Jury awards Apple $1bn damages in Samsung patent case
The nine-member jury in the closely watched patent litigation between Apple and Samsung has returned a verdict decidedly in Apple's favor, awarding the fruity firm a whopping total of $1.05bn in damages. The jury took less than three days to reach its verdict, something that apparently startled even Apple's legal team, as …
This topic is closed for new posts.
When the last appeal is heard
Some ten years hence when the last appeal is heard, nobody will even remember what this was about.
drop in the bucket for samsung
ranked by 2011 revenues of nearly $134 billion, Samsung Electronics is the largest IT company in the world . and Samsung Electronics is just part of Samsung Group ...
Apple for 2011 was ranked 6th with a bit over $108 billion in revenue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_technology_companies
really .. $1 billion is just not that big a deal to Samsung Electronics . sure they made much more profit already from the *infringing* products .. than they may have made with out the *copying*
cost of doing business
Re: drop in the bucket for samsung
An additional way to look at it is something i just saw elsewhere, where someone pointed out that it only cost Samsung $1billion to become #2, considering how much skype cost ms, which probably still has not recouped costs for that acquisition.
So, this probably still is a huge win, not merely a simple win for Sammy.
But, grudges are grudges, and when apple victory strokes its way to burning Chinese competitors, it WILL learn that vengeance meted out by Chinese can be complicated, sophisticated, painful, and probably best left unstirred.
But, it would be interesting to see apple try to tapdance with China. Could have global repercussions, though....
Re: drop in the bucket for samsung
"But, grudges are grudges, and when apple victory strokes its way to burning Chinese competitors, it WILL learn that vengeance meted out by Chinese can be complicated, sophisticated, painful, and probably best left unstirred."
Samsung are Korean.
Re: drop in the bucket for samsung
Although a good point, this isn't over. If Samsung are prevented from selling some of their phones, as Apple is now asking, they will lose out further.
@0_Flybert_0: Re: drop in the bucket for samsung
"a drop in the bucket for samsung"
With the exception of a few large governments (a few of which are states in the USA), there is no entity on earth for whom a billion dollars is "a drop in the bucket".
Note please that the Wikipedia list which you have cited is based on annual TURNOVER - i.e. gross revenue. You will find that their NET revenue or profit is far, far less.
In fact, Wikipedia lists Samsung's profit for 2011 as $12bn, and Apple's 2011 net income as $26bn. (Note that I am assuming that "profit' and "net income" are the same and that the terminology differs only because the articles were written by different people.)
Doing the math, we see that $1bn represents 8.3% of Samsung's 2011 PROFIT and that, consequently, a fine or jury award of $1bn represents a decline in profits of that same 8.3%.
That's a rather serious matter for any commercial entity in the world.
Re: @0_Flybert_0: drop in the bucket for samsung
Good point.
I was interested by comparing gross revenue to market capitalization.
(2011) revenues for some companies is round about the same as (2012) market cap, for some companies (HP, Samsung).
revenue is a few times greater than cap for some (Hitachi, Dell, Panasonic, Toshiba)
revenue is a few time smaller than cap for others (Apple Inc. , IBM, MS, Google). Although revenue trend for Apple is increasing still around 1:5 ratio.
Perhaps someone can explain it.
What utter bollocks. Expensive appeals on the horizon methinks. Stupid ass jury has opened the door for all sorts of bulldung patent claims even wider.
OJ Simpson had an all black jury to his favor. I take it Apple had an all ifanboi jury. The verdict was predictable.
"OJ Simpson had an all black jury to his favor."
False. Just like the the rest of your post.
What the Foreman said...
"The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions. "
They took two days to go through all of those decisions, to review how many weeks of testimony?....
They managed to make a decision so that they could go home for the weekend and go back to work next week.
Is that justice?
Re: What the Foreman said...
"Is that justice?"
Sadly, yes.
Re: What the Foreman said...
Don't be too upset. Normally a jury decision is pretty appeal proof. That quote establishes they didn't follow their instructions, the time the took suggests they didn't take the job seriously at all. This particular jury looks very challengeable and the next one will see more of the evidence on prior art.
