Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Koh Rules: Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the it-keeps-going dept.

Android 111

sfcrazy writes "In a nutshell there won't be a new trial in the Apple V. Samsung case, as Samsung wanted, because the judge thinks that the trial was fair despite allegations that the jury foreman could have been biased. She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple as the iPhone maker failed to prove they were 'undercompensated' by the jury. The most important ruling was that she found that 'Samsung did not willfully infringe.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Koh . . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757139)

. . . is biased.

Re:Koh . . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757205)

Because she is Korean? If that were the case, you'd think she'd give Samsung a second trial.

Re:Koh . . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757231)

Because she is Korean? If that were the case, you'd think she'd give Samsung a second trial.

Yeah because biased people always acknowledge and admit to their particular biases. Sure thing, Sparky!

Oh and how do you blindfold a Korean? With dental floss.

Face saving (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757363)

Judge Koh knew that she has seriously fcuked up in the original trial.

This second round ruling - that Samsung does not "willfully" infringe on Apple's patents - is nothing less than a face saving move.

Re:Face saving (5, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758395)

Judge Koh knew that she has seriously fcuked up in the original trial.

I'm sure you have some precedent or legal doctrine to cite in support of this beyond "I hate people who disagree with me"?

This second round ruling - that Samsung does not "willfully" infringe on Apple's patents - is nothing less than a face saving move.

No, it's pretty reasonable. Willful infringement, under the current law, requires almost malicious behavior in which the infringer acknowledges that they infringe the patent, but then go ahead anyway. Basically, they have to be evildoers: "I think the patent is invalid" or "I think our system is different" isn't enough - they have to actually say "the patent is valid, and our system is an identical copy, and fark those bastards because muwahahaha!" And that results in potentially tripled damages.

But patents aren't about who's good and moral and who's evil and malicious... they're about who stepped up and publicized an innovation to share it with everyone else, and who hid documents as trade secrets in an attempt to capitalize on them forever. As Jefferson said, an exclusive monopoly is an embarrassment to society that is only conscionable if society benefits from granting it. It's a flat economic decision: I give you exclusive rights to an invention, in exchange for you publishing your technical specifications, white papers, etc., because society takes the long view and giving exclusive rights for 20 years isn't so bad if you're thinking in terms of centuries or milleniums.

So to get to a level of "this person infringed a patent willingly" requires that they haven't just harmed the patent owner, but they've harmed society because they're diminishing the exclusive incentive behind granting that patent. If willful infringement causes inventors to decide to keep trade secrets, then we're all farked and those infringers should be harshly punished. But until then and particularly where infringers aren't willful, tripling damages seems incredibly out of proportion to the wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm a very pro-patent patent attorney, though I am on the drafting and prosecution side, and not litigation. We tend to be pro-inventor, and less pro-cut everyone's throat and get as much blood as possible.

Re:Face saving (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758471)

BLAH BLAH BLAH
Very interesting thank you.

Now, about something actually related to THIS world:
Patenting design of devices. Who could think of that?
Or patent OBVIOUS idea?! Also a good one!

Re:Face saving (2)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758763)

Patenting design of devices. Who could think of that?

Samsung - they have the most US Design Patents by far.

Re:Face saving (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760689)

Samsung - they have the most US Design Patents by far.

To be fair, they also make a crap-load of stuff as well.

Re:Face saving (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758477)

I give you exclusive rights to an invention, in exchange for you publishing your technical specifications, white papers, etc.

But current patents don't actually require you to publish your technical specifications, white papers, etc. You just have to publish the patent application. Samsung didn't copy from that patent application -- they copied from the actual device. In this case, society would have been better off if the patent had not been granted. It would have saved a wasteful litigation process.

Patents should be reserved for cases where significant research is done to achieve a result. Then they give value to striving. Prior to Edison, electric light bulbs did not last significantly longer than an oil lantern. Edison tried thousands of ways to make a light bulb. However, he only used one of those ways. If someone else wanted to try their own ten thousand ways to make a light bulb, they should have been allowed. However, the patent on the single way that Edison actually made a light bulb served a real purpose.

Re:Face saving (3, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758593)

I give you exclusive rights to an invention, in exchange for you publishing your technical specifications, white papers, etc.

But current patents don't actually require you to publish your technical specifications, white papers, etc. You just have to publish the patent application.

