Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2014 00:28 UTC

An eight-person jury on Friday handed back a mixed verdict in the Apple v. Samsung patent-infringement case.

The jury found Samsung's gadgets infringed Apple's '647 patent, but not the '959 patent or '414 patent. Results were mixed for the '721 patent, with some Samsung devices, such as the Galaxy Nexus, found to infringe, and others not.

The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for the infringement.

Apple wanted more than $2 billion. The verdict is still being read, and the jury has also ruled that Apple infringed on one of Samsung's patents, awarding Samsung $158000 for it.

So, pocket change both ways. A total waste of money, public resources, the jury members' time, and the court system. Well done you, patent system.

Thread beginning with comment 588058
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 3rd May 2014 00:48 UTC
Member since:

This was me March 2013:

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.

The point isn't really how much they get awarded, but the perception that surrounds each company moving forward. Being labeled a copier is something Samsung is extremely sensitive to, given that it has the potential to damage any premium branding they're aiming for.

It might be chump change for Samsung, a multinational conglomerate but it's certainly not chump change for any other OEM who might be considering aping Apple's intellectual property.

Moving forward though we'll likely see the figure revised up or downwards as the various legal mechanisms start working over the course of the next few months/years.

Btw, re: Apple's original damage claim. They're almost always comically overshooting with damages. Look at Moto wanting billions from MSFT a year and getting $14M.

I don't think $120M is a figure to sneeze at though, it definitely sends a message. Even Florian from FossPatents thought $2B was an unreasonable amount ($40 per device)

Edited 2014-05-03 00:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by kwan_e on Sat 3rd May 2014 01:26 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
kwan_e Member since:

You haven't actually shown Samsung's brand being damaged.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sat 3rd May 2014 01:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:

During the trial internal emails showed that Samsung worried being thought of as a "fast follower". The extent of the damage (if any, if significant) is unknown as no reports measure that.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Jbso on Sat 3rd May 2014 16:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Jbso Member since:

The general public doesn't care much about patent suits and won't be bothered if Samsung loses. Nelson's point about OEM trepidation is more relevant though - smaller OEMs may be put off Android if they see Samsung getting sued for huge sums.

Unfortunately for Apple, Samsung is too big to be deterred by these suits and Samsung is Apple's only real competitor. Windows Phone could theoretically benefit by gaining lower-price, mass-market manufacturers, but consumer interest is so low that OEMs are sticking with Android despite patent threats. Whether that changes going forward, we'll see, though I'm not as confident as I imagine Nelson is. It also does nothing for Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by JAlexoid on Sat 3rd May 2014 01:54 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
JAlexoid Member since:

They don't need the money. They need the damages to be big to go around and say that they were hurt by thaaaaat muuuuuch.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by Nelson
by galvanash on Sat 3rd May 2014 02:14 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
galvanash Member since:

The point isn't really how much they get awarded, but the perception that surrounds each company moving forward.

I agree, I just think your being a bit myopic about it... The perception that the damages verdict creates is that patents (even Apple's) really aren't worth that much in litigation. $120 million probably doesn't even cover Apple's legal expenses for this trial.

Just saying... The key patent that Samsung was found to be infringing was 5,946,647 - which is a particularly dangerous one imo as it is difficult to work around. But $120 million? Considering the number of phones Samsung sells that is peanuts - it comes out to $2 per phone by Apple's own accounting (they wanted $40).

If the rumors are true most Android makers are paying MSFT more than that for licensing (rumor is $8)... It's kinda sad since the only difference between Apple and MSFT in this case is that MSFT bothered to ask for the money instead of going the litigation route directly.

Sure, everyone hates them for it, and I don't really blame them, but regardless pursuing licensing agreements (using patents as leverage) is more civilized than Apple's usual approach (using patents as nuclear bombs).

Think about that. Microsoft is making MORE money through licensing that Apple is through litigation... So yeah, like them or not patents seem to be a great way to generate licensing revenue - but as a tool to block competition? No working out so great... Even with the $1 billion verdict (assuming it holds up), Microsoft will STILL make ALOT more money over the long haul ($3-4 billion annually and growing...).

While the legal battles drag out over the years MSFT will keep raking in cash. Apple's refusal to license anything to anyone (for the few patents they have that actually have teeth) is costing them $$$ over the long haul. And the clock on their biggest weapon (the 5,946,647 patent) runs out in 2 years...

I'm not hating on Apple either - I'm being serious. I think this whole thing was and is a utter waste of time and money on their part. They are still seeing tremendous market success, and if the best they have is the stupid 647 patent they should just stop bothering. Its not worth their time. Sure, 1 or 2 billion dollars sounds like a huge deal, but considering what it is costing them to get it (assuming it holds up) and the time and energy involved, AND the size of the company they are getting it from (to Samsung 2 billion is a bad bee sting, nothing more) - what is the point? The only rational answer is to try and deter Android growth - and it is absolutely not accomplishing that AT ALL.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by arb1 on Sat 3rd May 2014 04:39 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
arb1 Member since:

MS I think was more reasonable on their licensing fee's unlike Apple wants stupid high fee's for their patents but only believes they should pay pennies for anyone Else's patents. They even tried that crap with a judge not to many years back where they said in court "less you find in our favor for 1$ or less per device we won't accept your ruling" not exact quote but pretty much short of it.

Apple is one that is taking the bigger PR hit in all this as since they are the patent aggressor they are ones looking like patent trolls. Throw on top of the fact nothing on the iphone really changed since the 3gs, and with rumor's apple plans to make a 4.7inch and 5.5inch phone they are ones looking like they are coping Samsung.

Edited 2014-05-03 04:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by jackeebleu on Mon 5th May 2014 16:09 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
jackeebleu Member since:

While I'm seeing people blast vitriol into the ether about how patents are the devil and how you shouldn't be able to patent obvious things, no one is offering solutions. How does a company recover R&D dollars bringing a new product to market? Should they not be able to compete in the market openly and fairly without a competitor coming in and blatantly copying everything from their design, function and packaging? And if a design, process, or idea was so obvious, why did no one do it?

We've seen Samsung get accused of this exact behavior of infringement in myriad other markets, and unfortunately, this behavior is a part of their DNA. It's just who Samsung is.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Vanders on Sat 3rd May 2014 11:02 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Vanders Member since:

What they do need is the stigma and cloud of uncertainty that will arise over Android, and the import bans.

Has this verdict done that, though? As far as I can see it hasn't changed anything: Apple fanboys will point to the part of the ruling that Samsung infringed as "proof", Android fanboys will point to the part of the ruling that Apple infringed, and those of us who don't give a shit will continue to be baffled by the entire thing.

The only positive thing from the entire circus is that more people may become to realise that this entire concept of "Waaa! He copied me!" is pathetic, and arguing about it is pointless.

Thom is right; they've both spent huge amounts of money, used up court time, used up jurors time (and money), and all to simply end right back up where they started with nothing clear cut either way. Brilliant.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by tupp on Mon 5th May 2014 03:33 in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
tupp Member since:

Android fanboys will point to the part of the ruling that Apple infringed,...

What Android fanboys?

Reply Parent Score: 2