Apple vs. Samsung: verdict | CNET

Apple vs. Samsung: verdict

  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:33:12 PM
  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 10:53:02 PM
    Verdict scorecard:
    * Jury finds Samsung infringement of Apple utility, design patents for some (though not all) products
    * Jury upholds Apple utility, design patents
    * Jury upholds Apple trade dress '983
    * Jury finds Samsung "diluted" Apple's registered iPhone, iPhone 3 and "Combination iPhone" trade dress on some products, not on others
    * No Apple infringement of Samsung utility patents

    * $1.05 billion in TOTAL damages assessed to Samsung
    * No damages against Apple from Samsung's countersuit
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:55:24 AM
    Koh handing it over to be read.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:56:44 AM
    Question no 4. For each of the products has Apple proven that it should have known that it induced Samsung 963 patents -- 915 patent claim 8 for the intercept now NO. Initialed and dated. Damages no. 22 - total amount: $1,049,343,540
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:56:59 AM
    22. Dollar by product: Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE - now $0. As is for Intercept -- both initialed and dated.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:57:45 AM
    Any other inconsistencies? Both sides say okay.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:57:52 AM
    Koh now excusing the jury.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:58:02 AM
    Koh thanking jurors.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:59:17 AM
    Jurors being instructed to go to a specific spot if they wish to talk to media. Koh offering a separate entrance to get out.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:59:53 AM
    Each juror to get a bound copy of ALL the press during the trial put together by the court librarian, as per Koh's promise. There's a keepsake.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:01:01 AM
    Koh: I'm not going to keep you long, but I want to get a sense of what's to come.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:01:30 AM
    Apple it has proposed to file a preliminary injunction based on the verdict.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:01:44 AM
    Of the infringing products.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:03:56 AM
    Koh says any permanent injunctions still hinge on a rule 50 motion, so a hearing for prelim injunction will be Sept 20.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:04:44 AM
    Samsung says that 14 days to respond to anything that just came out of this case is too short.
  • David 8/25/2012 1:05:07 AM
    @Josh Lowensohn What products are being banned?
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 1:05:19 AM
    @David: Nothing yet.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:06:07 AM
    Samsung says they need 30 days to oppose "at least." Apple's Jacobs "Your honor, that doesn't make any sense." Says any design-around to keep those products on the market has a separate workflow.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:07:46 AM
    Koh: I have a window to deal with it. If I miss it, I'm going to have to push this out.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:08:14 AM
    Koh says she's got a tax fraud criminal trial coming in Oct. 5, among numerous other cases.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:08:57 AM
    Apple: We have shown now willful infringement ... Sept 20 date sounds fine.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:10:43 AM
    Two sides still fighting over post-trial filings over some of the actions at play here. Samsung still thinks it doesn't have enough time.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:11:31 AM
    Related, but not from what's going on in court right now, Apple's statement on the decision:

    "We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right."
  • Matt Rainbolt 8/25/2012 1:12:30 AM
    @David Hamilton What are the potential devices?
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 1:13:05 AM
    @Matt Rainbolt: Apple can ask for a sales ban on any device that infringes one of its patents.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:17:05 AM
    Both sides get a schedule to file post-trial filings. There's a 1:30 p.m. hearing on Sept. 20. Both sides thanking Koh and her staff for how hard they worked.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 1:17:35 AM
    We're all done here. Thanks for tuning in.
  • James Alley 8/25/2012 1:19:18 AM
    Due to their current ubiquity, people now take glass-touch-screen smartphones, with all their multitouch interactions, for granted. The iPhone was truly a revolution, and we tend to forget that. Those who disagree may counter that certain aspects of the iPhone existed prior to its release-- the LG PRADA phone had a glass touch screen, for instance. But it didn't have the complete package that Apple put into the market. It's not rounded corners that are defensible, it's the entire package, the gestalt of the product, which Samsung ripped off.
  • DK 8/25/2012 1:19:33 AM
    @David Hamilton. Does this mean that all the patents Apple holds are valid? Or is that another legal battle to invalidate the patents? Is that done by the jury too?
  • Mike 8/25/2012 1:19:38 AM
    Hooray for Apple! I love Samsung. I have a Samsung netbook, several TVs, a fridge, washer and dryer, all by Samsung. But after educating myself on the extent of Samsung's infringement, it is clear to me they are totally at fault. Look at the damning internal documents that compare the Galaxy phone prototype to the iPhone, and the fundamental changes made to the Galaxy phone in order to better emulate the iphone prior to the actual release date. Look at Apple's warning to Samsung to stop copying their patents. Look at Apple's decision to offer Samsung licensing rights, keeping in mind their strategic relationship as Samsung was a key supplier to Apple, and Samsung's outright refusal. Look at Google warning to Samsung to stop blatantly copying the iPhone, and Samsung's refusal to do so. Samsung had multiple opportunities to do the right thing, and chose not to. The punishment should reflect their willful infringement, and perhaps award treble damages. I am not completely familiar with the law. But I believe innovation should be encouraged and protected. Apple took a huge calculated risk in introducing a phone in 2007. A product for which they had no prior experience with. They spent billions on developing the all touch screen and the OS that supported it, as well as putting an ecosystem in place that would allow developers to create even better, more individualized solutions for all of their users. Apple is putting billions of dollars into other people's pockets, including their own. But those people making money are truly innovating and providing great end user products and apps. For Samsung to outright steal in a matter of months what took Apple billions of dollars and a number of years to come up with, and for Samsung to profit from their actions without consequence, was an injustice. This will begin to right the ship. And I have faith that Samsung will introduce new concepts that even Apple may not have thought of, and this will spur true innovation. In the end, we as consumers will be rewarded with more original products and ideas.
