Greedy Apple told it can't triple Samsung's $1bn patent payout
Apple will not get triple damages in its epic US mobile phone patent infringement trial against Samsung, sparing the South Koreans from writing a $3bn cheque. US Judge Lucy Koh has had enough of the warring rivals, and published a raft of rulings halting the companies' attempts to alter the trial jury's findings. Samsung was …
This topic is closed for new posts.
And let me add that this AC sockpuppet game is at least marginally more interesting than the interminable, vapid Apple/Samsung flamewar.
Once this goes to appeal...
that 1bn will be a distant memory.
Re: Once this goes to appeal...
Yep. After a few more of these Apple patents that Samsung supposedly infringed are declared invalid based on prior art and obviousness, there won't be anything left to sue over.
Re: Once this goes to appeal...
anything left to sue over.
if corporations are people (clearly they arent, equally clearly a rounded rectoangle cant be paqtented - america is just fucked up) the sammy might have a case for defamation of character.
Poor, poor Apple ...
not a promising start for their new year.
All that bad PR for Apple and all that free PR for Samsung. Proves bullying doesn't pay.
What's that spinning noise coming from Job's coffin?
Re: Poor, poor Apple ...
Time to upgrade that Apple TV?... or iOS 6.1?..
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2013/Jan/117
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2013/Jan/118
Koh avoiding pointless work
There was a 3rd party analysis (a real lawyer, not groklaw BTW) soon after the award suggesting the combination of bad verdict form wording and outright error by the jury in filling the form restricted triple damages to a few $10's of million. It's not surprising Koh took the easy way out and rounded that down to zero, rather than fall into the briar patch trying to pick a real figure.
Given her past behaviour I'm 100% convinced she would have ruled for Apple but for that verdict form cockup. There's precious little justice in this case so far.
The other aspect is: this is going to appeal, no doubt about it. Nothing Koh does now is likely to stick and I think she knows it. Time is working for Samsung, they're in no hurry because as time passes, Apple's IP shrinks.
Re: Koh avoiding pointless work
Shirley you must be joking! When did Groklaw claimed they are lawyers ?
Re: Koh avoiding pointless work
Which part of 'real lawyer, not groklaw' don't you understand?
Samsung will appeal
and they have good chances to avoid paying the 1b$.
You can of course read the court documents but this paragraph on Groklaw website (next to all those official court documents) says it all :
[quote]The reason she (the judge) found Samsung was not willful is because of all the prior art that their experts testified showed that the Apple patents were invalid. She defends the jury's decision not to accept the prior art, but she accepts that it does prevent a finding of willfulness.[/quote] Pretty neat, eh?
Rounded... What?
Someone just got their corners rounded.
Second time
Second time Samsung has been ordered to pay, so pay, stop copying and get on with it.
Re: Second time
Adding a little reality into your worldview would be wonderfully beneficial. In this particular situation, law suits have a process, and we're just coming to the end of the first phase, before which no-one had to pay anything. So in legal reality Samsung has not been "ordered to pay" once, let alone twice.
Next Samsung decides whether to appeal an obviously flawed verdict (and, despite the faboi's drooling, it was obviously flawed: the jury found that a phone infringed a patent for a feature that THE PHONE DID NOT HAVE).
For parallels, consider Apple's defiance of an actual order in a European court to acknowledge that the Samsung tablets do not infringe Apple's stuff. Apple appealed, lost the appeal, failed to comply with the order, pretended that it would take a large amount of time to comply with the order, then went to great lengths to obscure their compliance with the order.
Meanwhile, I went to but a large-screen phone with a pressure sensitive stylus from Apple, and turns out they don't have one! How can that be, if Samsung is copying?
Re: Second time
Funny Malcolm, you tell me that law suits have a process (duh!) yet then you are comparing two very different law situations i.e. the one in Europe and the one in the US which were tested against different rules. And even then not all european courts agreed but luckily for Samsung the UK one did and they filed first there (although it took us a bit longer than the more efficient German courts).
So if you want to pull someone up on what they wrote, do your own home work ;)
This topic is closed for new posts.