And I agree, that's a failing in current patent law that should be addressed by Congress. The current test is whether one of ordinary skill in the art could recreate the invention from the specification, not whether any n00b could do so, but maybe the latter would be preferable.
That said, the specification is not required to be the sole disclosure, and companies can publish technical specifications and white papers without losing their patent rights, unlike with trade secrets. Maybe a better solution is that a compulsory royalty of x% can be increased for each additional piece of documentation that a company publishes. Just the spec? You get n%. Functional descriptions? n+m%. White papers? n+o%. Etc. More disclosure = more money, which is what society really wants, in the end.

Said values of n, m, o, etc. would of course be dependent on market analysis and the value of the invention.

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761117)

"Just the spec? You get n%."

- The corners are round.

"Functional descriptions? n+m%."

- The corners are less likely to puncture.

"White papers? n+o%."

- Me, et al, on 'the risk to society of puncturing corners'
- My Colleage, et al, on 'the benefit of society to smooth handling'
- My Supplier, et al, on 'how to make corners round'
- My Marketing Guy, et al, on 'rounded corners and customer retention'
- My Intern, et al, on 'the coolness of rounded corners'

Imma be rich bitch! Society owes meehee.

Re:Face saving (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759149)

But current patents don't actually require you to publish your technical specifications, white papers, etc. You just have to publish the patent application. Samsung didn't copy from that patent application -- they copied from the actual device. In this case, society would have been better off if the patent had not been granted. It would have saved a wasteful litigation process.

Samsung is apparently looking for evidence that Apple has been selling any iPhones before the official release date. That's because Apple applied for some patents in Japan the day before the iPhone was officially released, and Samsung feels that selling a single iPhone would have been publication of the idea. That means that clearly Samsung believes copying an invention from the phone is exactly the same as copying from the patent text.

The effect that you claim is _exactly_ why patents have been introduced. There are many inventions that are automatically visible to the public when you try to benefit from them. If anyone could copy them without any way to sue, why would anyone bother spending money on the invention? Much cheaper to wait for someone else to invent it, and then copy it.

Re:Face saving (5, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759575)

If anyone could copy them without any way to sue, why would anyone bother spending money on the invention? Much cheaper to wait for someone else to invent it, and then copy it.

I don't know why this stupid meme just won't die. TO MAKE MONEY of course. Sitting on your ass selling nothing doesn't make money. Sitting on your ass and trying to sell a 10 year old product also doesn't make money when someone else is selling something newer and better. First mover advantage is tremendous. New shit sells. It doesn't even have to be particularly innovative. Just different enough. Eradicate the assinine patent system completely, and nothing changes except we stop enriching lawyers to no purpose. Patents are not just useless for their stated purpose—they actively hinder ALL of their stated purposes. They do not foster innovation. They do not propagate ideas. They do not better society. They do not protect garage inventors. They exist today for the same reason they existed when the term was coined—to enrich the friends of the king. Nothing more.

And I know all of this to be true because of one thing we ALL know to be true. As engineers, we are ordered, in no uncertain terms, not to ever ever read a patent when we're trying to create a new product. And even if we weren't explicitly forbidden to read patents, we wouldn't, because practically none of them save any time at all. The vast majority of them do not contain sufficient information to benefit from reading them. The vast majority of them are redundant, stupid, and obvious. Yes, obvious, even at the time they were first contemplated. Another stupid meme that won't die. We all start from the same place. We all have the same tools at our disposals, we all have exceedingly similar educations, we all leverage the same software libraries and parts, and we're all trying to solve the same problems at the same time, because what's a problem for one of us is invariably a problem for a whole bunch of us. All of these factors cause us to converge on identical solutions. Nor is this a recent phenomenon. We now know from history that even the stuff we considered fundamentally, radically innovative STILL wasn't unique. The telephone. The radio. Independently invented simultaneously multiple times. Trying to solve the same problem with the same resources led to the same solution. The lone genius inventor is a myth. A myth we cling to because it strokes our egos. A myth we should abandon because the ego stroking isn't worth the damage that affects us all.

Patents aren't just worthless: they're an active detriment to society and should be abolished.

Re:Face saving (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760507)

If anyone could copy them without any way to sue, why would anyone bother spending money on the invention? Much cheaper to wait for someone else to invent it, and then copy it.

