Why isn't a proper American chosen as judge for these US versus South Korea lawsuits?
Now that is plain discrimination... even bordering racist.
I guess the only "proper American" would be the Native Americans... wouldn't it? Not the thousands of people from the European continent who barged in on their homelands.
The message that the original "willful infringement" ruling sent out to the handset manufacturers of the world is clear today. Two years ago it was just Samsung whose lineup looked exactly like the iPhone - black and white models, no keyboard, rounded corners, edge to edge screen, chrome edges, single physical button. Today, now that they know it's "OK", every manufacturer's lineup looks like the iPhone.
Haha, This whole thing is like the story line of the Matrix: Apple is Zion, Google is the Matrix, and Samsung is agent Smith, replicating and taking control of the whole system. I can see Apple at some point approaching Google and saying something along the lines of: "the program Smith has grown beyond your control. Soon he will spread through this city, as he spread through the matrix. You cannot stop him. But I can".
Yes. Willful Infringement is a question of fact left for a jury. It is puzzling the judge overturned the juries finding of willful infringement.
In spite of the "objective" vs "subjective" crap from the normal Google and Samsung apologists, you're right. This one's going to be appealed - just like everything else in the trial. Koh has had some decisions overturned on appeal and some upheld. There's really no point getting excited about anything in this case until it's all settled - which will be somewhere around 2023.
That the real problem with this. Even if Samsung were to pay the $1 B fine today, they emerge as the winners. They went from a relatively minor player to the top or #2 smartphone vendor (depending on whose numbers you believe) and are making a fortune - enough to spend billions of dollars a year on marketing alone and bury their competitors with their massive advertising expenditure. This rise occurred during the time that their phones and tablets looked like exact copies of Apple's (to the level that even their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference) - and during the court trial, there was evidence that some people bought Samsung phones and tablets thinking that they were buying Apple products.
Today, Samsung is moving away from the slavish copies of Apple products, since they'e established their position in the industry and no longer need to. The damage has been done - and $1 B (or eve $3 won't rectify that. Stealing has paid off for them - no matter how the current court cases are resolved.
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
Nope. As soon as they do that, the whining will start that the $300 phones aren't cheap enough and Apple needs to have a $100 phone. And the TV will be panned because it doesn't magically pick up TV shows from alpha centauri. No matter what Apple does, people will complain.
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.
Are you referring to this current judgement?
If so, I re-read it again and se nothing about what you stated above. Actually Apple will be awarded supplemental damages. Ko just did not dise with the way Apple wanted to calculate supplemental damages (As a proportion of all infringing devices v. the exact amount of sales for each infringing device that was sold sold after the original trial). However, since there are still appeals and the fact that sales numbers on these devices are not know or avail to the court to make this determination, she will wait until the appeal process completes before hearing evidence on this.
Also, I see nothing about the award form causing an issue or affecting how any of her determinations were made. The issue's for a re-trial on damages being necessary were two fold:
1) The Galaxy Previal (I incorrectly mentioned the Samsung Fascinate above) was only found to infringe on utility patents. However, her determination was that the award was made on lost profits or included lost profits in the calculation. Lost profits are not legally permitted for solely a utility patent infringement. Since it was much higher then the compensation Apple requested, the fact Apple did not provide an amount for a reasonable Royalty, and since there is no way to determine what would be considered the excess (i.e. amount just attributed to lost profits), a new trial was ordered to determine damages for this item.
2) As far as the other damages that were set aside, it was due to the fact that Apple's expert stated starting damage amounts for ALL infringing devices/patents based on the 1st notice date on Aug 4, 2010. However, her determination was that Apple did disclose one specific patent on that date and she could not find any proof that Samsung was told specifically that they were infringing on the other patents at that time. Only that Apple mentioned that they were infringing on other patents (not specifically what those patents were) until April 15, 2011. Since the Experts numbers were based on the Aug 4, 2010 start date and the fact that the jury's award was an exact percentage to the dollar, based on those figures, the Jury's award took into account infringement for certain patents during the period where judge Ko determined there wasn't any infringement due to insufficient notice (Between 2010-2011). Since Apple's expert did not break down sales figures and damages by Samsungs devices within this period (were only broken down by fiscal quarter), there was no way for Ko to make the correction. Thus, a new trial for damages on those devices.
3) Apple asked for extra damages wich were denied. The basis was that Apple stated that the award should be increased since the Jury awarded less then the amount by Samsungs own expert. It was only denied because there is a longstanding rule that the 7th amendment prohibits judicial increases to awards made by a jury. In addition, the Jury is not bound by the amounts given by any expert.
In regard to #2, there could be good reason for the lack of any proof of earlier notification. Did Judge Ko and other forget about all the document shredding Samsung was doing prior to the trial? On this alone she would of had reason to side with Apple and deny Samsung their motion. IMO, the onus should have been on Samsung to prove in some way that they were never notified since the court could have claimed that there was a high probability that they destroyed evidence to the contrary.
