Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Judy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions.
Yeah... we all have issues with the verdict. Samsung should have been forced to pay the original $1B verdict!
Either way, this is perfect. Samsung once again got smacked in the face. Now stop stalling and pay the damn judgement!
In the end, Samsung still laughed to the bank. It made billions of dollars off the iKnockoffs over the years. It's like robbing at bank, paying a fine with the stolen money, and getting to keep the rest of the stolen money.
To Samsung, this is just a business expense, a cost of doing business.
Yeah $500 Million is a lot, but in the end its still a bargain and the amount of time and money Apple's legal team spent on this is got to be in the millions of dollars alone. Samsung made out in the end. I still think they knew they were in the wrong and were purposely dragging the case on to make Apple lose as much money as possible on this.
Yeah, Samsung made out like a bandit and so did all of the other cloners whose entire smartphone future was based on switching over to the iPhone as the design archetype for their own products. Sure, most of them tweaked their designs just enough to avoid the obvious plagerism that took place, but in the end every successful smartphone shipped since the iPhone can trace its lineage to the iPhone. Behind the thin veneer, the marketing smoke and mirrors, and self serving deceptive claims to the contrary, every single builder of smartphones and accompanying iOS clones like Android was very intentionally and purposefully copying the iPhone. They knew it and the market knew it all along. As Apple fans we can lament the lost opportunity for 100% total world domination in a product segment, but at least the cloners and me-too designers avoided what probably would have resulted in intervention from governments had Apple refused to license its IP to others.
I view the iPhone as the HMS Dreadnought of the mobile phone market. Once it appeared on the scene all older designs were instantly obsoleted and all future designs that deviated from the archetype that it represented would not be viable. The motivation to clone and copy is irresistible - patents be damned, fines are better than total obliteration. However, missing out on a breakthrough design does not preclude other vendors from trying to leapfrog the current archetype and attempt to develop a product that may represent the next generation or improvement on the current archetype. That's a very difficult and costly endeavor made even harder when the IP for the current archetype is defined in a broad enough sense to preclude derivative designs. But it can be done. Historically, and certainly in the case of Samsung, they took the patents-be-damned approach and hired a team of lawyers to fend off the onslaught. In the end, if all it cost them is a little over $500 million USD their macro strategy was a spectacular success. They should slither back to their camp and try to use this payback to brush some of the dirt off their already messy reputation.
News flash Thomas Edison comes back from the dead to sue modern day LED lightbulb manufacturers for stealing his idea. The iPhone is still the best phone you can buy but it is a mature product and competitors with quite good phones abound. I guess this is about pride.
Have you been under a rock? This case isn't about the phones of today...and its not cool to just steal someone's work and make it your own, and then make a profit off it.
This is Samsung's business model. They will appeal, and then appeal and then appeal. And when that is exhausted they won't pay. Apple will then have to sue them for the award. And then they will appeal, and appeal, and appeal. That's how Samsung does business. They steal IP and then tie it up in legal proceedings forever. Apple likely will never see a dime.
So I have avoided this case for the most part, knowing it would be decades before it was settled. But can someone explain to me this idea of "sum of the parts" and why that lets Samsung off the hook?
Would that mean I can make a car that looks just like a Ferrari (but performs noticeably worse in order to make this comparison to Samsung equivalent!) and sell it without any ramifications? The car is just a summation of parts after all, and I didn't replicate the Ferrari engine or drivetrain.
Since Apple is doing nothing much with money they have with their buggy, incomplete, outdated, cancelled products, maybe they could use that money to give their lowest paid workers a meaningful pay rise, not use all, then put the rest aside and use it to fund it ongoing.
Or if they are going to use it to make stupid TV shows, then give it back to Samsung.
So... give people more money for doing nothing? That’s not good business practice. People should be smart and buy Apple stock for themselves.
This is Samsung's business model. They will appeal, and then appeal and then appeal. And when that is exhausted they won't pay. Apple will then have to sue them for the award. And then they will appeal, and appeal, and appeal. That's how Samsung does business. They steal IP and then tie it up in legal proceedings forever. Apple likely will never see a dime.
Most likely...its to basically make Apple use as much money as possible for this case. So maybe Apple gets the money in the end, but they've spent a large portion of that money just trying to get it which I believe is what Samsung wants. Samsung is just a POS of a company and they're going about this all wrong. I don't know if its because they think they can't compete with Apple any other way, or if these sleazy tactics are actually getting them customers. To me, the only people this is catering to are the Fandroids who would buy the phone anyways.
