Samsung loses US patent trial to Apple

Discussion in 'Technology' started by khaid, Aug 24, 2012.

  1. Verdict was just reached earlier for Samsung vs. Apple US patent dispute case. Samsung lost and has to pay out just over $1 billion to Apple. I guess that's better than over $2 billion that Apple originally wanted.
  2. Any other consequences from this? Wasn't sure if there would be sales bans or crap like that.
  3. Nah, it was just for the $$$, but make no mistake that this is an example for all other OEM's out there so the consequences are grave and go much further than this specific case.

    Also, Samsung's counter-suit against Apple all failed as the jury awarded them nothing for them.
  4. Interesting stuff in the South Korean case too:

    The patent infringing devices are to be banned from sale, so that's Apple’s iPhone 4 and iPad 2, Samsung’s Galaxy SII, Galaxy Nexus, and the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy 10.1 tablets.
  5. Isn't Samsung BASED in South Korea?
  6. Being based somewhere doesn't mean anything. What if there was an Apple vs. Microsoft case here? Would the world implode on itself?
  7. No surprises there. The jury probably consisted of Apple/iPhone loving dudebros.

    Apple's case was basically that they "invented" the idea of a rectangular touchscreen phone with rounded edges, which is absurd beyond belief, as phones like that were around before the iPhone. In fact, Apple was heavily inspired by existing Sony designs when they made the iPhone.

    This verdict is retarded and will encourage patent trolling. Great job Apple and idiots on the jury!

    Edit: Also, from what I recall reading, the judge in this case is a former Apple employee (former litigator for Apple), and the jury deliberations "just happened" to fall late on a Friday afternoon when everyone was trying to go home. So hilariously corrupt!

    Not like it matters anyway. $1B is chump change for Samsung, and it's not like this will stop them from dominating the smartphone market. Even if the Galaxy S1 was a knockoff as Apple claims, their current designs, like the S3, are nothing like the iPhone at all. In fact, I don't even think Apple considers them to be infringing.
  8. From what I've been reading, the big wins for Apple here are:

    A. The enforcement of design related patents
    B. The enforcement of trade dress rights
    C. The rejection of random patent claims (such as FRAND patents) as a defense for infringers

    It also sets up the likelihood that Samsung will need to follow Microsoft's example and enter into licensing deals with Apple, rather than try to bluff their way forward. Apple apparently has more powerful patents related to mobile that it didn't use in this case vs. Samsung.
  9. They've already filed an injunction against the sale of specific devices that the jury found to be infringing Apple's patents. So it's similar to what chi mentioned per the ruling in South Korea, where certain models might be banned. Remains to be seen though...there's nothing automatic about it.

    The jury foreman who swayed the others was a disgruntled patent holder who wanted to "send a message"? How did that guy ever make it through the voir dire process? Clearly he was massively biased. The job of the jury is not to send a message. It's to weigh the evidence presented and come to a verdict. It sounds like he had already made up his mind before the trial started.

    Between that guy and the incredibly biased judge (who was a former Apple attorney) who kept throwing out evidence that would have helped Samsung's case, I see no way Samsung could have gotten a fair trial.

    This whole thing stinks of a rigged sham trial that was bought and paid for by Apple.
  11. Sounds accurate based on the evidence. Apple told them what they considered to be infringing on their patents back in 2010, and Google advised them to either enter into a licensing agreement or revise the products. It was Samsung's choice to ignore that and risk a jury trial.

    Truth is, there's nothing unusual about this. Microsoft has a long track record of contacting companies, telling them that they consider their product to be infringing a patent they hold, and then offering a choice between a licensing deal or court. All the histrionics regarding this trial and it's consumer impact are hypocritical at best. Paying licensing fees for use of patented technology is routine.
  12. Histrionics? Apple is about to pull nearly all of Samsung's phones off the US market, which will leave them with basically no competition. Prepare to go back to paying $700 for iPhones again I guess. This case was a huge blow to consumers. Apple hates competition and will use their crack legal team to ensure they don't have any. That's what this was really all about. They want to send a message to all competitors to stop competing or we will sue you in a rigged trial where you can't win.

    If it were up to them, they would still be charging $700 for iPhones. It was only competition from Android that made them drop it down to more reasonable prices.
  13. All Samsung has to do is make a licensing deal with Apple. That's what Microsoft did. And Apple offered that to Samsung and they decided to risk a jury trial instead. It's their own blunder.
  14. So basically they have to make it so their phones aren't profitable. Yeah, that's fucking retarded and highly anti-competitive.

    The reality is that Samsung was winning the smartphone wars. Apple couldn't win in the marketplace so they resorted to patent trolling and legal bullying. They're scum basically.
  15. it gets worse. one of the jury members said that they decided to not consider prior art because it was bogging them down. literally his own words.

    " Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
    "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...
  16. Like I said, the licensing of patents is routine in the tech world. Anything that's considered to be a core technology is covered by FRAND licensing (which guarantees that you can't be priced out of the market by competitors that hold the patents), and anything that's not is basically considered to be something that isn't critical to releasing that type of product. And it's the second type of patent that Apple was litigating. The idea that Samsung HAS to infringe those patents is untrue. They could have chosen to create their own solutions, or they could have licensed them from Apple, or they could have tried to bluff their way past Apple in court. They tried the third option and lost.

    Microsoft, on the other hand, chose to license mobile patents from Apple.
  17. This whole thing was so rigged, it's kind of laughable.

    -Judge was a former Apple attorney
    -Jury foreman was a patent troll who had made up his mind before the trial started, other jurors were ADD-adled Dudebros who just wanted to get out of there
    -Evidence tossed out for no reason that could have helped Samsung's case
    -Jury deliberations "just happened" to fall on a Friday afternoon when all the dudebros on the jury were tired and bored. They never asked any questions. The patent troll guy determined the verdict.

    I wonder how much Apple paid for this? Millions probably.
  18. The jury ruled that Samsung had violated both the utility patents and the design patents that Apple held. However, it's only the utility patents (software related) that were judged to be "willful". The jury didn't rule in Apple's favor when it came to the iPad design or icon designs.
  19. The judge had worked as a patent attorney for a Silicon Valley office of McDermott Will & Emery, which is one of the world's largest law firms. They've probably represented every major tech company in the U.S. at one time or another.
  20. And yet... Samsung will still manage to ship more phones next quarter.