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 554159
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


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.


Apple's alleged theft. Subject to review -- hence the case has been suspended. Its in the article.


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?


According to thinly veiled conjecture from Samsung. Of course they're going to say Apple refused to take a license, that's what every plaintiff says, otherwise you'd have no reason to be in court.

If they implemented it and truly refused a license (which to me is out of character for Apple, they've historically been willing to license patents and play game) then they likely believe the patent is invalid, and have made the determination that its worth paying the legal costs associated with trying to get it invalidated.

If it gets invalidated that's one less fang Samsung has, and Apple's strategy starts to make a lot more sense.

FYI: Samsung employs this same strategy with Apple when it comes to their design patents / trademark infringment claims.

Apple could also be trying to use this and other pending litigation to negotiate a license on their terms which is perfectly fine, as the courts are the ultimate arbiters of this kind of thing.



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?


I find it interesting you can glean so many internal details from such a limited point of view. I think these kind of things come out during discovery, and before that, its a little silly to start guessing what the internal discussions looked like.

A jury found Samsung guilty of willful infringement, so far only Samsung (and possibly you) find Apple guilty of willful infringement. Just so we're clear.


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.


I think there's grandstanding on both sides here -- this is just another pawn, albeit one that probably hurts Samsung from a PR standpoint more than it helps -- but its just political posturing on the side of both companies.

These cases have to be looked at within the context of all the larger pending litigation to get an idea for the true motives of either company.

Reply Parent Score: 3