I don't know why this stupid meme just won't die. TO MAKE MONEY of course. Sitting on your ass selling nothing doesn't make money. Sitting on your ass and trying to sell a 10 year old product also doesn't make money when someone else is selling something newer and better. First mover advantage is tremendous. New shit sells

Tell that to TinyTower or Crush the Castle or any of the indie developers who saw Zynga or another company come out with a nigh-identical product a few weeks later, and then bury them via their better advertising networks.

Re:Face saving (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762729)

Those were creative works; you're confusing copyright with patents. Patents do not apply to Zynga's exploitation of indies.

--Jeremy

Re:Face saving (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763325)

Those were creative works; you're confusing copyright with patents. Patents do not apply to Zynga's exploitation of indies.

Not at all - I'm addressing the false claim that "first mover advantage is tremendous" and therefore patents aren't necessary. It's not always true, as shown by those examples. The fact that they didn't have patents to protect them means that their sole protection was the first mover advantage, and that didn't help them one whit.

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42762357)

there's a reason we don't learn in school how to read patents... that's because trying to do so is useless.

Re:Face saving (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763403)

You are wrong. Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. You're advocating what's effectively a position of anarchy, and if you know history, you'll know that anarchy is not a course that will lead to progress.

See, there's something called economies of scale. A new product is expensive because it costs a lot to manufacture. It costs a lot to manufacture because the company manufacturing it does not know exactly how well it will sell, and hence will only allocate a certain amount of resources into making it. I.e., it will not make very many units.

This is true of all industries that deal with material goods.

Once a company has sales data, it can then begin to ramp up its production. Prices will then fall. How well a company does this, how quickly it responds to the rise or fall of demand, is a significant competitive advantage. This is why a lot of companies are focusing on point-of-sale tracking, and why you're seeing all these advertisements from IBM about "analytics".

A large company with much more resources (material property and capital) can ramp up much more quickly than a small business. This is a fact. Companies with lots of resources that cannot do this die very quickly and sometimes violently. It's a matter of survival of the fittest, and the fitness, like natural processes, is determined by how quickly and efficiently the organism can adapt.

Without patents, your small inventor is going to be ultimately completely screwed. While the new product is still in a niche market, the small inventor's small company will thrive. At this time, large companies will take notice. They will begin to copy the product. But they probably won't sell the copied product immediately. Instead, they'll sit on it and wait until the market leaves its niche status. If this never happens, the copy is shelved and the large company focuses on a different product. But once the product has sufficient market, the large company will jump in. It will out-manufacture the small company (who by now, isn't very small, but is still tiny when compared to the large company), and be able to sell at much lower prices.

Now, if the small company can ramp up production quickly enough, and with enough marketing dollars, the small company can regain much of this lost market within a short amount of time. However, the large company has a lot of revenue streams. And it can still thrive even if one product is losing money. The small company, with far fewer revenue streams, cannot afford to take a loss on their best-selling product. So the large company will go into a price war with the small company. And the large company will win.

But say that multiple large companies jump in at the same time, and that they will all be fighting to gain control of the market of this product. That still doesn't help the small company, because all that will do is drive the price down to its bare minimum, and again, based on economies of scale, the small company will not be able to sell as low as the large company.

The only way out for the small company is to out-innovate the large companies. The inventor who owns the small company needs to be one step ahead of the mass of resources the large company can bring to the table. Sometimes, this is possible. Most of the time, it is not.

Now, this is purely an economic viewpoint of what would happen if patents are removed. From a social viewpoint, it will discourage innovation. Why? Because people will realize that if they want to bring to market a new invention, they're facing a significant uphill battle, one that will not end until they become a large company themselves, or their company dies. So what they will do is work for an existing large company instead. It is a much easier way out, and people with starving kids waiting at the dining table for them to come home with the bacon will take that way.

So all of the potential inventors and innovators will go work for large companies. Large companies are risk adverse. Car companies spent millions to bury new inventions that threaten their existence. This includes engine technology, and battery technology. Back at the turn of the 20th century, the tobacco industry spent a ton of money lobbying congress to make marijuana illegal. Large companies are not interested in innovation, only in keeping their existing revenue streams alive. And the most efficient way to do that is to put money into having to do nothing. They can spend $100K a year lobbying congress to keep their business alive, or $100M to expand into something new, while incurring significant risk that the new product fails. (Kodak is a lesson every CEO in the world is learning from--how a company managed to innovate itself out of business.) Which avenue do you think a large company will take?

