Judge says 'it's time for peace,' asks Apple and Samsung CEOs to discuss settlement

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103


    I think that the judge is right. Too much resources are wasted in these nonsensical trials. I think Apple is afraid because of the advances that Samsung has made. Samsung Galaxy S III has become very popular and it is being promoted everywhere.

  • Reply 82 of 103
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member


    It's a bit worrying that she should say that, because the ultimate goal of a court proceeding is not to achieve peace, but to see that justice is done. And if Apple were wronged she shouldn't be encouraging them so hard to settle.

  • Reply 83 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,252member


    TheVerge ran an article today detailing some testimony from yesterday. Tho not a big deal if it happens and not affecting the overall suit that much,  Apple's bounce-back patent may end up being a casualty of this case and found invalid.


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

  • Reply 84 of 103

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ufwa View Post


    Nearly every case gets appealed until it is exhausted. This verdict will be appealed. Everyone knows it. It'll have little bearing on her political future.  If she were to make huge mistakes in applying the law or getting involved in controversial issues, it'll have an effect on her future.



    I was under the impression any successful appeal of a jury's verdict can only come about as a result of an error in law made during the act of deciding which evidence to exclude from the jury's attention (either excluding evidence that should have been admitted, or presenting evidence that ought to have been excluded), or an error in law made in the instructions given to the jury about how to interpret the evidence in the context of relevant statutes and case precedence.


     


    (Or corruption, such as proof of jury bribery etc.  I certainly hope no such activity took place in this case.)


     


    Judge Koh is the final arbiter of both of those activities.


     


    As long as it can be determined that no errors were made in the administration of these duties, the jury's decision generally stands no matter how it stacks up against the facts of the case.


     


    A successful appeal of the jury's verdict, therefore, would automatically means that Koh must have made a mistake.

  • Reply 85 of 103
    drax7drax7 Posts: 38member
    A. Korean judge, wtf is wrong with this case, when apple cannot prove the most obvious .
  • Reply 86 of 103
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    lfmorrison wrote: »
    I was under the impression any successful appeal of a jury's verdict can only come about as a result of an error in law made during the act of deciding which evidence to exclude from the jury's attention (either excluding evidence that should have been admitted, or presenting evidence that ought to have been excluded), or an error in law made in the instructions given to the jury about how to interpret the evidence in the context of relevant statutes and case precedence.

    (Or corruption, such as proof of jury bribery etc.  I certainly hope no such activity took place in this case.)

    Judge Koh is the final arbiter of both of those activities.

    As long as it can be determined that no errors were made in the administration of these duties, the jury's decision generally stands no matter how it stacks up against the facts of the case.

    A successful appeal of the jury's verdict, therefore, would automatically means that Koh must have made a mistake.

    That is correct. You can't appeal simply because you disagree with the decision. You must show a material (significant) error of law. That is, you must show that the judge erred in something relevant - admission of evidence, non-admission of evidence, interpretation of the law, etc.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    TheVerge ran an article today detailing some testimony from yesterday. Tho not a big deal if it happens and not affecting the overall suit that much,  Apple's bounce-back patent may end up being a casualty of this case and found invalid.

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3244581/samsung-expert-apple-bounce-back-patent-invalid

    The only problem with that argument is that there's nothing in that video that looks even remotely like pinch to zoom or bounce back.

    As has been the case throughout this trial, Samsung is throwing irrelevant crap at the wall, apparently hoping to confuse the jury.
  • Reply 87 of 103
    froodfrood Posts: 771member


    Interesting trial.   Hang in there Judge Koh, what a tough gig.  I think she is right on this one, it would be ideal for companies to get along, decide what is fair on their own, and compete.  With that being fairly unlikely, 'there are risks for both sides' is pretty ominous because despite the certainty of the android fans on android sites, and despite the certainty of Apple fans on Apple sites- both sides have presented substantial evidence which is going to leave them with a lot riding on the decision of the jury.


     


    Samsung worst case:


        Samsung found guilty on all counts.  Judge accepts Apple's $2.75 billion valuation.  Judge triples damages for wilfull infringement- $8.25billion.  Apple has convincing verdict and sues Samsung across globe in other markets and international courts for years to come.


     


    Likelihood?  Near 0 percent.  Wilfull infringement is exceptionally difficult to prove.  Samsung did have multiple designs similar to the iPhone prior to the iPhone as well as many that were very different.  They'll argue their evolution followed Darwinian theory.  Of their many designs, the phones that were best at 'surviving' in the market were the simpler designs with only a few buttons, and that process of evolution led to designs that more resembled their final product.  Those were the designs that were selling well in the market, the other designs went extinct.


