Samsung with contempt of the justice system. It's like s two year old saying he didn't really steal his brothers candy bar because his brother still had the wrapper.
"Absurd."
Pot, meet kettle.
'There is no word on when the appellate court will rule.'
The wheels of justice have become rounded rectangles, the speed at which this case is moving.
If I were Tim Cook, I would arrange for every single building storing bulk Samsung products, including all their products, not just phones, to be razed to the ground. Apple chips excluded, obviously.
?I can only presume that God or the devil is testing Apple's patience.
Wow. The Apple lawyer's earthshaking response was "the iPhone is not the cup-holder."
Enough to make one tremble....
I'll bet it sounded better when the lawyer said it, than when you read it. The way I understood it (and I can practically hear it) - The lawyer was saying that in that analogy, Samsung was "the cupholder" the party that added little added value to the whole product.
I'll bet it sounded better when the lawyer said it, than when you read it. The way I understood it (and I can practically hear it) - The lawyer was saying that in that analogy, Samsung was "the cupholder" the party that added little added value to the whole product.
Of course I understood the context, and what the lawyers were saying.
I am not so sure you understood what I was saying.
The award is absurd all right. It should have been tripled.
It should have resulted in Samsung's entire business being auctioned off to pay Apple.
And Apple should have gotten the semiconductor fabs.
What's in a name? Samsung by any other name would be absurd.
I still think $1B wasn't enough; judge Koh gave Samsung way too much love. Samsung should've been slapped with a minimum of $20B and dragged, facedown, through a mud pit with an anchor shoved up their @$$.
Just say'n
@anatksundaram...esq???
You seem to be saying you know more about courtroom tactics then Apple's lawyers do. They have the means and motive to employ the most powerful legal counsel for technological cases, not meaning they will win them all, but somehow you seem to think, from what you wrote, there should have been a dramatic "like you see on TV" response that brought silence to the courtroom and a gasp from the defendants counsel, when the response is more simple in nature and most likely accomplished what was needed. You may have a lot of courtroom trial experience but methinks...nah, but some ppl find it fun to become experts from their observing/outsider position.
@anatksundaram...esq???
You seem to be saying you know more about courtroom tactics then Apple's lawyers do. They have the means and motive to employ the most powerful legal counsel for technological cases, not meaning they will win them all, but somehow you seem to think, from what you wrote, there should have been a dramatic "like you see on TV" response that brought silence to the courtroom and a gasp from the defendants counsel, when the response is more simple in nature and most likely accomplished what was needed. You may have a lot of courtroom trial experience but methinks...nah, but some ppl find it fun to become experts from their observing/outsider position.
No, I have no courtroom experience, and no I am (happily) not a lawyer. I have no doubt that Apple employs some pretty smart lawyers. (But so does Samsung).
I can only respond to what I see/hear in the news and in blogs.
In general, over the years, it seems to me that Apple's lawyers come through as sounding reactive and like a bunch of nice guys/gals, while Samsung's lawyers -- rightly or wrongly -- are proactive and appear to push the envelope more. A singular exception was perhaps when Apple's lawyers asked one of Samsung's counsels in the first trial whether he could tell apart a Samsung tablet from an iPad from a distance, and the guy declined to do so: that was a powerful moment.
Similarly, the fact that a case that started in 2004 on a product that is on its way out over an issue that has been a non-issue (or a minor issue at best) has now become a major headline, and could create a lot of negative publicity for Apple, suggests to me (as I noted on another thread) that Apple's lawyers were perhaps not terribly effective in the past ten years on that front. There have been other similar instances.
It just seems to me to be a pattern, and it's a perception on my part that has built up over time, that's all. Perhaps that is the winning strategy in the long run, I don't know. But it all certainly seems somewhat timid up until this point. And it's most certainly not consistent with Jobs's famous threat to want to go 'thermonuclear.'
Add: If 'insiders' were the only ones allowed to post their opinions in forums like these, we wouldn't have much of one, would we?
Similarly, the fact that a case that started in 2004 on a product that is on its way out over an issue that has been a non-issue (or a minor issue at best) has now become a major headline, and could create a lot of negative publicity for Apple, suggests to me (as I noted on another thread) that Apple's lawyers were perhaps not terribly effective in the past ten years on that front. There have been other similar instances.
It just seems to me to be a pattern, and it's a perception on my part that has built up over time, that's all. Perhaps that is the winning strategy in the long run, I don't know. But it all certainly seems somewhat timid up until this point. And it's most certainly not consistent with Jobs's famous threat to want to go 'thermonuclear.'
Add: If 'insiders' were the only ones allowed to post their opinions in forums like these, we wouldn't have much of one, would we?
You could also look at it from the standpoint of "Apple's lawyers kept that lawsuit from coming to trial for ten years".
I think if Jobs were still around they may have been feistier. Part of the issue is that they still have to buy some things from Samsung.
No, I have no courtroom experience, and no I am (happily) not a lawyer. I have no doubt that Apple employs some pretty smart lawyers. (But so does Samsung).
I can only respond to what I see/hear in the news and in blogs.
In general, over the years, it seems to me that Apple's lawyers come through as sounding reactive and like a bunch of nice guys/gals, while Samsung's lawyers -- rightly or wrongly -- are proactive and appear to push the envelope more. A singular exception was perhaps when Apple's lawyers asked one of Samsung's counsels in the first trial whether he could tell apart a Samsung tablet from an iPad from a distance, and the guy declined to do so: that was a powerful moment.
Similarly, the fact that a case that started in 2004 on a product that is on its way out over an issue that has been a non-issue (or a minor issue at best) has now become a major headline, and could create a lot of negative publicity for Apple, suggests to me (as I noted on another thread) that Apple's lawyers were perhaps not terribly effective in the past ten years on that front. There have been other similar instances.
It just seems to me to be a pattern, and it's a perception on my part that has built up over time, that's all. Perhaps that is the winning strategy in the long run, I don't know. But it all certainly seems somewhat timid up until this point. And it's most certainly not consistent with Jobs's famous threat to want to go 'thermonuclear.'
Add: If 'insiders' were the only ones allowed to post their opinions in forums like these, we wouldn't have much of one, would we?
You should have stopped at "I am happily not a lawyer".
For the record; the "major headline" was some time ago with Apple's "win", and this appeal by Samsung won't create "a lot of negative publicity" for Apple now. If anything, it portrays Samsung as re-fighting a battle in the courtroom, again I might add, that Samsung is losing in the real world. If the process seems "timid" to you, perhaps it is that the legal system does not place much faith in rash behavior inside or outside the courtroom in a patent trial.
Of course I understood the context, and what the lawyers were saying.
I am not so sure you understood what I was saying.
Perhaps I didn't understand you, but I think I did and we just disagree.
OI! KIM JONG UN! Yeah, you, fatty. I propose a trade. You release your current citizens to the South and in exchange we’ll force them to give you all Samsung employees. Trust us; you’ll totally be able to reunite your country with their expertise on your side. They’ll just copy the way the Union won the Civil War.
The really unfortunate part of all this is that Samsung vaulted itself up to the top of Android phone business (during its infringement) while this trial dragged on for years. Samsung clearly won this case. And dragging it out further by refusing to pay and comparing iPhones to cupholders is another slap to Apple.
But Apple's quality over Samsung's quantity is winning over consumers, especially in China. We'll see based on 1Q earning reports from both companies how much damage has been done to Samsung.
You got your wish, the discussion is now open here