Jury modifies Apple v. Samsung damages but final amount unchanged, calls Google involvement 'interes
After being recalled to clarify an issue with Friday's verdict, the Apple v. Samsung jury on Monday modified the award amounts for various claims, but left Apple's share of damages unchanged at $119.6 million.
With the determination handed in, reporters were able to speak with jurors in the case, including Foreman Thomas Dunham, who explained there was no single piece of evidence or expert testimony that ultimately swayed the jury, according to in-court reports from Re/Code.
The initial verdict awarded Apple $119.6 million, though counsel discovered an issue with claims against Samsung's Galaxy S II. The jury found the device in infringement of certain Apple patents, but assigned no damages award to the handset.
Following a two-hour session, the jury decided to award $4 million for the Galaxy S II, but modified payouts for other products, leaving the combined damages total at $119.6 million. Dunham, an former IBM executive, called the issue a "clerical error" in which incorrect figures were logged in a few boxes.
Most substantial of the various additions and subtractions from the original verdict was a $4.6 million deduction of damages relating to the Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Samsung's AT&T version of the handset.
The first verdict form, which was made public on Friday, showed a bulk of damages -- some $99 million -- came from Apple's '647 patent covering data detectors or so-called "quick links."
As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however.
During trial proceedings, it came out that Google was contractually obliged by Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) documents to pay for the defense of certain patents claims made against Samsung. In addition to the undisclosed figures, the company would also take on responsibility for those same patents if Samsung were to lose the trial.
"It was interesting but it didn't change any of our thoughts," Sage said. "It didn't change our decision making in any way."
Update: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has made the final jury verdict form available for public viewing. A copy of the document is embedded below.
With the determination handed in, reporters were able to speak with jurors in the case, including Foreman Thomas Dunham, who explained there was no single piece of evidence or expert testimony that ultimately swayed the jury, according to in-court reports from Re/Code.
The initial verdict awarded Apple $119.6 million, though counsel discovered an issue with claims against Samsung's Galaxy S II. The jury found the device in infringement of certain Apple patents, but assigned no damages award to the handset.
Following a two-hour session, the jury decided to award $4 million for the Galaxy S II, but modified payouts for other products, leaving the combined damages total at $119.6 million. Dunham, an former IBM executive, called the issue a "clerical error" in which incorrect figures were logged in a few boxes.
Most substantial of the various additions and subtractions from the original verdict was a $4.6 million deduction of damages relating to the Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Samsung's AT&T version of the handset.
The first verdict form, which was made public on Friday, showed a bulk of damages -- some $99 million -- came from Apple's '647 patent covering data detectors or so-called "quick links."
As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however.
During trial proceedings, it came out that Google was contractually obliged by Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) documents to pay for the defense of certain patents claims made against Samsung. In addition to the undisclosed figures, the company would also take on responsibility for those same patents if Samsung were to lose the trial.
"It was interesting but it didn't change any of our thoughts," Sage said. "It didn't change our decision making in any way."
Update: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has made the final jury verdict form available for public viewing. A copy of the document is embedded below.
Comments
Does this mean we go after google next?
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/42713/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
http://flic.kr/p/ndWNKe
..
.
The two patents Google was indemnifying, and so apparently part of stock Google Android, were not infringed. Only what would likely be Samsung-modified features were dinged. Google wouldn't be responsible for any of the damages according to the contract with Samsung nor do any Google Android features seemingly infringe on any of the Apple-asserted IP in the case.
You know that old expression, Garbage In, Garbage Out? Here we have a perfect example of dumb jurors deliberating, dumb verdict being reached. This goes for that mindless twit of a judge in this case, who cannot make up her mind which way she wants to think, and who doesn't have the spine to impose sanctions on Samsung, even after catching them lying to the court.
This is utter garbage.
"As for Google's involvement in the case, both Dunham and another juror, Pamela Sage, said revelations regarding Internet giant's promise to pay for certain legal fees were "interesting." The facts did not sway the jury's final decision, however."