Fees, fees and fees, the lawyers game just love them mounting fees. The law? What is that?
"The nine-person jury at the federal court in San Jose, California had to consider 700 questions about each side's claim that its rival had infringed its intellectual property.
It deliberated for less than three days before coming to its unanimous decisions. …. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261
And is Cupertino anywhere near San Jose, and why wasn't the case heard in Taiwan, or would that have been perceived as providing far too much of an advantageous bias for the home team with justice denied being the result for the stranger visitors?
Re: Fees, fees and fees, the lawyers game just love them mounting fees. The law? What is that?
San Jose to Cupertino is 14 miles.... they're basically two parts of the same urban sprawl. So the jury are all basically "locals" when it comes to their relationship with apple. OK they were screened so they aren't directly connected but...
It would be like BMW having a court hearing with a jury from Starnberg.....
Re: Fees, fees and fees, the lawyers game just love them mounting fees. The law? What is that?
But there also a separate case heard in South Korea last week. By your logic, Samsung had home field advantage in that case, but only managed to scrape a draw.
Can anyone resurrect Gene Roddenberry? Google "Star Trek PADD".
In the original Star Trek series Kirk was seen the using a PADD, a touch screen portable computer device. Fast forward 40 years and Apple release the 'innovative' iPad, a touch screen portable computer device. There isn't anything on the iPad or iPhone that was innovative, all of it had been seen before, the only thing it did was put it all together in a nice wrapper.
That's what apple excel at
Pretty gadgety mashups of existing tech invented elsewhere and their marketing.
Mind you the iThing design is looking really dated compared to what everyone else is making.
"In the original Star Trek series Kirk was seen the using a PADD, a touch screen portable computer device. Fast forward 40 years and Apple release the 'innovative' iPad, a touch screen portable computer device. There isn't anything on the iPad or iPhone that was innovative, all of it had been seen before, the only thing it did was put it all together in a nice wrapper."
Yeah that's obviously a total rip off. The only thing that's in danger of being compared to is an etch-a-sketch.
http://www.yourprops.com/movieprops/default/yp_4f7b554aec45a1.60052716/Electronic-Clipboard-PADD.jpg
Fail.
Hardly surprising
A judge and jury with no clue of patent law. A US firm in a US court v. A non US company.
Then there's Koh herself, who's comments from the off presented the notion of bias. How this was allowed to carry on amazes me.
And that's before we get to Microsoft & HP inventing tablets, rounded corners on phones back in the 90's and Apple using technologies in their phones invented by others. Icons, touchscreen etc all around on windows CE devices.
Hopefully Microsoft will be taking them to court soon
Re: Hardly surprising
Maybe that's all for the appeal. The trial has been so bizarre that I wonder if maybe Koh is handing it all to Sammy on appeal, intentionally cos she's so sick of having apple lawyers parked in front of her.
Alternatively maybe Sammy have already lined up an appeal in Texas where they're investing several Bn in a chip fab they have there and might be intending to play the 'Sorry, all the money for those jobs that were gonna be created might be going to apple's wallet instead...' card
Pick your favourite conspiracy theory (or invent a more interesting one, of course)
The day the tech industry died.
A sad, sad day. I wonder who Apple will go after next?
Mind you, they've just set themselves up for a fall. I wonder what innovation we'll see when they release the NuiPhone later in the year? And how much of it will be features copied from Android, a trick they have some previous form for?
Oh, well, I guess life goes on.
GJC
Re: The day the tech industry died.
T-Mobile for the Vivacity maybe - a dead ringer for the iPhone 4, more so than the devices from Samsung. Isn't that one made by ZTE, like the Orange San Francisco 2?
I did wonder if any of this is going to be used retrospectively against existing devices that happen to look like future models of iPhone or iPad once they are released. It's not such a mental idea, because if the "design language" of an infringing device is continued into subsequent product lines then this ruling could still be used. So, if iPhone 5 looks too much like SGS3 ...