This is Samsung's business model. They will appeal, and then appeal and then appeal. And when that is exhausted they won't pay. Apple will then have to sue them for the award. And then they will appeal, and appeal, and appeal. That's how Samsung does business. They steal IP and then tie it up in legal proceedings forever. Apple likely will never see a dime.
This is Samsung's business model. They will appeal, and then appeal and then appeal. And when that is exhausted they won't pay. Apple will then have to sue them for the award. And then they will appeal, and appeal, and appeal. That's how Samsung does business. They steal IP and then tie it up in legal proceedings forever. Apple likely will never see a dime.
Actually, Samsung has already been required to pay much of these damages. Apple has that money and would have been required to give all or some of it back should the jury have calculated a smaller amount. As it stands I think Samsung will need to pay a bit more as the damages came out to be higher than the last go around.
And "impartial" jury in California. Right. I can believe that "justice". I call it system or a game and we simply play by its rules - not much to do with justice. I do belive Samsung abused fe patents, but I do also belive Apple tnds to patent sometimes and not use it - typical behavior to patent trolls. Also some obvious ideas that would not qualify for patent in Europe for example. You have also remeber that US patent is binding in the USA and means nothing elsewhere as aptents are territorial laws.
News flash Thomas Edison comes back from the dead to sue modern day LED lightbulb manufacturers for stealing his idea. The iPhone is still the best phone you can buy but it is a mature product and competitors with quite good phones abound. I guess this is about pride.
This may not resonate with you, but it's about the law. The fact that theft is illegal, at least in most civilized societies.
This is Samsung's business model. They will appeal, and then appeal and then appeal. And when that is exhausted they won't pay. Apple will then have to sue them for the award. And then they will appeal, and appeal, and appeal. That's how Samsung does business. They steal IP and then tie it up in legal proceedings forever. Apple likely will never see a dime.
Actually, Samsung has already been required to pay much of these damages. Apple has that money and would have been required to give all or some of it back should the jury have calculated a smaller amount. As it stands I think Samsung will need to pay a bit more as the damages came out to be higher than the last go around.
When it's all said and done and if/when Samsung finally ponies up, Apple should donate that money to a Korean charity. And make a big publicity deal out of it.
Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.
I suppose they could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it would never get a hearing.
It is my understanding this case was remanded on appeal to the federal district court for Northern California for determination of damages. An appeal from this would go to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. No one has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS. A petition can be submitted (for a writ), but the Supremes take 60-70 cases a year at their discretion.
If there is ruling conflicts between districts then yes Supreme Court will be ruling. This is what will happen regarding gun laws (carry rights) based on NJ lawsuit filed against NJ governement recently and NJ district ruling opposing Washington ruling. The same could happen in Samsung would pursue another district with suit on the same grounds I guess.
When it's all said and done and if/when Samsung finally ponies up, Apple should donate that money to a Korean charity. And make a big publicity deal out of it.
I agree. They should donate it in the form of iPhones. Or better, iTunes Store credit vouchers.
Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.
I suppose they could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it would never get a hearing.
It is my understanding this case was remanded on appeal to the federal district court for Northern California for determination of damages. An appeal from this would go to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. No one has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS. A petition can be submitted (for a writ), but the Supremes take 60-70 cases a year at their discretion.
An appeal would be heard by the Federal Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit, because of the subject matter involved - i.e., it's a patent case.
Don't think so. It doesn't involve the validity of the patent - just the damages.
It involves issues of patent law.
The Federal Circuit is the court which remanded the case back to the USDC for the Northern District of California. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit which, a couple of months later, remanded it to the trial court.
Not all patent cases go to the Federal Circuit. I don't think that is how the statute reads. I might be wrong. When the Supremes remanded to the Federal Circuit, that may be because that is where it last came from, and they needed a new trial on the issue of fact consistent with the correct law (hence the district court.) But there is perhaps now no longer an issue implicating their subject matter jurisdiction. Example: a person who's will includes a devise of a patent wouldn't get appealed to the Federal Circuit. It *would* if there was an issue that the patent was actually valid property (e.g. not properly issued by the USPTO.)
If I was Samesung, I might do as you suggest, and appeal to the Federal Circuit. If they decline, then you know where to go next. If you go to the 9th circuit, and they make a mistake by taking it...yuck. You can even get a post-judgment decision reversed on subject matter jurisdiction errors.
