Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.
Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice. Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.
Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.
Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.
Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?
The fact that some of the patents Apple used in the trial have been peliminarly ruled invalid on all claims is not going to help Apple in a new trial unless they can get the patents re-instated....
By the way, I am sure Apple appealed these rulings... Any news on where that stands????
In the end, Apple will have spent about as much as they get. And Samsung will have been handed the best advertising bang for the dollar that they could have ever hoped for....
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.
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.
Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice. Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.
Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.
The problem is either party has a right to have a jury decide the case. Apple has a chance still on appeal in the Vimet case.
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
She didn't overturn the juries willful infringement finding. She just didn't further determine there was objective willfullness, one of two parts needed (the other is subjective) for enhanced damages to be appropriate.
While a jury always determines the first prong, whether infringement was willful, the judge always determines the second:
Whether the infringer relied on a competent legal opinion they were not treading on another's IP. Judge Koh found that Samsung had a reasonable and supportable belief they were not guilty of infringement, even tho they were aware of the infringement claims by Apple.
In no way should that mean I support Samsung in this. I do not. It's just the factual opinion of the court.
Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.
Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?
Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish really hard... something magical WILL happen.
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
Willful infringement requires both the jury and the judge to agree. As she noted it in her judgement about that:
Quote:
The Federal Circuit has laid out the relevant standard for the willfulness inquiry for patent infringement:
“A patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.
If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk.was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”
Thus, the willfulness inquiry is a two-prong analysis,requiring an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry. The objective inquiry is a question for the Court, and the subjective inquiry is a question for the jury.
- Judge Koh (and all other courts due to precedents)
PATENTS
In this case, she felt that anyone with knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents could be invalid, and thus there can be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.
Note that it does not matter for this part, whether Samsung thought they were invalid or not. It only matters what the judge thinks an objective observer would think.
So that knocked out extra damages for the patents.
TRADE DRESS
As for trade dress award enhancement, that is not done as punishment, but only to compensate for any extra loss that the jury award misses.
Here, the simple jury award form that Apple pushed so hard, later came back to haunt them. By lumping all awards together for each device, Apple could not later claim that the jury had not considered everything together in its award amounts.
Thus, no extra damages for trade dress, either.
So the original jury awards were left as they were, which was still much more than Apple themselves had valued their IP at... something most people don't realize.
I'm confused, wasn't this the same forum that was praising Koh a few months ago for her due diligence and love of American style justice?
Now she is the scum of the earth and apparently on the payroll of Samsung. The evidence you are presenting is overwhelming. /s
Sarcasm aside, for those who think Samsung is going to fork Android, they will not. They are branching out with a new OS called Tizen 2.0 - if they forked Android, they would doom themselves because they would cut themselves off from the Play store. Also, LG, HTC are not dead and are making good comebacks with some of their phones. The HTC One is due out soon and has a lot of good buzz going for it. LG has been on the receiving end of some good sales lately which is something they dearly needed.
All I have to say is that Cook needs to follow through on his "Good stuff coming soon" comment the other day and get a 46" Apple TV out there or even the Apple SmartWatch (before the Pebble and the others get a strong foothold) because the iPhone is slowly falling behind. The iPhone brand will always have it's loyal consumer base but the 1080p phones, the true multitasking and all the other neat innovations are happening right now (HTC's Zoe software looks really interesting) and Apple does not have anything in the pipe for the iPhone for another 6-7 months. I strongly believe they need to move to a 6 month cycle and start cutting their profit margins in order to stay in the game long term.
Apple been aggressive against Samsung to sent a message. It not about the money but the integrity of upholding the respect of a business partner. Apple hopefully can distance it self from Samsung in the future.
Shocker. What gets me is why the US even bothers asking its citizens to waste their valuable time when some Korean friendly, Apple hating judge is just going to overrule their decision. Most of these jurors have better things to do while people like Koh do not. I think she is trying to make a career out of this one case. Another public employee pissing away taxpayer dollars. Thanks Lucy for dragging this out.
It is sad to see a company that is a shine of this country had been taken down by greedy Wall Street analysts and the judges of the country who apparently seems to have some agenda. Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people
Poor Tim, it's no wonder he hates litigation and one can only imagine the legal fees they've racked up to do all this litigating with next to nothing to show for it. It's time for Tim to send Bruce Sewell packing.