  • Asher 8/25/2012 1:19:44 AM
    This lawsuit should be happened years ago, starting with the iPad. The market floods with iOS replicas after every Apple device launch. But in all fairness, this is not a lawsuit for who stole which ideas, it is a lawsuit on who marketed the ideas the most genuinely. When you are up against a company like Apple, you have no chance.
  • James1981 8/25/2012 1:19:54 AM
    What's the word on the Sherman Antitrust Act violations? Was Samsung found to have violated the Act?
  • Adam 8/25/2012 1:20:01 AM
    If people think the verdict seems one-sided, it isn't. Samsung's countersuit was about technology that had already been licensed in the chips Apple bought by the companies that had made them. Samsung wanted to double dip & hid that they wanted to do so from the licensees. Sounds like Rambus. The jury said no. As for Palm, I owned a Treo previously. It had a stylus, no multitouch, no pinch to zoom, no slide to unlock. It had a physical keyboard. There may be prior art to some of Apple's innovations, but not at this size, not in this form factor, not something you could put in your front pocket. Either you want to allow non-physical patents or you don't. If you don't, then there goes a lot of innovation. Why should a drug company find a cure for cancer if it would simply be copied? Amazon would lose the stupid 1-Click patent (an idea not a specific implementation which Apple licenses), while other important "soft" patents in healthcare & biotech, finance, computer software would all disappear. I don't know if any of us are willing to live in that kind of world.
  • Matt 8/25/2012 1:20:10 AM
    I wished cnet did a live commentary like they do for launches something I could watch on roku or my computer.
  • Mike 8/25/2012 1:26:28 AM
    Hooray for Apple! I love Samsung. I have a netbook, several TVs, a fridge, a washer and a dryer, all made by Samsung. But their blatant copying of the iPhone was willful. They were warned, time and again, and refused to change. They were offered an opportunity to license Apple's patents, but refused. They were warned by Google, no less, and still refused to change. The infringements were willful and the penalties should reflect as such. That being said, I believe Samsung will recover, and they will come up with new ideas that even Apple hasn't considered. In the end, we as consumers will be rewarded, because true innovation was protected, and blatant copying was punished.
  • Matt Rainbolt 8/25/2012 1:26:38 AM
    @DK The patents in question were found to be valid by this jury.
  • Pissed Off Android User 8/25/2012 1:26:46 AM
    Amazing how Samsung won in every other country they had this court battle in but then come to the US and they lose. Straight BS! You didn't even look at their countersuit. Patents are retarded. As soon as Apple gets some competition then they start complaining. Bottom line patents are stupid.
  • Azure 8/25/2012 1:26:47 AM
    Multi-touch and pinch to zoom, which is what Apple was granted patents for(IIRC) has been around a lot longer than Apple and the iPhone. The fact that they were granted the patents is a joke. The fact that they claim to have 'created' it is also a joke. That they can sue and possibly stop phones from being sold is ALSO a joke. This whole trial is a joke.
  • Ryan 8/25/2012 1:27:00 AM
    Reading these comments, its amazing how people still think Apple can do no wrong. They have copied ideas as much as anyone else. They just haven't taken any from Samsung, as thus haven't won anything in this case. But that DOES NOT mean they haven't infringed on other companies, just like Samsung has infringed from them. They have, and they will continue to.
  • Donald Brown 8/25/2012 1:27:15 AM
    Drug patents were allowed long before software patents and business patents were made legal. And trade dress patents are a real stretch of what the concept of patents were.
  • JohnS 8/25/2012 1:27:27 AM
    @Adam "Why should a drug company find a cure for cancer if it would simply be copied?" You obviously don't understand the free market. Competitors would have to continually invent innovative technologies to stay ahead of their competition and to keep themselves in business. The whole "copying" argument is a moral argument, not an economic one.
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 1:29:39 AM
    @James1981: No, no violation of the Sherman Act. Looks like we got that wrong.
  • Ethan 8/25/2012 1:29:55 AM
    @Ryan a good point - were it not for blatantly lifting products from Xerox, Apple wouldn't even be in the first place...
  • LJ Silva 8/25/2012 1:30:04 AM
    Apple had been ripped off once by Microsoft and they knew they couldn't let that happen twice. Apple was sure that if Samsung and others were let free to copy Apple intellectual property, this time there wouldn't be another Steve Jobs to make a second come back and save Apple again. So they played hard against the copycat Samsung and they will play hard against all others that persist in the path of copying Apple products and now their view is seconded by a court decision. They can't have it any other way and they are right.