So I have avoided this case for the most part, knowing it would be decades before it was settled. But can someone explain to me this idea of "sum of the parts" and why that lets Samsung off the hook?
Would that mean I can make a car that looks just like a Ferrari (but performs noticeably worse in order to make this comparison to Samsung equivalent!) and sell it without any ramifications? The car is just a summation of parts after all, and I didn't replicate the Ferrari engine or drivetrain.
The question is about how to calculate damages when only part of the product infringes on a patent. So in your example, if I sold a car that illegally used a Ferrari patent for a run-flat tires, Ferrari couldn't calculate damages based on the profits of selling the whole car. Somehow the jury would have to figure out what proportion of the profits are attributable to the run-flat tires. I'm glad I'm not on that type of jury.
And "impartial" jury in California. Right. I can believe that "justice". I call it system or a game and we simply play by its rules - not much to do with justice. I do belive Samsung abused fe patents, but I do also belive Apple tnds to patent sometimes and not use it - typical behavior to patent trolls. Also some obvious ideas that would not qualify for patent in Europe for example. You have also remeber that US patent is binding in the USA and means nothing elsewhere as aptents are territorial laws.
Nope. patent trolls make their money off patents mostly by suing everyone and getting settlements and licensing. They exist only because of patents. Apple rarely licenses their patents but they protect their inventions.
Since Apple is doing nothing much with money they have with their buggy, incomplete, outdated, cancelled products, maybe they could use that money to give their lowest paid workers a meaningful pay rise, not use all, then put the rest aside and use it to fund it ongoing.
Or if they are going to use it to make stupid TV shows, then give it back to Samsung.
This is Samsung's business model. They will appeal, and then appeal and then appeal. And when that is exhausted they won't pay. Apple will then have to sue them for the award. And then they will appeal, and appeal, and appeal. That's how Samsung does business. They steal IP and then tie it up in legal proceedings forever. Apple likely will never see a dime.
Actually, Samsung has already been required to pay much of these damages. Apple has that money and would have been required to give all or some of it back should the jury have calculated a smaller amount. As it stands I think Samsung will need to pay a bit more as the damages came out to be higher than the last go around.
When it's all said and done and if/when Samsung finally ponies up, Apple should donate that money to a Korean charity. And make a big publicity deal out of it.
LOL. Apple’s gift, if there is one, is continued innovation. I’d rather they plowed the money into something more productive and beneficial to their products and services.
Comments
I view the iPhone as the HMS Dreadnought of the mobile phone market. Once it appeared on the scene all older designs were instantly obsoleted and all future designs that deviated from the archetype that it represented would not be viable. The motivation to clone and copy is irresistible - patents be damned, fines are better than total obliteration. However, missing out on a breakthrough design does not preclude other vendors from trying to leapfrog the current archetype and attempt to develop a product that may represent the next generation or improvement on the current archetype. That's a very difficult and costly endeavor made even harder when the IP for the current archetype is defined in a broad enough sense to preclude derivative designs. But it can be done. Historically, and certainly in the case of Samsung, they took the patents-be-damned approach and hired a team of lawyers to fend off the onslaught. In the end, if all it cost them is a little over $500 million USD their macro strategy was a spectacular success. They should slither back to their camp and try to use this payback to brush some of the dirt off their already messy reputation.
When it's all said and done and if/when Samsung finally ponies up, Apple should donate that money to a Korean charity. And make a big publicity deal out of it.
Not all patent cases go to the Federal Circuit. I don't think that is how the statute reads. I might be wrong. When the Supremes remanded to the Federal Circuit, that may be because that is where it last came from, and they needed a new trial on the issue of fact consistent with the correct law (hence the district court.) But there is perhaps now no longer an issue implicating their subject matter jurisdiction. Example: a person who's will includes a devise of a patent wouldn't get appealed to the Federal Circuit. It *would* if there was an issue that the patent was actually valid property (e.g. not properly issued by the USPTO.)
If I was Samesung, I might do as you suggest, and appeal to the Federal Circuit. If they decline, then you know where to go next. If you go to the 9th circuit, and they make a mistake by taking it...yuck. You can even get a post-judgment decision reversed on subject matter jurisdiction errors.
The question is about how to calculate damages when only part of the product infringes on a patent. So in your example, if I sold a car that illegally used a Ferrari patent for a run-flat tires, Ferrari couldn't calculate damages based on the profits of selling the whole car. Somehow the jury would have to figure out what proportion of the profits are attributable to the run-flat tires. I'm glad I'm not on that type of jury.