It is sad to see a company that is a shine of this country had been taken down by greedy Wall Street analysts and the judges of the country who apparently seems to have some agenda. Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people
You're naive if you think that will shut them up. It will please them for a week, after which they will continue their bitching. Apple doesn't need to get anything "out". One bad product will damage their brand and do long term damage more than any kind of stock manipulation will. Then, the media, wallstreet , and consumers will REALLY eviscerate them.
I read through the entire judgement and agree that the headline is totally wrong and skewed.
This also should affect the stock price at all. What this states is that 60% of the jury's judgement is correct and stands after all of Samsungs motions to try and get things overturned. The 40% was deemed to either be based on incorrect notification dates of patent offenses and Apples expert using the same initial date for all damage calculations. Thus, no clear way to allow the judge to adjust and calculate them herself. In addition, in the case of the Samsung "Fascinate" infringement, the jury took into account calculations to figure the award that should not have been used for that device. Again, there wasn't a clear way for the accurate amount to be defined by the judge. So what does this mean.
Samsung is still guilty of infringing on the patents. That is still fact and unless turned over on their pior appeal (Nothing to do with this decision). The retrial is strictly in regard to determining damages for those items mentioned above (approx 40% of the initial award) as stated, which were figured by the jury incorrectly. Now, this could mean a lower award or a new Jury could use a different method to calculate an even higher award. Apple will still walk away with something. Thus, its not good or bad. Samsung will still have to pay and it could end up being worse for them as well. Unless Samsung wins on their appeal.
In addition, Apple was also granted compounded interest (although on the treasury rate not the higher prime rate) on the final total amount, which will be derived from the retrial. This will all be retroactive back to the initial Jury's award date.
Not sure what is so bad.
Btw, Apple also could appeal Ko's decision as well. But either way they still won't loose the entire 40% and could gain even more.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Why even have jury trials anymore?
Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.
Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice. Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.
Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.
Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.
Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?
The fact that some of the patents Apple used in the trial have been peliminarly ruled invalid on all claims is not going to help Apple in a new trial unless they can get the patents re-instated....
By the way, I am sure Apple appealed these rulings... Any news on where that stands????
In the end, Apple will have spent about as much as they get. And Samsung will have been handed the best advertising bang for the dollar that they could have ever hoped for....
She's Korean fellas. Samsung has her in their pocket.
After the retrial of the 40%, the 40% will become a billion dollars by itself, leading to 1.6 billion judgement for Apple.
LOL.
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.
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Actually, for patent cases, many companies would prefer to have trained judges decide the outcome.
Over and over again, patent jury trials have been shown to be a throw of the dice. Even Apple has a love/hate relationship with them.
Just look at the VirnetX jury trial in Texas where Apple lost $368 million over Facetime, and could soon owe at least that much again in another jury trial on the same topic.
The problem is either party has a right to have a jury decide the case. Apple has a chance still on appeal in the Vimet case.
Originally Posted by TBell
Apple has a chance still on appeal in the Vimet case.
That was a "with prejudice" thing; they don't have an appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
She didn't overturn the juries willful infringement finding. She just didn't further determine there was objective willfullness, one of two parts needed (the other is subjective) for enhanced damages to be appropriate.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/122908093/Denial-of-Enhancements
While a jury always determines the first prong, whether infringement was willful, the judge always determines the second:
Whether the infringer relied on a competent legal opinion they were not treading on another's IP. Judge Koh found that Samsung had a reasonable and supportable belief they were not guilty of infringement, even tho they were aware of the infringement claims by Apple.
In no way should that mean I support Samsung in this. I do not. It's just the factual opinion of the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Is it wrong to want a sinkhole to swallow Seocho-gu in the middle of the night? Just the buildings, mind, and all their contents.
Or to hope that Wikileaks (are they still relevant?) releases e-mails proving that Samsung's executive team said, directly, "I don't care how it has to be done; copy Apple."?
Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish really hard... something magical WILL happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
Willful infringement requires both the jury and the judge to agree. As she noted it in her judgement about that:
Quote:
The Federal Circuit has laid out the relevant standard for the willfulness inquiry for patent infringement:
“A patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to this objective inquiry.
If this threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk.was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”
Thus, the willfulness inquiry is a two-prong analysis,requiring an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry. The objective inquiry is a question for the Court, and the subjective inquiry is a question for the jury.
