Apple vs. Samsung: verdict | CNET

Apple vs. Samsung: verdict

  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:24:17 PM
    OK, we've just gotten clarification from the courthouse. Total damages assessed against Samsung: $1.05 billion
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:25:02 PM
    Lot of moving parts here. Products from multiple companies.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:25:48 PM
    Court reconvening in 4 mins while both sides double check the numbers.
  • Mr.Pelletier 8/24/2012 11:30:02 PM
    What about Samsung's countersuit?
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:30:13 PM
    @Mr.Pelletier They didn't get any damages from that.
  • Mr.louden 8/24/2012 11:37:12 PM
    Does this mean that the galaxy 10.1 and the other phone that patents where infringed on will be banned or taken of the market
  • Donald Brown 8/24/2012 11:37:43 PM
    I'm a badge carrying Apple fanboy - but there's no way it should have been so completely one sided and the verdict came back way too fast.
  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:39:11 PM
    From Josh: They should have been back in the courtroom 9 mins ago
  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:39:35 PM
    From Josh: Delay on Koh's part here.
  • Nobody 8/24/2012 11:39:53 PM
    So Apple owns the right to pinch-to-zoom and lots of other UI stuff. Does this mean now that Apple has won hands down that nobody can use this stuff any more?
  • Michael 8/24/2012 11:40:06 PM
    Apple will ask the judge for an injunction. If granted, Samsung products will be pulled from the shelves.
  • dnatwork 8/24/2012 11:40:40 PM
    I expect this will be used as leverage to settle Apple's disputes with Samsung around the globe. Both lose in Korea, Samsung wins in Germany, but overall Samsung will have to cross-license on terms that Apple likes and commit to the same no-copying rule that Apple has with Microsoft.
  • Joe 8/24/2012 11:40:45 PM
    Can you explain the difference between the original $2.3 B that was reported and the $1.05 reported later? Was the smaller number for just one of the three Samsung companies, perhaps or was there a reduction in damages for some reason?
  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:41:36 PM
    @Joe: Josh says they were reading the damages off "insanely fast." So there was apparently some misunderstanding about total versus indivdual-product damages.
  • Gautham Somraj 8/24/2012 11:41:51 PM
    Does this mean that apple can potentially prevent the galaxy sIII from being shipped to US??
  • Bill 8/24/2012 11:42:40 PM
    I own Samsung and Apple Products, and think this is ridiculous... Apple clearly infringed on many Samsung patents, and other companies patents, Samsung did as well... it should have been left to fair competition... Samsung didnt b!tch about their patents until Apple did... instead of sue, both companies should have used the time and money spent to create better products for their customers.
  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:43:17 PM
    @Gautham: The Galaxy S3 wasn't part of this case. So I believe the answer is no.
  • NvD 8/24/2012 11:44:07 PM
    @Joe and Josh Could the distance in damages also be as a result of non-infringement on Samsung's part as far as their Galaxy Tab is concerned? I believe the value associated for damages there was upwards of $1bn
  • Andy 8/24/2012 11:45:02 PM
    So Samsung was found guilty, but is it just me or does Apple end up looking like the bad guy in this case?
  • n23mc 8/24/2012 11:45:05 PM
    Imagine if this was Microsoft with this victory? People would be crying about an overbearing Microsoft. When Apple wins, it's not thought in the same light?
  • Roger Telstar 8/24/2012 11:45:25 PM
    @David: This has the potential to freeze dry all innovation within the industry. All smartphones and tablets can now be attacked mercilessly.
  • phatdaddy 8/24/2012 11:45:38 PM
    since the jury found samsung willfully infringed, doesn't that mean triple damages?
  • Michael T Tichvon 8/24/2012 11:46:15 PM
    Great job Josh, your fingers got a work-put with the rapid fire updates. I'm glad Apple stuck it to 'em all too often copy-cat infringement goes un-checked, and Samsung will still make money.
  • Cory 8/24/2012 11:47:50 PM
    The one upside I saw was that many of the 'No' phones were the newer models, so apparently not all rounded corners are out...just ones that are too rounded...or something. Actually there didn't seem to be too much rhyme or reason. Should have never been up to a jury anyways.
  • NoName 8/24/2012 11:48:54 PM
    Samsung has a long history of intellectual property theft. We used to meet with them and when they left, we had to count the spoons. Eventually it got so bad, we closed the joint development agreement.
  • legalwiz 8/24/2012 11:48:59 PM
    Yes, Samsung will appeal. . . silly question really. Cost of appeal is maybe $75K-$125K - only because they have so many attorneys working on the case (versus agreeing to pay $1B). The math is easy.
  • JoJo 8/24/2012 11:49:13 PM
    Apple DOES create better products for their customers. They also have the right to protect their innovations in those products from being STOLEN and used to compete against the ORIGINAL. Theft is theft, whether it's corporations or on the street corner.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:49:23 PM
    Back after some technical problems. Everyone fighting for Internet. And Koh comes back in.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:49:36 PM
    Koh: there are at least 2 problems.
  • Me 8/24/2012 11:49:51 PM
    As a consumer I am terrified of the implications of this verdict.
  • Artur Nunes 8/24/2012 11:50:25 PM
    this ruling does not freeze dry innovation, i think it only freezes copying and violation of patents; i don't have any problems or see any similarity between iOS or Win8.. MS innovate it's user interface, did not copy it... why can't Google do the same? Don't forget, they were in Apples board of directors at the time the iPhone was created...
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:50:30 PM
    Samsung: 1 issue, under 915 patent, the infringement was not found directly, so there should be no damages.
  • Millenia SC 8/24/2012 11:50:36 PM
    This is way one sided. They both infringed on each other, but the verdict clearly favors the AMERICAN company
  • Leif Sikorski 8/24/2012 11:50:49 PM
    I guess the reason that Samsung didn't won a single of their own claims is that their claims were way more technical, to technical for such a jury.

