Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Mar 2013 22:20 UTC
Legal Judge Lucy Koh has almost halved the $1 billion in damages the jury awarded to Apple. "Koh found two main errors in the way the jury calculated the damages awarded to Apple. They used Samsung's profits to determine the amount the company owed for infringing some of Apple's utility patents - a practice only appropriate when calculating damages owed when design patents have been infringed. They also erred when calculating the time period Apple should be awarded damages for. Koh explains that Apple was only due damages for product sales that occurred after Cupertino informed Samsung of its belief that the violations were taking place." It's almost as if the bunch of random people in this jury had no clue what they were doing in what is possibly the most complex patent trial in history.
Permalink for comment 554072
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

I had a lot more sympathy for Samsung before they, unwittingly, attempted to block an accessibility function of iOS (a rather important one for me) via a patent:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21552733


So you're blaming Samsung for Apple's theft of their intellectual property? You'd think that such an "innovative" company could have come up with something original on their own, instead of just being thieves.

They didn't target it deliberately but that, in a way, makes it worse. They don't care about who their actions may hurt.


By "they", I take it you mean Apple? According to the article that you linked, Apple was aware that the functionality was covered by a Samsung patent - yet they still implemented it, AND refused license the patent to boot. If that's not willful infringement, then what is?

Fortunately this one was stopped at least in Germany, but that's going too far. I don't like Apple's tactics, but they've never stooped so low as this.


False equivalence. Seeking a ban on the infringing products appears to be Samsung's last resort, as opposed to the way Apple does things. Maybe you'd be happier if Samsung had outright refused to license the patent from the get-go, and instead tried to force them to remove the functionality entirely?

Samsung would leave those of us who require these features with no option save Android and Talkback, unfortunately, isn't even close to being as stable or reliable as iOS's Voiceover.


In other words, Apple is at fault for refusing to license a patent that they clearly infringe on - potentially screwing over disabled customers in the process. Glad I could help clear that up for you.

Reply Parent Score: 9