Apple vs. Samsung: verdict

  • 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
  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:55:55 PM
    Well, that's got to be a relief to Samsung :-).
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:56:49 PM
    Koh telling jury about the inconsistencies.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:57:05 PM
    "We'd like you to go back and look at those questions," Koh says.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:58:35 PM
    Koh to jury: I'm going to ask whatever changes you make in response to these two issues, put it in red ink. And foreperson please initial and date any changes.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:59:05 PM
    Jury going back to deliberate -- Koh asking if they want to stay and figure it out, or wait til Monday. Guess what their answer is...
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/24/2012 11:59:21 PM
    Lawyers are fine with that too. Verhoeven and Jacobs jump up and say "it's fine!"
  • LAwLz 8/24/2012 11:59:51 PM
    The problem is that it's basically impossible to make a smartphone without infringing on Apple's patents. I can't think of a single smartphone which does not infringe on any patent Apple owns. Their patents are so broad and flat out crucial to smartphones. It's like if Ford started suing everyone for making cars with a steering wheel, 4 wheels and windows. It's like if Samsung started suing everyone making TVs with small black boarders around them (being first with something doesn't mean anything as seen in this case).
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:00:06 AM
    Court in recess at this point -- we'll hear back with a final version shortly. Koh says "I wouldn't go far."
  • agiuliano8 8/25/2012 12:00:26 AM
    How does anyone see this as bad for consumers? It doesn't destroy innovation. It gives Apple incentive to continue developing awesome products and software without worrying about everyone profiting from their work. It forces Apple's competitors to be creative and try to innovate a bit themselves.
  • Joe R 8/25/2012 12:01:16 AM
    Samsung does not care about $2.4 million it is the findings here that are important. The entire total of $1.05 billion is small change in this battle. It actually should be much higher. This encourages patent infringement. Unless products in violation are banned this is no big deal.
  • TGooding 8/25/2012 12:04:41 AM
    I DO think this was way too one-sided, but I don't think the damages are unfair. There should've been some penalty for Apple's infringements (coming from an Apple fan). However, this HAD to be done and I think Samsung and the rest of the industry needs to take notes about their future product designs. Attempting to copy a product with JUST enough differences to avoid litigation may not be the best strategy..... As Cook said ".... Invent your own stuff". Maybe they'll all start trying a bit harder to license patents under FRAND.
  • Nobody 8/25/2012 12:04:59 AM
    Apple is so amazing and so awesome, I am glad they totally kicked Samsung's bottom for completely copying them in every way, everybody knows Apple was the first person to ever make a phone, nobody should even try, everybody should just be forced to buy Apple products, This is american, Where we don't deserve choices or personal opinions, We only deserve whatever the richest companies want to give us.
  • murraypaul 8/25/2012 12:05:40 AM
    I think your reporting that "Jury found Samsung violated antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to the UMTS standard" is incorrect. That was question 31, which was answered with a No.
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 12:07:22 AM
    @murraypaul: That's ambiguous to me based on what Josh wrote, but I've taken it out of the summary, just to be safe.
  • roggie 8/25/2012 12:07:54 AM
    Thought apple products were expensive before? Wait a year or two and then see!!
  • John 8/25/2012 12:08:12 AM
    It is not impossible to make a smartphone that doesn't infringe Apple IP as LAwLz states. Few have tried. You have seen the iPhone, it does things in an elegant way, and now you think it's the only way. Your anti-Apple statement only proves the counter point.
  • Paul 8/25/2012 12:08:36 AM
    Those who think this is bad for the consumer and OK for Samsung to infringe are wrong. First if any one of those complaining even patented something and then watched someone steal it I think you would have a different perspective on this as YOU would be losing money. Corporations invest billions of $ in R&D to make innovative products. If you were an Apple stockholder you would want a return on that investment. When someone steals your idea without licensing it then we lose. I like both Apple and Samsung but you can't copy something that someone else owns. Time for Samsung to pay up.
