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.
Thread beginning with comment 554050
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Ah, damn.
by Nelson on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ah, damn."
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

My point was that the reduction may not actually end up being a reduction. People get too hung up on procedural stuff and draw the wrong conclusions.

I think ultimately Apple will end up with a figure hovering around $1B. Remember that Apple has also appealed the triple damages aspect of this trial and has tried to get an exclusion order.

This is far from the last shot fired. Its like getting excited when Samsung got jury instructions striken. Its I guess nice at the moment, but you need to look at the bigger picture.

Edit: And yes, its about the money, but in a different way. Apple doesnt' need a billion dollars. They have 100 billion dollars. What they do need is the stigma and cloud of uncertainty that will arise over Android, and the import bans. Monetary compensation is secondary to all that.

This is a complex, multi trial, multi year, game of chess between two of the biggest companies in the world. Apple will lose some, Samsung will lose some, but its how it affects the larger picture that matters.

Apple is systematically trying to shut out Android, and damage the Samsung brand by associating them with being a copier, AND make it so OEMs think twice about licensing Android.

Edited 2013-03-02 00:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Ah, damn.
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 01:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Ah, damn."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

True, you are right. I just see this as sort of entertainment. Like a boxing match or something. You grab the popcorn and start watching. The person you hate who you want to lose has a swift, painful low-blow dealt to him early on... you laugh. But of course the battle goes on, it can twist and turn. Both end up getting slammed around. That doesn't mean you can't have amusement with what does happen, as it happens. That's all.

Of course, by the time this is all finally over, you get to look back at the whole thing and measure the damage done with each strike, with a much better idea of the relative damage of each strike based on the entire battle and finale.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Ah, damn.
by SeeM on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 08:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Ah, damn."
SeeM Member since:
2011-09-10

Apple is systematically trying to shut out Android, and damage the Samsung brand by associating them with being a copier, AND make it so OEMs think twice about licensing Android.


They can't use iOS. Anyone knows any other good mobile OS to install? Because now it's like Apple and all others, just like MacOS and Windows in the old days.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Ah, damn.
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 09:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Ah, damn."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Well... WebOS might as well be dead, and two up-and-coming alternatives to Android and iOS--Firefox OS and Ubuntu--are in development. I'm not too happy with the current state of cell phone/tablet computer OSes myself, it's very disappointing and irritating. Whether the newcomers by Mozilla and Canonical can get anywhere or not (or end up actually being any good) is another question.

I'd like to see some real competition, on the market instead of in the U.S. judiciary branch... hurt Apple the way the economy is supposed to work, not by buying yourself crooked wins in a "who can get the better lawyers" battle.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Ah, damn.
by atsureki on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 13:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Ah, damn."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

They can't use iOS. Anyone knows any other good mobile OS to install? Because now it's like Apple and all others, just like MacOS and Windows in the old days.


http://www.windowsphone.com/

Maybe you don't think it's "good", but it's broadly licensed and, most importantly, it's original. With the death of WebOS and Blackberry Classic, Windows Phone is the only major mobile platform that doesn't take significant cues (to put it mildly) from iPhone 2007.

But why should OEMs expect to be able to just slap together some generic parts, install someone else's software, and ship it? Why should software even be broadly licensed? Aren't OEMs more likely to bring real value to the table (or die off in the face of real competition) if they're forced to be creative and to do some actual engineering?

Most handset makers are still accustomed to 2006 when every phone was a carbon copy of six others and software was an afterthought. Do that now, and Apple's lawyers come knocking. I don't consider the old way competition, and it sure as hell wasn't innovation.

Of course there are tangible short-term benefits to a ubiquitous generic platform, but big picture, it leads to nothing but price wars and stagnation. Can anyone say with a straight face that the 1995~2006 Windows monopoly was a good time for innovation in personal computing? The ubiquity of Windows was a disincentive for Microsoft to fix its bugs and reform its designs, and for OEMs to consider alternatives. While Android is currently improving rapidly, its ubiquity is a disincentive for Google to fight the fragmentation problem that means most users will never see any of those improvements, and it effectively killed off Symbian, Bada, Tizen, and WebOS by being the easy alternative to originality. If Android had killed off iPhone too, Google would probably be just as content resting on Android 2.x as its hardware and carrier partners seem to be.

So why should OEMs, or consumers for that matter, feel so comfortable with or entitled to a major broadly-licensed platform, especially one that lifts major elements from another product?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Ah, damn.
by _txf_ on Sat 2nd Mar 2013 11:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Ah, damn."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Apple is systematically trying to shut out Android, and damage the Samsung brand by associating them with being a copier, AND make it so OEMs think twice about licensing Android.


Yet in spite of all the news about this trial, It really hasn't hurt Samsung one bit.

Edited 2013-03-02 11:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Ah, damn.
by Nelson on Mon 4th Mar 2013 18:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Ah, damn."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Yet in spite of all the news about this trial, It really hasn't hurt Samsung one bit.


Keep telling that to yourself. These lawsuits are in their very nascent stages. This is all just legal boilerplate until the exclusion orders are extended.

Once Apple gets concrete excusion orders in a number of high end countries with some hard patents, then Samsung will feel the crunch. These import bans will be easily applicable to the 10 or 20 new phones that Samsung releases a month and will effectively shut Samsung out of segments of the market.

Samsung could put an end to this entire thing right now by taking a royalty bearing license from Apple (a rare olive branch that they don't offer everyone). I think they'll be more inclined to now that their SEP strategy has been neutered (they previously were holding out in an effort to avoid having to negotiate away their own patents, but that went no where). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and Samsung come to an agreement before the year is out.

Reply Parent Score: 3