Also, Lucy Ko's actions of making both parties pair down their cases played a part in this as well. I would have figured that first there would have been determinations made as to the each patent and their corresponding "infringement dates". As well as hearings on sales figures etc within those dates for both sides. Then there would have been a trial to determine if in fact either party infringed on each other patents and the award dates and sales figures would have been pre-determined from the prior hearings.
Nope. As noted, I was responding to the question about willfulness that she ruled on at the end of January.
Several people had wondered how a judge could "change" what the jury said. (The short answer is that she didn't change their finding. However the jury is only part of the overall legal requirement for willfulness.)
Today, Samsung is moving away from the slavish copies of Apple products, since they'e established their position in the industry and no longer need to. The damage has been done - and $1 B (or eve $3 won't rectify that. Stealing has paid off for them - no matter how the current court cases are resolved.
Sad, but true. At the end of the day, in business as in war, it's not about the fairness of it.
Which is why I've come to the conclusion -- despite the fact that it rankles some folks here no end, and I myself find it a bit distasteful -- that Apple has to truly ratchet up its game.
'Mr. Nice Guy' doesn't cut it much anymore. That was one lesson that SJ seemed to have taken to heart (after his ignominious losses to MSFT) and never compromised on during his second stint. The current management somehow does not signal the same resolve, at least not to me.
My post #61 was removed. Why? There are posts alluding to that she is taking bribes and these stay. Apple II has written that Palestianians should be killed. You mods are crazy.
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.
Yet just a few months ago, some people thought she was a California business friendly, Samsung hating judge who overruled their pleas to include important evidence.
People can be so fickle.
Quote:
Most of these jurors have better things to do while people like Koh do not.
Works both ways. If the jurors had spent more time (as was expected), their results might not have been so screwy, and the court's time might not have been wasted with another trial.
What I wonder is, cannot the jurors be summoned back and asked for clarification? Or are they too tainted now by finding out the things they missed?
Because of its incorrect, nationalist, long-disproven nature.
Because that's something that could actually be the case, unlike your claims.
Where? If you see that sort of thing, report it.
The thread about Apple establishing some research/manufacturing centers in Israel, about 2-3 weeks ago.
Go and check its all there in wonderful technocolour. Will you take the time and effort and look?
Posters are alluding she is taking bribes. Why ? Because of her background, she is of Korean descent.
So therefore that is racism also. Because if she was, say, British, then people would not be accusing her of being in the clutches of Samsung, as much as they are inferring now.
I bet you also feel she is being bribed because she is Korean.
I am honest unlike you.
So if she is indeed being bribed, then she is not a proper American as its goes against cultural norms and she is damaging the US. Apple loses money, money they could spend on hiring Americans, research, you name it.
So I am right, she is not a proper American, I stand by my accusation.
But hey at least I'm not saying we should murder all Koreans, like someone else would be posting.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
Why isn't a proper American chosen as judge for these US versus South Korea lawsuits?
Now that is plain discrimination... even bordering racist.
I guess the only "proper American" would be the Native Americans... wouldn't it? Not the thousands of people from the European continent who barged in on their homelands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
Why isn't a proper American chosen as judge for these US versus South Korea lawsuits?
It is an American judge. She is a US citizen. Perhaps you mean a White judge yet don't want to appear racist.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
It is an American judge. She is a US citizen. Perhaps you mean a White judge yet don't want to appear racist.
He failed. Ban the shitkicker.
In spite of the "objective" vs "subjective" crap from the normal Google and Samsung apologists, you're right. This one's going to be appealed - just like everything else in the trial. Koh has had some decisions overturned on appeal and some upheld. There's really no point getting excited about anything in this case until it's all settled - which will be somewhere around 2023.
That the real problem with this. Even if Samsung were to pay the $1 B fine today, they emerge as the winners. They went from a relatively minor player to the top or #2 smartphone vendor (depending on whose numbers you believe) and are making a fortune - enough to spend billions of dollars a year on marketing alone and bury their competitors with their massive advertising expenditure. This rise occurred during the time that their phones and tablets looked like exact copies of Apple's (to the level that even their own attorneys couldn't tell the difference) - and during the court trial, there was evidence that some people bought Samsung phones and tablets thinking that they were buying Apple products.
Today, Samsung is moving away from the slavish copies of Apple products, since they'e established their position in the industry and no longer need to. The damage has been done - and $1 B (or eve $3
Nope. As soon as they do that, the whining will start that the $300 phones aren't cheap enough and Apple needs to have a $100 phone. And the TV will be panned because it doesn't magically pick up TV shows from alpha centauri. No matter what Apple does, people will complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
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.
Are you referring to this current judgement?
If so, I re-read it again and se nothing about what you stated above. Actually Apple will be awarded supplemental damages. Ko just did not dise with the way Apple wanted to calculate supplemental damages (As a proportion of all infringing devices v. the exact amount of sales for each infringing device that was sold sold after the original trial). However, since there are still appeals and the fact that sales numbers on these devices are not know or avail to the court to make this determination, she will wait until the appeal process completes before hearing evidence on this.