    In all it's ridiculous result. If Samsung would have to pay for the stuff they did with copying the icons and such things....fine....for them this money is nothing. Something is one of the companies who spend most into R&D, just this year over 14 Billion $ - way more than Apple.
  • Donald Brown 8/24/2012 11:51:07 PM
    If Cook is smart, he's going to immediately contact Samsung CEO and make a reasonable offer.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:51:09 PM
    Koh: Other issue on the 10.1 4G LTE, it is accused of D889 both direct and inducement, then dilution of trade dress, but there shouldn't be damages for that either.
  • Rocco Musumeci 8/24/2012 11:51:17 PM
    I see this as a big win for Apple, and a great loss for every handset manufacturer connected to Android in someway. The biggest loser in this case is the consumers, especially those in the US. Lets hope Samsung appeals and we can get a fair and competitive environment established that will benefit us consumers. As it is, this is patent law destroying innovation.
  • Bob Dole 8/24/2012 11:51:40 PM
    Time to send the $1.05 Billion though the double Irish to the Caribbean tax haven where Americans won't see a dime of it. Apple should sue Mitt Romney for infringing on their tax dodging tactics, they mastered it first.
  • fmeisterchicago 8/24/2012 11:51:53 PM
    This is just verdict and will spur innovation rather than inhibit it. SmartPhone makers will be weary of copying other patented features and will dedicate more R&D to creating something new.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:52:33 PM
    Koh: I am going to -- put it in as a neutral form as possible -- there seems to be an inconstancy in that there was no finding of direct inducement or D889 patent and no finding of dilution or infringement of Tab 10.1 4G LTE, yet $214K in damages have been awarded.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:53:00 PM
    Apple: It's possible they'll go back and look for direct infringement.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:54:54 PM
    So Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE -- was accused of direct infringement and inducement of D889 patent, and dilution and infringement of iPad iPad 2 trade dress that the jury's response was no. But $219k of damages was awarded. And Intercept, found no infrginement of 915 patent, but found inducement of 915 patent and awarded $2.2M in damages - Koh wants them to look at damages again.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:55:23 PM
    in other words, Samsung could be getting a $2.4M break
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:55:32 PM
    from the total damages
Powered by ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform
This week on CNET News See all