So the jury make errors in working out the damages owed, go back to go over their findings again & also take into account the SGII, then afterwards, including the SGII, the outcome remains exactly the same?
Sounds very fishy to me. What are the odds on that happening?
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.
In which case Samsung will still continue to pay next to nothing for what they steal and sell. You haven't caught onto that yet?
I hope at the Apple appeal, a different judge/jury will be better suited to punish Samsung.
I think Apple should initiate settlement with Samsung now, before Samsung appeal goes ahead (A Sammy lawyer said they would appeal). Tide has turned against Apple, it seems.
So those nasty slitty eyed dwarf South Koreans who thieve at will live to steal another day. No morals at all. USA Government should nuke the lot of them.
There's no way you're an Apple fan. You're just some racist troll acting as one to build more hate.
So those nasty slitty eyed dwarf South Koreans who thieve at will live to steal another day. No morals at all. USA Government should nuke the lot of them.
Can't tell if Apple][ or Tallest Skil. The racist remark suggests Apple][ but the desire to attack South Korea with a nuclear weapon suggests Tallest Skil.
Can't tell if Apple][ or Tallest Skil. The racist remark suggests Apple][ but the desire to attack South Korea with a nuclear weapon suggests Tallest Skil.
No need to libel Apple][ or Tallest Skil. Flag the offending poster and move on.
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.
Source?
You use the word "likely", which suggests you're merely hoping/conjecturing.
If Google is indemnifying Samsung, that seems like a nice reason to impose a punitive award of triple the jury's assessment. Can't have companies thinking they can infringe others' IP just because it won't cost them anything.
If Google is indemnifying Samsung, that seems like a nice reason to impose a punitive award of triple the jury's assessment. Can't have companies thinking they can infringe others' IP just because it won't cost them anything.
Under Google's indemnity clause with Samsung they are obligated to defend them on any patent infringement claims arising from the use of Google-supplied software. In this case that extended to two of Apple's 5 patent claims: U.S. 6,847,959, applicable to the Google Search Box , and U.S. Patent 7,761,414 claimed against Gmail. Neither Apple patent was found to be infringed. If Google had supplied software unmodified by Samsung and accused of infringing it's both logical and reasonable that Samsung would have insisted on indemnification on those too isn't it?
Source?
You use the word "likely", which suggests you're merely hoping/conjecturing.
That's why I used the word "likely" as there could be some odd and unclear rationale for Google not covering some pure Google feature but it seems unlikely. The contract is linked here if you want to read thru it to see if anything jumps out at you where Google could be let off the hook for an IP problem directly connected to their software. http://www.scribd.com/doc/221640909/Samsung-MADA-With-Google
Additionally the only patent the jury found for "willful infringement" was the '172 which Judge Koh ruled infringed before the trial had even begun AFAIK that makes ii the only one where damages attributed specifically to it could be trebled. But there's another problem with that one. After the trial began the USPTO announced new questions about the validity of the patent, an argument Samsung also made during the trial tho they weren't permitted to mention the USPTO re-exam in progress (for good and legal reasons).
So the jury make errors in working out the damages owed, go back to go over their findings again & also take into account the SGII, then afterwards, including the SGII, the outcome remains exactly the same?
Sounds very fishy to me. What are the odds on that happening?
Jury' doesn't have to make sense. They may have agreed on a number, or range, and filled in the blanks to fit it. When they realized they missed a blank they may of just adjusted it to fit the value they had already agreed on.
No need to libel Apple][ or Tallest Skil. Flag the offending poster and move on.
You use the word libel but I'm not convinced that you know what it means. Libel implies false statements. You do realize Apple][ is known for his racist remarks, right? Heck, he's pretty proud of his bigotry and I'll at least respect him for standing behind what he believes (even if I don't agree with him). Lots of people harbor such feelings but keep them hidden inside and only express them when around like-minded individuals. As far as Tallest Skil, he has publicly posted his desire for a nuclear strike on to be carried out on South Korea.
Is AAPLfanboy a troll? It appears that way.
Was AAPLfanboy's post worse then what gets posted here by some of the regulars? Nope.
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.
What you experienced (a peremptory challenge) is the usual setup, similar to lawyers & doctors being dismissed from certain case types.
Perhaps each side's limited number of challenges were used up before he was selected, and he passed the judge's sniff test,
which usually goes "despite having worked in this arena, would this bias your impartial judgement?" I wish Groklaw were still around
to cover this minutiae. Oh yes, for those who wonder why people who "know too much" are subject to dismissal, it's usually because
the adversarial system with strict rules of evidence is a rather different approach to getting at "the truth" than is the scientific method.
Science cognoscenti generally are a little "too curious" to be content with just the facts presented. However, excluding juror bias
doesn't go to the level of "do you own Samsung or Apple gear"? (Or few people except absolute hermits might sit for a jury, ha!)
In a few days, a new headline will pop up... "Samsung Paid Jury From Second Apple v Samsung Case Millions In Incentive for Significantly Reduced Payout. Retrial On the Way."
Then the REAL jury that wasn't paid off by Samsung will award Apple $2.2B with willful infringement and a recommendation for an injunction. That's $6.6B after the damages are tripled for willful infringement.
Comments
So the jury make errors in working out the damages owed, go back to go over their findings again & also take into account the SGII, then afterwards, including the SGII, the outcome remains exactly the same?