Does this mean we go after google next?
If Apple chooses to go there you might not be far off. In regards to Apple:
"If they really feel Google is the cause behind this, then don't beat around the bush," Dunham said.
I'm glad that the 4 million dollar error was just a clerical mistake. Sheesh. I question how overnight common people can become experts in patent law. The press reports there was an IBM executive, and now suddenly he's the expert because after all he's an IBM executive. I would rather see a group of judges schooled in this area handle these cases. I think the outcome of the trial was ridiculous and pretty much gives license to any foreign company to copy at will.
BINGO! There needs to be a division of the legal system that is fully educated in both law, and IT. Until that happens, trials like these will continue to have ridiculous and useless outcomes.
You think a $119 million fine will stop Scamsung from doing this again? This is chunk change to those thieves, and just a cost of doing business the way they have been.
A $15 BILLION fine and sales ban would make them stop stealing ON THE SPOT.
So, will Apple pursue Google next?
So, will Apple pursue Google next?
Probably not.
First there is the appeals process to get through.
Newer Samsung phones and more patents.
Until Apple get injunctions which is when Samsung will settle.
In the mean time Samsung will continue to steal whatever they want and make hay while the sun shines.
They can't, that's how counsel wants it. I had jury duty last year for a (I kid you not) a patent case. When they found out I had a Bachelors in computer science along with my BS in accounting & MBA both sides wanted me gone. Strange because it dealt with financial and technical issues.
So, will Apple pursue Google next?
God no, I can only hope we're done with lawsuits now.
heck no. next one will be about the 2013 Samsung models. We will see a lawsuit every year until either Samsung stops infringing or they settle. Apple will attack them like bees defending a raid on their honeycomb. While the stings won't kill, they start adding up.
http://flic.kr/p/ndWNKe
[url=http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=36386][B][SIZE=4]Galaxy S5 Explained: UX and Back Panel[/SIZE][/B][/url]
From a post on Samsung’s official weblog:
[QUOTE]Morever [sic], while in previous Galaxy flagships, the features in the settings were only shown in a list, in the Galaxy S5, they can be seen in three types of views such as a grid, list, and tab (category). Thus, with an easy-to-see icons and interface, you can clearly say that the Galaxy S5 is a trendy smartphone.
[/QUOTE]
Clearly.
[QUOTE]However, there is another reason the UI of the Galaxy S5 looks so clean and simple.
The Galaxy S5 has 40 applications only, which is much reduced compared to, for example, the Galaxy Note 3 having 51 apps. 40 applications in the 2 pages. That’s it. If wanted, other relatively less frequently used apps can be easily downloaded through Galaxy Essential and Galaxy Gift widget.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds great.
As soon as I heard that the jury reached a decision "a few minutes" before the end of the day Friday, I assumed it was going to be bad for Apple. The indication was the jury didn't want to deliberate over the weekend and was rushed into reaching a verdict quickly. The next few days should yield some "interesting" information over this decision. I look forward to it. I hope at the Apple appeal, a different judge/jury will be better suited to punish Samsung.
For a very informative view on just how evil Samsung is/was in it's past practises, take a look at this Vanity Fair article. It opened my eyes even further to what a corrupt corporation Sammy really is.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war
Saw this on Gruber's site. Good for a laugh.
Galaxy S5 Explained: UX and Back Panel
From a post on Samsung’s official weblog:
Clearly.
Sounds great.
Sounds like bloatware central, reminds me of Windows PC OEM's...
No thanks, will stick with iOS.
So Apple got..5% of what it asked for. How fucked up.
The message this sends is it's not worth patenting anything anymore. Patents are worth absolutely nothing.
If Apple chooses to go there you might not be far off. In regards to Apple:
"If they really feel Google is the cause behind this, then don't beat around the bush," Dunham said.
And how would the damages be measured exactly? If the jury can barely comprehend numbers, how would they begin to comprehend Google's business model with Android?