Re: The day the tech industry died.
What a very distressing thought. I wouldn't be at all surprised.
GJC
Today I'll make myself drunk....
tomorrow, probably much more. Was it Dad or Mom ? who told me this Engineering thing was any good?
Re: Today I'll make myself drunk....
Ah yes. Political Entrepreneuriat is "in" these days.
Who wants to understand anything about machines? That's so old school. Anyway, your work gets taxed away, so don't bother.
Oh Well no big surprise
American court and jury find for American corporate against johnny foreigner. Is the verdict right? - not sure, I haven't seen all the evidence presented in the case. Does it feel right - well no, it feels like America protecting it's own while crying and having a tantrum when the rest of the world doesn't see it their way......Just my opinion mind.
The right verdict
Android fans might not like it, but Samsung did blatantly copy the iPhone. They ought to have just paid the offered license fee per handset. They happily paid out to Microsoft for their patents, so why not Apple?
As to those that think Motorola's patents should now be used against Apple in retaliation, it would be quite stupid of Google to use Motorola's stuff in any way other than to defend itself. Even the Motorola acquisition doesn't give Google the war chest they would need to start that fight.
Re: The right verdict
Fanboise may not like it but Apple copied the iPhone from Sony but Samsung were not allowed to present that evidence in court.
Re: The right verdict
This was really about the method of working, the interface, and the look and feel, not the actual physical device (although that part has been very convenient for Apple....stupid stupid Samsung for making their case so easy). Samsung completely ripped off the iOS GUI and stuck it as a skin on top of Android, that's why they got targeted and the likes of HTC didn't. Had Samsung developed the same physical handset but the software had looked dramatically different Apple wouldn't have had anywhere near as strong a case.
Looking past Samsung other Android manufacturers will now end up paying Apple license fees, all because Samsung's copying was too damn obvious and a legal precedent has now been set. Including most likely the aforementioned Sony, who won't be particularly happy about Samsung's stupidity.
You can hardly blame Apple if another company effectively gifts them bags of cash by being so blatant.
@Anthony Hulse: Re: The right verdict
"They happily paid out to Microsoft for their patents, so why not Apple?"
Apple is concerned with product differentiation, not licensing patents.
Apple is concerned with getting users into the Apple ecosystem to use their App Store and whatever else Apple has to continue to sell content etc to their users. Therefore there is no great attraction for Apple in license fees for patents that reduce product differentiation between Apple and Samsung: those license fees would need to make up for the future earnings that Apple will lose because of any given customer buying a Samsung phone and not becoming part of the Apple ecosystem and contributing income thereby.
I am not sure that Apple ever offered Samsung an license that would have given Samsung the right to use all the patents that Samsung wanted. (Actually I am pretty sure that Apple made no such offer but I could be wrong or be conflating some of these numerous lawsuits.)
Microsoft on the other hand seems to be quite happy to simply collect a royalty on every Android sold (with the exception of Google/Motorola, as the only company that has refused to take a license from Microsoft. But expect them to be compelled to do so.)
So one can not really compare the goals and strategies of Apple and Microsoft.
@Turtle: The right verdict
Apple offered Samsung a $30/handset price to license all patents in October 2010. Samsung refused the price, refused a reduced offer of $24/handset which included some patent cross-licensing, then used the ideas covered by the Apple patents anyway. That was presented as evidence in the trial.
Re: The right verdict
Why Sony specifically? Their products don't look anything like Apple's. They run standard "Android" AFAIK, so Sony is not a special case.
What am I missing?
Re: The right verdict
False. This statement, often repeated by ignorant people, is no more true for the repitition.
The "Sony Style" design study was performed by a designer being paid for the exercise by Apple. It was an independent design by a designer being paid by Apple. Contending that the design was somehow a copy of a non-existent Sony phone is so egregiously wrong that it beggars belief.
Re: The right verdict
So how did they rip it off, in a manner that deserves to be protected by a patent? Honest question.