     


    More likely scenario in Apples favor:


        Samsung found guilty.  Samsung appeals decision.  Regardless of decision appeal, Samsung also challenges damages.  Basis for the low end $2.5 Apple valuation will be questioned (and is obviously \ skewed in Apples favor since Apples lawyers calculated it).  Lower basis will be presented and then premises will also be challenged.  First off, the premise that all Samsung phones sold result in a loss of an Apple sale.  Fairly damning evidence against Apple in the trial.  International phones have already been thrown off the list.  Not sure what that percentage is but it should be fairly small.  If you have data hop in and share, but I'll say that $2.5b goes to $2.3b with those thrown out.  Now factor in Apples own market research presented in the trial.  Top reason cited by Apple for consumers choosing a Samsung phone instead of an iPhone?  (Something over 30%?) "I wanted to stay with my carrier"  Ouch for Apple.  Apple had an exclusive arrangement with AT&T for many of the infringing devices for extensive periods.  Those consumers *COULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED* an iPhone and kept their distinguishing feature.  Throw all phones out that were not sold under an AT&T network plan (those phones still infringe Apples patents and warrant punitive damages, but nowhere near the damages of a 'lost sale').  Second most prevalent reason for choosing a Samsung over on iPhone in Apple's study? (Around 30%) "I wanted a bigger screen"  Apple did not offer a phone with a bigger screen.  No lost sales there.  Throw out the phones with anything other than a 3.5" screen.  Right or wrong isn't the point, the point is that $2.5billion is going to get whittled away substantially, and even then won't get paid for several years until the decision appeal process is complete.


     


    Samsung's best case:


    Apple loses.  Verdict is Samsung phones followed path of evolution and ended up similar to iPhone because that simply is what was selling in the market.  Apple loses 'Pinch to Zoom' patent and 'bounceback' patent.  This may be a real possibility and the judge suggesting the sides 'narrow their scope' may be a sign that Apple should consider withdrawing one or both of these patents.  Prior art alone is sufficient to overturn a patent.  What is even more damaging to Apple in this case is that not only is there evidence of prior art (should the jury decide it is sufficient), but there is also proof that that very prior art was demonstrated to Apple before/during the iPhone design.  So it looks very much like Apple saw the demonstration, said 'Wow, that's awesome!  We need to implement that in our phone!'  and instead of buying the company and/or technology, Steve Jobs excercised his right as a 'Great Artist' and stole the technology and patented it.  Salt on the wound should the patents be overturned is that the actual inventor (Mitsubishi?) will likely file for the rightful patent and Apple (as well as Samsung) will be forced to pay royalties on pinch to zoom and bounceback should they choose to continue to use them in future phones (anything to date will be exempt since there was no valid patent on them).


    Likelihood of this outcome?  Not likely, but also far greater than 0%.   Apple would of course appeal the decision of Samsungs guilt, but it would be very, very unlikely for any scenario to play out where they get their invalidated patents restored.  This outcome would also be the 'shot heard around the world' in terms of rampant litigating for all companies (not just Apple).


     


     


    So I think Judge Koh nailed it.  "Guys, really, play nice and figure this out on your own," is a good solution and great advice.  I think even she realizes it is unlikely.

  • Reply 88 of 103
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post

    A sales ban may be a win for Apple but it will be a loss for all of us.


     


    Completely wrong. It will force everyone else to actually compete.







    Competition is what keeps companies on their toes coming up with new awesome stuff. 




     


    And there isn't any right now. Competition, that is. Apple makes awesome stuff.


     



    They should just cross-license and stop acting like bickering five year olds. And get back to work making great products.


     


    Trolls should just give up and stop parroting the same crap, too. 

  • Reply 89 of 103
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post


    A sales ban may be a win for Apple but it will be a loss for all of us.



     


     


    Why? There are hundreds of other Android devices to choose from. Most of them look and function the same. That's the beauty of universal licensing. Lots of the same crap. You can jump from one to the other without missing a beat. 


     


    And this case IS NOT about consumers. It has NOTHING to do with consumers. It's all about the intellectual property rights of companies. Our rights don't have anything to do with this, nor should they. 


     


    As for innovation, there will always be those who can innovate around patents and change the game. Everyone had the opportunity to pull off a June 2007 and a January 2010, same as Apple. Maybe it's time the also-rans put aside their laziness. "Me-too" products that come from knee-jerk reactions to changing market dynamics just won't cut it anymore. 

  • Reply 90 of 103
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Drax7 View Post



    A. Korean judge, wtf is wrong with this case, when apple cannot prove the most obvious .




    What is with some of you guys. By the same logic a Caucasian judge would be biased in favor of Apple.


     


    Also keep in mind the verdict is still a trial by jury, even if judges do have quite a lot of influence.

  • Reply 91 of 103
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post




    What is with some of you guys. You're complete racist trash. By the same logic a Caucasian judge would be biased in favor of Apple.


     


    Also keep in mind the verdict is still a trial by jury, even if judges do have quite a lot of influence.



    Well to be fair, this is a JURY trial, so I don't see the Judge having THAT much influence, apart of course from refusing evidence that either side would want based on her whim and fancy. 


     


    and by the way, who are they fooling? REGARDLESS of which side wins the thing we can be sure about IS AN APPEAL. 


     


    So whoever wins, this is FAR from over. 

  • Reply 92 of 103
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    Well to be fair, this is a JURY trial, so I don't see the Judge having THAT much influence, apart of course from refusing evidence that either side would want based on her whim and fancy. 