Progress will crawl without patents. It will all but disappear. It may not completely disappear, because there will always be a few who will get through the cracks. But it will be slowed significantly. And if it's not enough to overcome our natural state of continuous regression, then society itself will regress.

The system needs patents. Or it needs significant, stringent corporate regulations which effectively duplicate the purpose of patents, but would add a level of complexity to the law that yet again, enables the haves and disables the have-nots.

The solution is not to do away with patents completely. It is not to throw the small inventors to the wolves and see who survies.

A better solution is to take a page from trademark law, and separate patents by industry. Industry categories will have shorter or longer patent times based on how quickly a product can be manufactured. And they will have separate grantability requirements that will be based on the obvious standards of that particular industry. Couple that with explicitly limiting patents to things that are manufactured, and whose manufacturing chain ends in an artificial (man-made) machine, and that will bring the patent system back in line with its intention, to promote the useful arts and sciences.

Re:Face saving (1)

makomk (752139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764553)

With patents, small inventors are even more screwed. Patents do you no good unless you have the money to enforce them in court, and they don't. Worse still, since no invention happens in a vacuum they almost certainly infringe on patents held by their larger competitors who can afford to sue over them - and even if they don't, the bigger companies can drag out the lawsuit for long enough to bankrupt the smaller one through legal fees and buy it up on the cheap. (See for example Creative and Aureal.)

The only way for smaller inventors to "benefit" from patents is through patent trolling, where they just sit on their patents until someone else independently invents something similar then sue them into submission. Even then it's usually the company funding the patent lawsuits who benefits the most, not the inventor.

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761157)

"That means that clearly Samsung believes copying an invention from the phone is exactly the same as copying from the patent text."

No, that means that Samsung understands that Patent law is a law with rules and that all the rules count, not just the ones convenient for Apple.

Re:Face saving (1)

red crab (1044734) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758933)

"this person infringed a patent willingly" requires that they haven't just harmed the patent owner, but they've harmed society because they're diminishing the exclusive incentive behind granting that patent

Is this only me who can't get the subtle meaning in this statement. Can this be put in more realistic terms?

Re:Face saving (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759331)

Yeah, the outcome does not, to me, logically follow from the willing infringement. It must be lawyer speak so that IP infringement can be portrayed as the most heinous of crimes because it affects the whole of society.

Re:Face saving (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760073)

"this person infringed a patent willingly" requires that they haven't just harmed the patent owner, but they've harmed society because they're diminishing the exclusive incentive behind granting that patent

Is this only me who can't get the subtle meaning in this statement. Can this be put in more realistic terms?

Sure. Simply read the next two sentences:

If willful infringement causes inventors to decide to keep trade secrets, then we're all farked and those infringers should be harshly punished. But until then and particularly where infringers aren't willful, tripling damages seems incredibly out of proportion to the wrong.

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760353)

Innovative patent: 3000+ year old clay stylus - rectangular with rounded corners... 3000+ years later - apple devices - GASP !!! INNOVATION!!! Rectangular with rounded corners.

Apple hasn't innovated squat. They've stolen from everyone and cobbled it together with polished shit and iDuct Tape and then applied for knowingly false patents.

Where's the penalties for lying/falsifying patent applications?

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760969)

You're using a lot of vague and ambiguous words without clear meaning in your explanation of "willful infringement". You said you are a lawyer, you can't provide with a precise definition of willful infringement ?

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764953)

If willful infringement causes inventors to decide to keep trade secrets, then we're all farked and those infringers should be harshly punished.

How in the world do you keep a trade secret in a design patent? Make everyone sign and NDA not to talk about rounded corners and never show your phone to someone who hasn't signed? Design patents don't even have the society vs industry quid pro quid that is the original justification of all IP law.

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759395)

Actually, it's a logical impossibility.
A patent is supposed to be something not obvious to someone skilled in the arts.
How on earth could you accidentally infringe on something that you explicitly could not accidentally come up with?

The concept of "non-willful patent infringement" is just plain weird.
Then again, I am no lawyer, so perhaps after a few years of legal studies I'd understand how it's possible to accidentally copy something without knowing you'd copied it.