  • Res 8/25/2012 12:08:53 AM
    Trivial patents that take a lot of effort to work around and result in busywork and klunky workflow changes for users are not innovation; they're obvious ideas that should never have met the minimum standard for a patent. Apple certainly snared a lot of people in their "Innovation!" propaganda.
  • jordohayes 8/25/2012 12:09:06 AM
    People don't seem to realize that it may take several years to create inovation, and if others are left to copy it outright, then those companies profit off the hard work of others. With Samsung using the iPhone as a major starting point, Apple loses its advantage and its capital. With capital gone from borrowed work, Apple can't grow or innovate. Samsung or others should work to find a better solution rather than buying time. I understand that if certain patents are awarded, it may block competition, however, there is always another solution. Instead of Samsung or others trying to be best at everything, focus on making a few things extraordinary. This is Apple's approach, and nobody has the right to take their "paper" and turn it in with their name on it. If I were a teacher, and I saw two papers very simular, but happen to know the true author, its not a hard decision to find out who didn't provide a works cited.
  • tuuubeez 8/25/2012 12:09:25 AM
    The real problem here is the legal precedent. As another media outlet put it, this now (appeals withstanding) gives Apple the ability to chase after the likes of HTC and LG claiming similar patent infringement on those ridiculous aspects like using rectangular phones and rounded icons. Samsung can survive a hit like this, the other players are less able to recover.
  • TerryMcDougal 8/25/2012 12:10:07 AM
    Copying a design is not innovation. If a patent is involvolved then it is infringement. Patents promote innovation and diversity. Mr. Ford may have choose to not patent his design but then he was coping the buggy.
  • Mr. Taylor 8/25/2012 12:10:16 AM
    Does anybody know about the supposed potential 2x - 3x multiplier that could get applied for "willful infringement?" I thought the jury said yes to willful. And the $1.05B is the jury's recommendation. Does Judge Koh "apply" the multiplier after we clear up these questions? Or is that not going to happen now?
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:10:38 AM
    We're still waiting for the jury to come back.
  • Cory 8/25/2012 12:10:46 AM
    The strait down the line "No" responses on the Samsung questions should really invalidate this whole affair as it shows that the jury wasn't even paying attention. They basically said Yes Samsung has these patents, Yes they tried to negotiate, They didn't negotiate unfairly and yet no damages
  • Hmm 8/25/2012 12:11:00 AM
    @Reader John: The problem isn't the trade dress; the real issue is the software patents that got upheld despite prior art.
  • Matt Rainbolt 8/25/2012 12:11:26 AM
    to tuuubeez's point - this may end up chasing oem's away from the android platform unless Google can find a way to provide some level of protection. Something they've been unsuccessful even with the acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
  • /g/ 8/25/2012 12:12:37 AM
    I wonder how many billions of dollars it took to develop "slide to unlock" and rounded corners.

    The billions are put in developing the iOS subsystem, not the patents this verdict was about.
  • Anonymous 8/25/2012 12:12:51 AM
    And without cellphone companies like Samsung having innovated in the first part, Apple would have never gotten INTO the phone industry in the first place. Yes, they profit off the hard work of others, but then those improvements of theirs are also used by others. That's pretty much what innovation IS.
  • AlexanderGuvingston 8/25/2012 12:13:31 AM
    it's one thing to outright copy and infringe someone's patent and just completely steal their innovative ideas and make them your own and use them to profit immensely. it's another thing when every god damn smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, etc is running and using the same damn parts and structures nowadays. There has to be a standard design for things like these as the design for a lot of these technologies is more-or-less the same with all of them, so you can't just pin Samsung and say they just outright stole Apple's ideas
  • Mr Pink 8/25/2012 12:13:40 AM
    To those of you that think iPhone was "obvious," you should go back and watch the 2007 introduction of the device by Jobs. I have to admit... I watched it and it somehow manages to transform me "back in time" and you really do become appreciative of how NO PHONES were doing "those things" back then. Really... watch it.
Powered by ScribbleLive
Don't Miss