     


    and by the way, who are they fooling? REGARDLESS of which side wins the thing we can be sure about IS AN APPEAL. 


     


    So whoever wins, this is FAR from over. 





    I agree with you. This won't end anytime soon. Judges can have quite a bit of influence. My issue was that the comment over the race of the Judge had absolutely no basis. We aren't talking about the niece of Samsung's CEO or something like that. We're also not talking about someone who is on Apple's payroll. The problem is you can make up a story for anything, but taking issue with a US judge of Korean descent says more about the bias of the person posting that kind of garbage than it does about the judge.

  • Reply 93 of 103
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member


    The judge knows that there are too much prior art coming out that Apple wont be able to win this lawsuit. Therefore, in order to collect her paycheck and favor the local party, she is indirectly urging Apple to cut its losses and public image and settle out of court.

     

  • Reply 94 of 103
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post


     


    So, your contention is that Samsung already had these ideas because their teams reported thinking of them in the latter half of 2006, barely ahead of an actual completed product introduced in January 2007 and sold in June 2007? (which Jobs said he had been waiting to introduce for 2 1/2 years at that time)


     


    If anything, your illustrations show that a company (Samsung), working on a phone, altered its design and features ideas about the time they might have become privy to details of Apple's impending finished product...uh, that's copying.  


     


    You seem not to have presented "any evidence that might work against Apple".


     


    When did they receive contracts for Apple components?  Might that have contributed to these supposed ideas?


    Someone out there who _isn't_ a troll must know...?





    You have no proof that Samsung had any Apple's design knowledge of the iPhone.


     


    According to Forestall, his team had iron clad secrecy regarding the matter.


     


    Hence, Samsung would not have any knowledge of the design.


     


    Therefore, your argument goes out that window, yes the one on your left.

  • Reply 95 of 103


    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

    The judge knows that there are too much prior art coming out that Apple wont be able to win this lawsuit.


     


    *snort*


     


    Also, it's not for her to say. That's what the jury is for.

  • Reply 96 of 103
    emacs72emacs72 Posts: 356member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    TheVerge ran an article today detailing some testimony from yesterday. Tho not a big deal if it happens and not affecting the overall suit that much ...



     


     


    some reports suggest the context of the "it's time for peace" quote may have stemmed from Andries van Dam's testimony.


     



     


    ===


     


    "Apple will argue that DiamondTouch and the other prior art--van Dam also pointed out the Launch Tile application on the HP iPaq handheld device as using snap back in its user interface--do not achieve the same effects of snap back on the iPhone and iPad. But the fact that knowledge of snap back was prevalent at the time Apple applied for exclusive ownership of the feature may be more difficult to explain away.


     


    Judge Lucy Koh may have had that in mind when she warned, "There is risk to both sides, if this case goes to verdict." She urged the two sets of attorneys to call on the CEOs of both companies to meet to try to resolve their differences one more time before she has to issue instructions to the jury, likely to happen after closing arguments next Tuesday."


     


    ===


     


    for the sake of article length and editorial deadlines i'm sure we're not getting the whole picture so we'll have to see how van Dam's testimony along with everything else we know (and don't know) will play out for the jury.


     


    side note: Andries van Dam is the co-author of one of my favorite and seminal books on computer graphics
  • Reply 97 of 103
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,252member


    LOL!!


     


    Fromm TheVerge:


    Judge Lucy Koh has been going increasingly terse with both Apple and Samsung as the trial continues, and she just let Apple have it after receiving a 75-page briefing. The document covered 22 potential rebuttal witnesses the company might want to call after Samsung finishes presenting its case. With the jury out of the courtroom, Koh laid into Apple, asking why it would present such a lengthy document "when unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!"


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/16/3247092/judge-to-apple-youre-smoking-crack

  • Reply 98 of 103
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    So all she cares about is the schedule, not the truth. Got it.

  • Reply 99 of 103


    You're half-right.  BOTH the patent system AND the legal system are either broken, bought, or both.  Listen to When Patents Attack by This American Life and educate yourself to how screwed up the system is.




    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack



     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Uplift Humanity View Post



    It's a sad state of affairs when multinational corporations willfully infringe on/steal the work of others, knowing they will only have to spend a few million on legal costs -- instead of hundreds of millions for innovating/inventing.

    The patent system is not broken. The legal system is broken. These days, winning requires only:

    (1) a large legal team

    (2) paid-for "experts" who will say what you want

    (3) people willing to shred evidence, disregard court edicts -- knowing they won't be reprimanded

    (4) the ability to obfuscate issues and juries

    It's clear Samsung infringed on Apple's prior IP. They should be found guilty, and have punitive damages also imposed on them. When crime "pays", it will continue.

  • Reply 100 of 103
    There is a slight problem with all of this.

    In Britain, because Apple ignored a judgement as if it never happened Apple have to headline on their front page for 6 months "Samsung did not copy Apple'".
    So if we get different judgements depending on which country we are in this could end up as a trade war.
Sign In or Register to comment.