Re:Face saving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759651)

I read the actual ruling and it seems like there are some relevant things countering that:

First, some of the patents were design patents. The "person with ordinary skill in the art" test only applies to utility patents and doesn't even make sense to a design patent. Nothing weird about non-willful infringement there.

Second, if you read carefully, it appears that on the utility patents the judge was basically saying that he thought that while the patent as a whole was not found obvious, and therefore there is infringement, every aspect in which Samsung supposedly infringed *was* obvious. Basically said the patent was ultimately obvious. There's even an interesting bit where the judge mentioned that this jury didn't find X to be obvious but reasonably could have found X to be obvious.

Re:Face saving (1)

mog007 (677810) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759737)

How is a billion dollar fine fair when somebody doesn't willfully infringe?

Re:Face saving (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760185)

How is a billion dollar fine fair when somebody doesn't willfully infringe?

Because it's not three billion dollars? But yes, it would seem that the jury struck the value so ridiculously high (even by the admission of the jury foreman) as punitive damages for willful infringement. The only thing more woefully inadequate as the patent system, at this point, is the court system that is doing all this in the name of upholding the law.

Re:Koh . . . (1, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757965)

No. Because she doesn't find her jury foreman to be a disturbing failure of vor dire. It's a patent case and he's a wannabe patent troll. If she doesn't find that problematic, one wonders what it would take.

Re:Koh . . . (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758601)

No. Because she doesn't find her jury foreman to be a disturbing failure of vor dire. It's a patent case and he's a wannabe patent troll. If she doesn't find that problematic, one wonders what it would take.

A "disturbing failure of voir dire" means "Samsung's lawyers failed to ask relevant questions of the jury, failed to investigate the jurors, and failed to look through their own records of who they've sued in the past"... or really, it means Samsung absolutely knew who Hogan was and held the past conflict in check in case the jury decided against them. Who are we kidding - if the jury had decided for Samsung on every count, would they be demanding a new trial because of Hogan's past? Of course not. Since they had every opportunity to investigate that past and likely knew of it, they can't play "ace up our sleeve" and spring it on the court post-judgement. Trials only work like that in the movies.

Re:Koh . . . (4, Informative)

iapetus (24050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759745)

The relevant questions were asked of the jury. Hogan gave misleading answers to those questions.

If the jury had found for Samsung on every point, despite Hogan's possible bias against Samsung and their position, of course there wouldn't be a basis to demand a new trial. A better question might be whether Apple would be demanding a new trial had an anti-Apple zealot made it onto the jury by concealing their past history with Apple and then browbeating the other jurors into ignoring and misinterpreting law in a way that favoured Samsung.

And I think we all know the answer to that one.

Re:Koh . . . (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758983)

Can you explain to me exactly how he was a) a wannabe patent troll, how b) that makes a damned bit of difference either way to the case and c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?

The guy had filed for a patent before, doesn't make him a troll, he might be, but I certainly don't have enough info to say he was and I doubt you do either

Samsung wasn't arguing against patents, or against design patents, they were arguing that they didn't violate Apple's patents and only as a backup that the patents were invalid. Having filed for a patent and being in favor of patents doesn't really give any implied bias.

Judges have incredibly limited capacity to overturn a juries finding of fact in any case whatsoever, we might not like this all that much, but it's none the less true. Juries don't have to tell you how they decided anything and can use pretty much whatever insane logic they like. They shouldn't of course, but there's not much a judge can do about it (ya see this is how Slashdot's favorite pet rule of Jury Nullification works). This is for the blindingly obvious reason that if judges can simply overturn the findings of juries on a whim, we may as well just get rid of juries all together and give everyone bench trials with all that that entails.

I know that groklaw is violently anti-patent and in this case is violently anti-apple and so any legal decision which is made in Apple's favor must ipso facto be a huge screw up, but just because you don't like the result doesn't mean that the result wasn't fair, nor does it mean that the judge can do a damned thing about it whether it's fair or not.

Re:Koh . . . (3, Informative)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759683)

how he was a) a wannabe patent troll

I'm not the original poster, so can't comment on this. I would just say more generally that he was a possible patent enforcer

how b) that makes a damned bit of difference either way to the case

He has a vested interest on patent infringement damages being awarded regardless of the content of the patent. In this concrete case he manipulated the jury to disregard the instructions to consider the validity of the patents. It's like having an insurance company owner deciding on a case of insurance coverage.

c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?