  • KPOM 8/25/2012 1:39:03 AM
    Samsung did NOT violate the Sherman act.
  • Starbuck 8/25/2012 1:39:22 AM
    I own 67 patent claims and sub claims on 3 continents and believe me you have to bust your ass to protect them or someone out there is going to rip off your hard work an innovation. Cudos to Apple for bringing down the hammer.
  • Tony Mateo 8/25/2012 1:39:26 AM
    The way i see it is that Samsung will appeal.... Samsung has lost this skirmish, but not the war. Come on Apple you really believe that your patenting the rectangle makes sense in any sane world.... Samsung make your screen your CPU, your memory remember that there is no one better at that you tried to change to another provider and that did not go well....this can come back to haunt you APPLE!
  • Azure 8/25/2012 1:39:32 AM
    Apple should be able to waste as much money as they want going after companies they think are infringing on their patents, but it doesn't mean a jury should be as naive to think that if a lawyer bombs you with hundreds of pages of information, forms and other technical garbage that you just wing it and come to a conclusion in 21 hours. They should especially be ashamed that they can award damages in certain cases where no infringement was proven. I mean how stupid do 9 people have to be not to see that?
  • melgross 8/25/2012 1:39:46 AM
    Actually Ethan, Xerox asked Jobs to visit them, specifically to show him their work on the UI, among other things. Apple licensed the Xerox UI in exchange for Apple stock, and I believe, some cash. But Apple did major work that changed almost the entire thing, such as the very important overlapping windows, which the PARC researchers hadn't come up with.
  • John J 8/25/2012 1:40:12 AM
    Apple only has 17% of their business from the U.S.. Apple has lost in every case outside the U.S. so this looks like trouble. Samsung is not the big case against Apple to think about, Google vs Apple and Sony vs Apple will be the big ticket cases.
  • TheGUY 8/25/2012 1:43:07 AM
    It is ridiculous how Apple thinks that they can go around acting like they own the smartphone. This was a joke. Apple may have patents, but they didn't sue motorola when the original DROID, when it really worked like the iphone. Now that they FINALLY have competition, they sue.
  • John J 8/25/2012 1:43:09 AM
    Google bought 2000 patents from Motorola, they own the set-top box and a ton of smartphone technology.. Sony to sue Apple over their game controller and the copy of their phone, now called the Iphone... Good luck with Google
  • cliff martin 8/25/2012 1:43:11 AM
    So Apple won ALMOST everything they wanted. Apple better be still willing to cross-license or license some of their patents or they may end up being sued by FTC w/Anti-Trust charges. Just like Car Manufacturers copy each other's cars & trucks & don't sue each other - so should Apple be. Otherwise they may regret this victory when their facing Anti-Trust charges by U.S. FTC & the E.U. Samsung should pay but should allowed to use basically the same technology Apple uses via a licensing deal.
  • JJ 8/25/2012 1:43:20 AM
    melgross, I don't know _who_ at Xerox asked Steve Jobs to come to Xerox PARC, but I do know that the engineers in question refused to show the UI and mouse to Jobs, and did so only after being ordered to show it too him. It's in Cringely's book.
  • cliff martin 8/25/2012 1:54:58 AM
    I am an Apple Fan boy. I am using a Mac right now to type this. I am not going to buy the iphone 5. May buy a Windows 8 phone since I've always like the Zune U.I. which incorporated into Windows 8 Mobile O/S. Sick of Apple being a bunch of cry babies.
  • Starbuck 8/25/2012 1:55:03 AM
    Apple is a true innovator and an inspiration to anyone who wants to make a truly great product. The guys who make a difference will be the ones who are remembered...
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 1:55:19 AM
    Folks, we've enjoyed hosting you all. But we're going to wrap this up in a few minutes.
  • cliff martin 8/25/2012 1:59:08 AM
    RE: the GUI patents, even if Samsung removes them such as the pinch to zoom, double tap, etc., the Android Open Source Community will make free custom ROMS that will have them. Apple knows full well they can not stop open-source developers world wide from writing code to replace what Samsung may be forced to remove from their phones. Apple tried to stop Cydia by claiming it was illegal. The courts ruled that jail-breaking is NOT illegal.
  • leeb 8/25/2012 2:00:06 AM
    @Tony Mateo The last time that Apple has another company manufacture a part that Samsung made, Samsung lost a lot of money. Apple pays Samsung for what parts they manufacture for them, fair and square. Business. Trade dress is much more than saying Apple thinks they own the rectangle with rounded corners. Look it up. If Apple moves more of its business from Samsung to other suppliers, that will hurt Samsung.
  • Starbuck 8/25/2012 2:00:10 AM
    Thanks c/net
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 2:20:51 AM
    Thanks, everyone. We're officially closed. See you at the next big verdict :-).
Powered by ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform
This week on CNET News See all