And an iphone gui looks just like an earlier Symbian or my 2005 feature phone, so why isn't that ripping off?
@herby
Apple et al may not have made the the rules but they certainly lobby for them
Verdict's probably right, but the law is very wrong. Sad to see all the rejoicing from Apple fanboys, as it's shit for the whole industry and us end customers. I'm no fan of Samsung, but I hope the damages are reduced significantly on appeal. Companies must not be encouraged to take part in this shitty behaviour.
Even at this size, the damages are token. They'll neither cripple Samsung nor make much difference to Apple's balance. But they are sizeable to make other manufacturers take note. No ones going to be copying anyone in the near future, and hopefully everyone's interfaces now become more individual and innovative
Innovative?
Possibly. Some will have to be shaken, some will have to be stirred. On some, rotations through a 4-D pseudospace will open a new menu. Others will work via sound cues only, staying mysteriously all black....
It's gonna be fun.
Aren't damages tax deductibe in the US...?
In which case who REALLY ends up footing the bill here....?
Re: Aren't damages tax deductibe in the US...?
No doubt the minimum amount of the lawyers fees will be paid as income tax to boot
Want to guess who pays?
Fans of either side can gloat/heckle all they want.
The crying shame is the we pay in the end. We pay for the lawyers, we pay the fines, we pay higher prices for monopolistic market shares and we pay in stifled range of tech available.
Main people who lose in these corporate wars is us.
So the verdict goes against how you hoped it would so the jury who were actually there listening to both sides are biased - of course. Samsung will of course appeal but that also means it could go against them even more.
To anyone vaguely impartial they 'copied' the design, look and feel and got what they deserve. If Ford completely ripped off a VW Golf to the point that their own lawyers could not tell them apart would you expect litigation or for VW just to say oh well... imitiation is the sincerest form for flattery and we are happy to be flattered.
So it's 1bn extra for Apple and now they will probably have to pay Apple royalties for each unit they sell.
I couldn't tell a Ford from another car if you covered up the logos. i mean, they have 4 wheels and doors! Obviously this is copying and should be covered by a patent, yeah right...
"Just like a Golf"...............
VW make a joke about it - Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that - Apple go mental.
All its done is drawn people's attention to Samsung's range of phones and tablets... So it cost Samsung $1Billion but look at the publicity....
Surprised?
Well, I am hardly surprised at this verdict.
The best thing about it was that Samsung got stomped on for trying to ding Apple for patents that Apple already paid for via Intel. This particular piece of nefarious behaviour by Samsung was deservedly rejected. Moto should take note as they are trying the same bullshit on Apple in another court case.
As for the software aspects of the case, well they were patented and Samsung copied. What's the big deal? They should have done something else.
"Trade dress" issues, well the iPad and iPhone 3 were copied by Samsung, right down to the connectors and packaging, not just the product. Really, how could anyone expect a different verdict.
The current Galaxy apparently does not infringe, proving that it is perfectly possible to build fabulous devices that compete on merit with Apple's products. Samsung should have done that first time around instead of "willfully infringing".
Doh
Was it any suprise really that in a court in America that an American jury found against Samsung a Korean company?
Most Americans are highly patriotic so were bound to find in favour of Apple.
The only loosers here are the American public who found in Apples favour who will now have less competition and more expensive phones as no doubt Samsung will just increase the prices of their phones in the US to make up for the $1bn they will have to pay.
Your first sentence = pure speculation and probable bollocks.
Have Apple actually got any technology patents that have made mobiles what they are today (3G, wireless, battery tech, ICs etc) .... or are they all obvious (as technology evolves) software patents such as gestures, scrolling, image displaying etc?
I don't use Apple or Android devices, but it astounds me what can be patented now days, this will only stifle "innovation" . When/if Apple create a television, will they be accused of completely copying Sony, LG etc. for creating a rectangular screen with a display for video broadcasts? Will they have to pay patent royalties for using a remote control, having an on/off button and other inventions that we all regard as obvious with that technology?
Patents should be for REAL inventions not this rubbish!
This topic is closed for new posts.
