back to article Samsung will ... sigh ... appeal $119m Apple patent verdict

Thought the years-long court battle between Apple and Samsung had come to a close with last week's verdict, did you? Bad news, then; Samsung has announced that it will be appealing the $119m jury ruling. The Korean electronics and washing-machine giant said that it would seek to overturn the patent infringement verdict handed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. ThomH Silver badge

    Sounds smart to me

    What PR effect do news stories about the legal battle usually have, respectively, for Samsung and Apple? Do companies that size really notice $119m either way? So in whose favour is it to keep this thing going?

    1. Cliff

      Re: Sounds smart to me

      They're kind of obliged, really. If the appeal costs less than $119M, they owe it to their shareholders to do so.

      On sheet vindictive grounds too, it's worth it. The $119M is sunk now anyway, so may as well throw a couple of last punches as the bouncers drag them away - if nothing else it shows they won't just roll over for a fisting from patent trolls.

      1. FartingHippo
        Boffin

        Re: Sounds smart to me

        "They're kind of obliged, really. If the appeal costs less than $119M, they owe it to their shareholders to do so."

        Not really. If they assess the chance of winning at 100% then they should spend up to $119m. If they assess the change as just 10% then spending $11.9m would be the rational thing to do.

        Oh, dear, I just used the word 'rational' about these ego-driven lawsuits. *sidles off in shame*

    2. Ian Yates
      Headmaster

      Re: Sounds smart to me

      Well, you know, it's us consumers who'll win out in the end... possibly... that's the purpose of enforcing patents, right?

      I wonder what the court costs are raking up to by now, and who'll have to pay them; or are they included in the awarded damages?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bunch of slimebuckets all the way

  3. Philip Lewis
    FAIL

    Samung, serial offender

    Pointed out in another thread.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war

    If you can be bothered to read this excellent article, you might understand that the evil party, as a matter of corporate policy, is not Apple.

    Down vote away, but Samsung has, and has always considered IP infringement (and outright cartel activity as well) a cost of business and they have been hammered by various governments and some of their executives have done hard time for their behaviour (more of it I say).

    1. Len Goddard

      Not much to choose between them

      Sumsung - serial patent violator

      Apple - serial patenter of ridiculous non-inventions

      A pox on both their houses.

      1. Ian Bush
        Stop

        Re: Not much to choose between them

        Agreed, but if a pox on the companies what malady is sufficient for the ultimate problem here, the ridiculous state of the US legal system wrt IP issues?

        (And yes, I know there are multiple redundancies in that sentance)

    2. eulampios
      Thumb Down

      Re: Samung, serial offender

      but Samsung has, and has always considered IP infringement a cost of business..

      Now tell me, who doesn't? Pretty much every company had paid some damages for a "patent infringement" or two, including even both MS and Apple. Apple had also been found to infringe a filesystem patent too. No need for any evil corporate policy, when the head and all of the upper management so adamantly believe that they had really invented the rectangle with those never-seen-before rounded corners!

    3. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      Re: Samung, serial offender @Philip Lewis

      I've just read it - if you think that is "an excellent article", then all I can say is that we have a very different interpretation of "excellent". Hearsay, recycled rumour, a lawyer that claims the executives of (another tech firm) "couldn't lie to save their lives" ... all rubbish slanted towards the American view.

      Oh, and using "Vanity Fair" as a reliable source? ... No, just no.

      1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This time Apple might get lucky

    1 beeellion dollars just because the court was pissed that Samsung appealed.

  5. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Meh

    Let the record state that I said "Told you so"

    Well, at least a few young law firm associates will get to pay off their college loans....

  6. Tromos

    They should run these cases a bit like Dragons' Den. If the jury doesn't award the full amount being claimed, you go away empty-handed.

  7. Steve Crook

    Charles Dickens would be proud

    It's not often that life imitates art so brilliantly...

    1. Cliff

      Re: Charles Dickens would be proud

      Which one is Fagin?

    2. The Bit Wrangler

      Re: Charles Dickens would be proud

      Sadly, both houses have more money than could possibly be frittered-away in a Jarndice v Jarndice-like perpetual battle... The lawyers will feed in perpetuity I fear....

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Holmes

    Samsung probably hopes

    That the appeal will be handled by a less biased judge, or at least one that wasn't an employee of an apple "associate".

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. Mint Sauce
    Go

    Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty

    I can't help thinking that one legal team is probably headed up by Vroomfondel, and the other by Majikthise...

  11. Pypes

    Files system: $100,000

    Aesthetics & Ergonomics: $100,000,000

    Is it any wonder their is a shortage of decent STEM workers when society values their efforts several orders of magnitude lower than the lads drawing pretty pictures.

    (I am aware I work for a print firm and spend most of my time drawing pretty pictures)

  12. John Savard Silver badge

    Smartphones Before Apple?

    I remember it being mentioned that the iPhone wasn't the world's first smartphone. So I looked it up.

    Android phones came out a year after the iPhone. Before the iPhone, there was the Blackberry, there were phones running Symbian, there were phones running PalmOS, which licensed a lot of stuff from the Apple Mac, and the first smartphone may have been something from IBM.

    There wasn't much, and especially there wasn't much multitouch before Apple. Does that mean, though, it should be able to control so many key features from being first as to have an effective monopoly on the product category?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019