Also, I see nothing about the award form causing an issue or affecting how any of her determinations were made. The issue's for a re-trial on damages being necessary were two fold:
1) The Galaxy Previal (I incorrectly mentioned the Samsung Fascinate above) was only found to infringe on utility patents. However, her determination was that the award was made on lost profits or included lost profits in the calculation. Lost profits are not legally permitted for solely a utility patent infringement. Since it was much higher then the compensation Apple requested, the fact Apple did not provide an amount for a reasonable Royalty, and since there is no way to determine what would be considered the excess (i.e. amount just attributed to lost profits), a new trial was ordered to determine damages for this item.
2) As far as the other damages that were set aside, it was due to the fact that Apple's expert stated starting damage amounts for ALL infringing devices/patents based on the 1st notice date on Aug 4, 2010. However, her determination was that Apple did disclose one specific patent on that date and she could not find any proof that Samsung was told specifically that they were infringing on the other patents at that time. Only that Apple mentioned that they were infringing on other patents (not specifically what those patents were) until April 15, 2011. Since the Experts numbers were based on the Aug 4, 2010 start date and the fact that the jury's award was an exact percentage to the dollar, based on those figures, the Jury's award took into account infringement for certain patents during the period where judge Ko determined there wasn't any infringement due to insufficient notice (Between 2010-2011). Since Apple's expert did not break down sales figures and damages by Samsungs devices within this period (were only broken down by fiscal quarter), there was no way for Ko to make the correction. Thus, a new trial for damages on those devices.
3) Apple asked for extra damages wich were denied. The basis was that Apple stated that the award should be increased since the Jury awarded less then the amount by Samsungs own expert. It was only denied because there is a longstanding rule that the 7th amendment prohibits judicial increases to awards made by a jury. In addition, the Jury is not bound by the amounts given by any expert.
In regard to #2, there could be good reason for the lack of any proof of earlier notification. Did Judge Ko and other forget about all the document shredding Samsung was doing prior to the trial? On this alone she would of had reason to side with Apple and deny Samsung their motion. IMO, the onus should have been on Samsung to prove in some way that they were never notified since the court could have claimed that there was a high probability that they destroyed evidence to the contrary.
Also, Lucy Ko's actions of making both parties pair down their cases played a part in this as well. I would have figured that first there would have been determinations made as to the each patent and their corresponding "infringement dates". As well as hearings on sales figures etc within those dates for both sides. Then there would have been a trial to determine if in fact either party infringed on each other patents and the award dates and sales figures would have been pre-determined from the prior hearings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imt1
Are you referring to this current judgement?
Nope. As noted, I was responding to the question about willfulness that she ruled on at the end of January.
Several people had wondered how a judge could "change" what the jury said. (The short answer is that she didn't change their finding. However the jury is only part of the overall legal requirement for willfulness.)
Samsung still has no creativity...
We need to protect our USA IP!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Today, Samsung is moving away from the slavish copies of Apple products, since they'e established their position in the industry and no longer need to. The damage has been done - and $1 B (or eve $3
Sad, but true. At the end of the day, in business as in war, it's not about the fairness of it.
Which is why I've come to the conclusion -- despite the fact that it rankles some folks here no end, and I myself find it a bit distasteful -- that Apple has to truly ratchet up its game.
'Mr. Nice Guy' doesn't cut it much anymore. That was one lesson that SJ seemed to have taken to heart (after his ignominious losses to MSFT) and never compromised on during his second stint. The current management somehow does not signal the same resolve, at least not to me.
and the people who are forced to go to "jury duty" are told that their services are basically worth nothing in the judges eyes.
There are posts alluding to that she is taking bribes and these stay.
Apple II has written that Palestianians should be killed.
You mods are crazy.
Originally Posted by hfts
My post #61 was removed. Why?
Because of its incorrect, nationalist, long-disproven nature.
There are posts alluding to that she is taking bribes and these stay.
Because that's something that could actually be the case, unlike your claims.
Apple II has written that Palestianians should be killed.
Where? If you see that sort of thing, report it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser
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.
Yet just a few months ago, some people thought she was a California business friendly, Samsung hating judge who overruled their pleas to include important evidence.
People can be so fickle.
Quote:
Most of these jurors have better things to do while people like Koh do not.
Works both ways. If the jurors had spent more time (as was expected), their results might not have been so screwy, and the court's time might not have been wasted with another trial.
What I wonder is, cannot the jurors be summoned back and asked for clarification? Or are they too tainted now by finding out the things they missed?
Go and check its all there in wonderful technocolour. Will you take the time and effort and look?
Posters are alluding she is taking bribes. Why ? Because of her background, she is of Korean descent.
So therefore that is racism also. Because if she was, say, British, then people would not be accusing her of being in the clutches of Samsung, as much as they are inferring now.
I bet you also feel she is being bribed because she is Korean.
I am honest unlike you.
So if she is indeed being bribed, then she is not a proper American as its goes against cultural norms and she is damaging the US. Apple loses money, money they could spend on hiring Americans, research, you name it.
So I am right, she is not a proper American, I stand by my accusation.
But hey at least I'm not saying we should murder all Koreans, like someone else would be posting.