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 554161
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wave the flag
by Nelson on Mon 4th Mar 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "Wave the flag"
Member since:

The suggestion that an American jury employed what amounts to legal protectionism to render a verdict is ludicrous and offensive.

What more likely happened is that they fudged some details on the jury instructions (and mind you -- none that would've changed the game or the conclusion radically, it just makes a lot of damages need to be recalculated).

FYI: The Judge in this case didn't say "half of these damages are inherently wrong", she said half of these damages need to be recalculated based off of an incorrect application of jury instructions.

I'd like to see how you do sitting on such a high profile jury, with a complex case, and spawling instructions that span a ton of pages. This isn't easy stuff, and the blame should frankly be put on both companies for bloating the process and confusing the Jury, and likely the Judge for not putting her foot down in a more concrete manner.

Make no mistake about it though, both companies asked for a Jury trial. Samsung hoped they could use the complexity angle to their advantage the same way Apple did. One prevailed, one didn't.

I dont think the Jury acted with malice, and I don't think a new damages trial will come to a wildly different conclusion.

Apple is well regarded in the US but so is Samsung. Almost irrationally so.

Reply Parent Score: 1