- Judge Koh (and all other courts due to precedents)
PATENTS
In this case, she felt that anyone with knowledge of prior art would've objectively believed that Apple's touch patents could be invalid, and thus there can be no extra damages for willfulness over and above the infringement awards.
Note that it does not matter for this part, whether Samsung thought they were invalid or not. It only matters what the judge thinks an objective observer would think.
So that knocked out extra damages for the patents.
TRADE DRESS
As for trade dress award enhancement, that is not done as punishment, but only to compensate for any extra loss that the jury award misses.
Here, the simple jury award form that Apple pushed so hard, later came back to haunt them. By lumping all awards together for each device, Apple could not later claim that the jury had not considered everything together in its award amounts.
Thus, no extra damages for trade dress, either.
So the original jury awards were left as they were, which was still much more than Apple themselves had valued their IP at... something most people don't realize.
I'm confused, wasn't this the same forum that was praising Koh a few months ago for her due diligence and love of American style justice?
Now she is the scum of the earth and apparently on the payroll of Samsung. The evidence you are presenting is overwhelming. /s
Sarcasm aside, for those who think Samsung is going to fork Android, they will not. They are branching out with a new OS called Tizen 2.0 - if they forked Android, they would doom themselves because they would cut themselves off from the Play store. Also, LG, HTC are not dead and are making good comebacks with some of their phones. The HTC One is due out soon and has a lot of good buzz going for it. LG has been on the receiving end of some good sales lately which is something they dearly needed.
All I have to say is that Cook needs to follow through on his "Good stuff coming soon" comment the other day and get a 46" Apple TV out there or even the Apple SmartWatch (before the Pebble and the others get a strong foothold) because the iPhone is slowly falling behind. The iPhone brand will always have it's loyal consumer base but the 1080p phones, the true multitasking and all the other neat innovations are happening right now (HTC's Zoe software looks really interesting) and Apple does not have anything in the pipe for the iPhone for another 6-7 months. I strongly believe they need to move to a 6 month cycle and start cutting their profit margins in order to stay in the game long term.
Apple been aggressive against Samsung to sent a message. It not about the money but the integrity of upholding the respect of a business partner. Apple hopefully can distance it self from Samsung in the future.
Originally Posted by radster360
Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people
Except both devices would be commercial failures, leading to actual reason for Wall Street to be against Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360
It is sad to see a company that is a shine of this country had been taken down by greedy Wall Street analysts and the judges of the country who apparently seems to have some agenda. Tim, lets that get TV out, get those low cost iPhone out and shut the crap of all those complaining people
You're naive if you think that will shut them up. It will please them for a week, after which they will continue their bitching. Apple doesn't need to get anything "out". One bad product will damage their brand and do long term damage more than any kind of stock manipulation will. Then, the media, wallstreet , and consumers will REALLY eviscerate them.
I read through the entire judgement and agree that the headline is totally wrong and skewed.
This also should affect the stock price at all. What this states is that 60% of the jury's judgement is correct and stands after all of Samsungs motions to try and get things overturned. The 40% was deemed to either be based on incorrect notification dates of patent offenses and Apples expert using the same initial date for all damage calculations. Thus, no clear way to allow the judge to adjust and calculate them herself. In addition, in the case of the Samsung "Fascinate" infringement, the jury took into account calculations to figure the award that should not have been used for that device. Again, there wasn't a clear way for the accurate amount to be defined by the judge. So what does this mean.
Samsung is still guilty of infringing on the patents. That is still fact and unless turned over on their pior appeal (Nothing to do with this decision). The retrial is strictly in regard to determining damages for those items mentioned above (approx 40% of the initial award) as stated, which were figured by the jury incorrectly. Now, this could mean a lower award or a new Jury could use a different method to calculate an even higher award. Apple will still walk away with something. Thus, its not good or bad. Samsung will still have to pay and it could end up being worse for them as well. Unless Samsung wins on their appeal.
In addition, Apple was also granted compounded interest (although on the treasury rate not the higher prime rate) on the final total amount, which will be derived from the retrial. This will all be retroactive back to the initial Jury's award date.
Not sure what is so bad.
Btw, Apple also could appeal Ko's decision as well. But either way they still won't loose the entire 40% and could gain even more.