Apple vs. Samsung: verdict | CNET
Want CNET to notify you of price drops and the latest stories?
No, thank you

Apple vs. Samsung: verdict

  • David Hamilton 8/24/2012 11:33:12 PM
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:32:38 AM
    Koh says she's looking at the patent exhaustion issue, tells both sides to "meet and confer about what you want to do afterward." In the meantime, the reworded questions are being sent back to the jury while they sort out the last two items.
  • John Williams 8/25/2012 12:41:16 AM
  • name 8/25/2012 12:41:38 AM
    @Matthew because the average customer would be confused and mad if he had to re-learn using his phone every time he bought a new one?
  • Reader Kumar 8/25/2012 12:41:57 AM
    @Adam Multi-touch and Pinch to zoom existed even before Apple designed iPhone. Remember Palm & Microsoft. Palm had tiling, Multitouch and pinch to Zoom. Microsoft had Surface Table and it had pinch to zoom. Then the Diamond Technologies product had most of these features!
  • saxsation 8/25/2012 12:42:20 AM
    Neither Apple nor Samsung is at fault. The patent system is a broken. If Apple doesn't patent their ideas (no matter how small or insignificant they seem) someone else will and just sue them. Everyone wants to blame Apple for suing but fail to take in account all the company that sue Apple. It has just become a patent game now... get as many patents as you can to protect yourself and now that google bought Motorola they have patents to jump into the game and protect themselves as well! Design patents should have like a 5 year period where they come can make their money and then other can piggyback later. And if the company want to continue that design 5 years later they have to renew that design.
  • someone 8/25/2012 12:42:40 AM
    @Adam um.. actually I believe that there was a slide locker on samsung mp3 players long before the ipod came out, and on sony cd players even before mp3s.. the slide to unlock was simply a touch screen recreation.
    Though multi touch and pinch to zoom didn't exsist on a phone, it did exsist.. apple just happened to perfect the concept before anyone else..
  • Lorim 8/25/2012 12:43:54 AM
    There are many other phones and devices that don't duplicate Apple. There are other computer stores that are not stark with geeks wearing blue shirts. There is lots of room for innovation and ideas. Companies with innovation and creativity don't have to copy. I think this is a win for anyone who has a good idea and is afraid of someone with no moral backbone coming along and claiming it as their own. P.S. Apple took GUI from Xerox, but xerox didn't spend millions of dollars developing, marketing and branding the product. They didn't even want it. How can you compare?
  • Andy 8/25/2012 12:45:04 AM
    Samsung are of course right, this is a sad day for consumers... how are they now going to buy cheap knockoffs that look to all intent like an iPhone? How ironic that the company that years ago ripped off their desktop OS now proves that it IS possible to develop a phone/tablet OS that isn't a copy of iOS. Were it not for Microsoft, all the naysayers claiming that this verdict will make smartphone development impossible might have got listened to.
  • Unbelievable 8/25/2012 12:45:39 AM
    It's astonishing that people still think Samsung did no wrong. The jury (the people who have listened and have seen the evidence) says otherwise. Truly amazing that people treat their opinions as fact!
  • PBP 8/25/2012 12:46:30 AM
    It sure would be nice if more people understood exactly what a U.S. Patent was, and how it functioned. It gives the holder an "Exclusive" right, protected by the Laws of the United States, to produce and profit from the conceptual ideas within the scope of a Patent, for up to 16 years. Patent is different from country to country. In the United States, we Patent ideas (which become intellectual property). In Japan (for instance), they Patent the finished product only (which means that another producer can make the same product and paint it another color and its' legal). THAT is what this case is about. Apple goes to companies and licenses dozens of concepts for inclusion in their products, because others own them. Samsung had every right to do the same thing, voluntarily; dealing with products and systems that Apple patented, and did not. The judgement in this case will result in more companies paying Apple for licenses to use Apple patented ideas. Nothing more. In the mean time, Samsung will review which is more profitable, licensing or theft.
  • Starbuck 8/25/2012 12:46:42 AM
    The jury was absolutely right! Now it's time for Samsung to truly innovate. That's what we need in this industry. A pox on all the ripoff artists!
  • Reader Kumar 8/25/2012 12:47:36 AM
    @Unbelievable I think both companies have done wrong but the jury has not given a fair judgement esp for Samsung. Both companies should be penalised.
  • wizkid057 8/25/2012 12:48:25 AM
  • Lorim 8/25/2012 12:48:52 AM
    There are many phones and devices that DON'T copy Apple to this extent, so we know it's possible. There are other options than taking your competition's product and putting your name on it with a few minor alterations. Not all computer stores are stark with geeks dressed in blue. Does Samsung really think they are fooling anyone. It's Apple-envy!
    Apple has not stiffled competition, they've just said, make your own stuff, do your own innovation. Have some pride.
  • Udayan Banerji 8/25/2012 12:49:05 AM
    The trial is fair. Augmented reality exists today, but if someone brings it to phone, they deserve to own a patent. It is not easy to implement pinch-to-zoom. Proximity sensors, gyroscope, in a phone ... really? Apple thought about it, about the implementation. Samsung innovates and gets awarded as the top smartphone company of the world. But they do owe something to Apple. Maybe a billions dollars.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:49:19 AM
    Koh back
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:49:49 AM
    5:38 the foreperson told the CSO that they had figured out an earlier issue they had been tasked to sort out. Now it's 5:54 and they have a verdict.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:50:06 AM
    Clock is fast for her I guess.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:52:06 AM
    Koh says she's filing the originally filled out verdict form, then the amended verdict form so people can see the differences.
  • Josh Lowensohn 8/25/2012 12:53:45 AM
    Jury comes back in.
  • David Hamilton 8/25/2012 2:20:51 AM
    Thanks, everyone. We're officially closed. See you at the next big verdict :-).
Powered by Platform for Live Reporting, Events, and Social Engagement