When a federal jury two years ago clobbered Samsung with nearly $1 billion in damages for violating Apple’s iPhone and iPad patent rights, the jury foreman emphasized that the verdict was meant to send a strong message about copying in the tech industry.
But there was no such deliberate message in the verdict in the latest patent showdown between Apple and Samsung that drew to an end on Monday, according to jurors who spoke outside the federal courthouse after finishing their role. In fact, the jury foreman said the mixed verdict in the trial sequel was not intended to send any broader message in the smartphone wars.
It’s almost as if having a jury led by a technology patent holder has a huge stake in making sure patents are as valuable as possible. The foreman in the current case, Thomas Dunham, stated that this jury didn’t intend to send a message – it just looked at the evidence and awarded fair damages. Either of the two company’s initial claims – Apple’s $2 billion and Samsung’s $0.12 billion – were dismissed by the jury as unfair and unjust.
“Ultimately, the consumer is the loser in all this,” Dunham said. “I’d like to see them find a way to settle. I hope this (verdict) in some way helps shape that future.”
Clearly, one of these two foremen is the wise one.
I’d be interested to see how American versus European firms fare in European courts regarding IP battles, as well as how American versus Asian firms fare in American courts. These almost seem like an after market import tariff at times.
Edited 2014-05-06 19:20 UTC
Apple beat Samsung in South Korea.
Protectionism is everywhere although no-one would ever admit to it and they will complain a lot about other countries doing what they themselves are doing.
Furthermore, both corporations are multinational, neither of which is particularly bound by national borders or allegiances.
Edited 2014-05-07 20:18 UTC
Especially when taxes are concerned.
Apple’s billion dollar win against Samsung was not because the Foreman felt he needed to send a message, it was calculated according to the instructions the Jury was given, was in fact revised downward, and then later adjusted upwards as errors in the process were ironed out.
That’s just rhetoric on the part of the original foreman.