Sounds very fishy to me. What are the odds on that happening?
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.
In which case Samsung will still continue to pay next to nothing for what they steal and sell. You haven't caught onto that yet?
I hope at the Apple appeal, a different judge/jury will be better suited to punish Samsung.
I think Apple should initiate settlement with Samsung now, before Samsung appeal goes ahead (A Sammy lawyer said they would appeal). Tide has turned against Apple, it seems.
There's no way you're an Apple fan. You're just some racist troll acting as one to build more hate.
So those nasty slitty eyed dwarf South Koreans who thieve at will live to steal another day. No morals at all. USA Government should nuke the lot of them.
Can't tell if Apple][ or Tallest Skil. The racist remark suggests Apple][ but the desire to attack South Korea with a nuclear weapon suggests Tallest Skil.
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.
Apple also has to petition the court to treble damages on the patent that was found to have been willfully infringed by Samsung.
Can't tell if Apple][ or Tallest Skil. The racist remark suggests Apple][ but the desire to attack South Korea with a nuclear weapon suggests Tallest Skil.
No need to libel Apple][ or Tallest Skil. Flag the offending poster and move on.
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.
Source?
You use the word "likely", which suggests you're merely hoping/conjecturing.
If Google is indemnifying Samsung, that seems like a nice reason to impose a punitive award of triple the jury's assessment. Can't have companies thinking they can infringe others' IP just because it won't cost them anything.
That's why I used the word "likely" as there could be some odd and unclear rationale for Google not covering some pure Google feature but it seems unlikely. The contract is linked here if you want to read thru it to see if anything jumps out at you where Google could be let off the hook for an IP problem directly connected to their software.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221640909/Samsung-MADA-With-Google
Additionally the only patent the jury found for "willful infringement" was the '172 which Judge Koh ruled infringed before the trial had even begun AFAIK that makes ii the only one where damages attributed specifically to it could be trebled. But there's another problem with that one. After the trial began the USPTO announced new questions about the validity of the patent, an argument Samsung also made during the trial tho they weren't permitted to mention the USPTO re-exam in progress (for good and legal reasons).
At least that's the way I read it.
Get a grip you halfwit. Throw around the word racist like you know what it means. The world is tired of people like you.
Additionally the only patent the jury found for "willful infringement" was the '172 which Judge Koh ruled infringed before the trial
I've read that the jury found willful infringement on 3 of 5 patents.
Jury' doesn't have to make sense. They may have agreed on a number, or range, and filled in the blanks to fit it. When they realized they missed a blank they may of just adjusted it to fit the value they had already agreed on.
Source?
... and if/when you find it you can confidently tell them they're wrong.
See page 7 of this document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221694599/Apple-v-Samsung-Jury-Verdict-Form
No need to libel Apple][ or Tallest Skil. Flag the offending poster and move on.
You use the word libel but I'm not convinced that you know what it means. Libel implies false statements. You do realize Apple][ is known for his racist remarks, right? Heck, he's pretty proud of his bigotry and I'll at least respect him for standing behind what he believes (even if I don't agree with him). Lots of people harbor such feelings but keep them hidden inside and only express them when around like-minded individuals. As far as Tallest Skil, he has publicly posted his desire for a nuclear strike on to be carried out on South Korea.
Is AAPLfanboy a troll? It appears that way.
Was AAPLfanboy's post worse then what gets posted here by some of the regulars? Nope.
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.
What you experienced (a peremptory challenge) is the usual setup, similar to lawyers & doctors being dismissed from certain case types.
Perhaps each side's limited number of challenges were used up before he was selected, and he passed the judge's sniff test,
which usually goes "despite having worked in this arena, would this bias your impartial judgement?" I wish Groklaw were still around
to cover this minutiae. Oh yes, for those who wonder why people who "know too much" are subject to dismissal, it's usually because
the adversarial system with strict rules of evidence is a rather different approach to getting at "the truth" than is the scientific method.
Science cognoscenti generally are a little "too curious" to be content with just the facts presented. However, excluding juror bias
doesn't go to the level of "do you own Samsung or Apple gear"? (Or few people except absolute hermits might sit for a jury, ha!)
[URL=http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war]Smartphone War[/URL]
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.
But that's just a few patents out of Apple's portfolio of hundreds just for the iPhone.
($100M, possibly trebled) isn't bad for just one or a few!
Seems like a regular part of negotiation -- ask for the moon and settle for less.
But in a regular out-of-court settlement, usually the two sides portfolios are "weighed"
against each other, almost like grading papers by the number of pages. Because of
this, as a "patent early, patent often" believer, IBM extracted much in the way of tribute
from many players in the computer industry. See the infamous account by Gary Reback, from 2002,
of how Sun Microsystems (R.I.P.) couldn't sway Big Blue on patent quality (a few good ones) vs. sheer quantity:
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
In a few days, a new headline will pop up... "Samsung Paid Jury From Second Apple v Samsung Case Millions In Incentive for Significantly Reduced Payout. Retrial On the Way."
Then the REAL jury that wasn't paid off by Samsung will award Apple $2.2B with willful infringement and a recommendation for an injunction. That's $6.6B after the damages are tripled for willful infringement.
Samscum needs to get off the face of the earth!
Jury should have awarded Apple more to teach Samsung a lesson.