The judge could have annulled the jury decision based on them not following the jury instructions and she could have sent them back to do their work properly.

Re:Koh . . . (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760687)

He has a vested interest on patent infringement damages being awarded regardless of the content of the patent. In this concrete case he manipulated the jury to disregard the instructions to consider the validity of the patents. It's like having an insurance company owner deciding on a case of insurance coverage.

Vested interest... I do not think that means what you think it means. I'm looking for details on the 20-year old patent lawsuit that bankrupted [Hogan]... but there is so much trash in the news, I can really only see that he also "purchased a house under mysterious circumstances."

I'm sure he has not forgotten the lawsuit that bankrupted him. But a 20 year old patent would have expired, well, up to 20 years ago. A vendetta is not a vested interest. So, how does he make money off of this? Apple stock?

c) what exactly the judge is supposed to do about it even if he was?

The judge could have annulled the jury decision based on them not following the jury instructions and she could have sent them back to do their work properly.

I am not sure that a judge has that power, unless there is proof of wrongdoing on the part of the jury, or improper communication for example between the plaintiffs and the jury foreman, I always thought it was the jury who had the power to annul, as in the case when a judge says clearly "if this then that, you must deliver a guilty verdict."

The jury can then go and discuss "well yes, both this and that, but we're still going to say he's not guilty." That's jury nullification. I don't want to sound like I'm talking out of my ass too much, I am not a lawyer, and I know that this is a civil trial, and those words are used to mean a verdict in a criminal proceeding.

Still, as much as we all hate patents around here, I would expect the Slashdot crowd to be more supportive of this guy who worked so hard and finally got his come-uppance in a round-about sort of way. He was able to deliver a verdict against the company that bankrupted him. Sort of. Seagate-Samsung corporate alliance is going down. Why does everyone want to take that away from him? Don't we like to support the little guy over the cartel?

Why aren't there any other Android tablets with GPS? (Besides ASUS.) Why is there only one MIPS android tablet, and it's crap? These are the questions that I want answers to. I suspect that they are both because patents.

Re:Koh . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42760471)

Judge Koh was Korean .... Judge Kohrean.

Sensible for both sides to appeal (5, Insightful)

JImbob0i0 (1202835) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757167)

With this ruling neither side are going to be happy (and frankly it's somewhat self-contradictory as well)...

Both sides will be writing up appeals no doubt so this story is far from over yet - it'll be very interesting to hear what gets presented to the higher court and what their take on the foreman is.

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (5, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757203)

General consensus on Groklaw is that she's sick of the whole mess and knows everyone is appealing everything, so she's just kicking it upstairs.

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757417)

Yeah, that seems to be the case. So how is this not a case of doing a half-assed job, making wrong conclusions and then passing the buck?

If you or I did that in a business environment, we'd probably get fired. Will she get a free pass after this?

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757505)

If you were assigned a task, but it was made clear to you in advance that no matter how good a job you did, the task would be reassigned to someone else who would redo it, how hard would you work?

What if you had other tasks to perform at the same time? Wouldn't you resent even being asked to do the task in the first place? Would it be just for your boss to fire you if you focused on your other tasks instead?

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757553)

No exactly. Your logic goes against everything the justice system was designed to accomplish. By your logic there would be no motive to have more than a single instance. If she had done a really good job, chances are the higher instances would just uphold her verdict. Higher instances take into consideration the results of lower instances. Furthermore in all other tasks she may have the same could be said, as appeals are available for all.

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757717)

It's not "her" verdict (she isn't even the finder of fact). At this point, the issues are points of law that the Court of Appeals will definitely want to resolve for itself.

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757869)

I am quite sure that you, as a member of the Court of Appeals, know exactly what they want, and what they will decide, but I will reserve myself the right to be skeptic about your credentials here.

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757747)

Higher instances take into consideration the results of lower instances.

Normally that'd be true, but this is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit we're talking about here.

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758407)

If you were assigned a task, but it was made clear to you in advance that no matter how good a job you did, the task would be reassigned to someone else who would redo it, how hard would you work?

Samsung's lawyers seemed to have this mentality as well, as they completely half-assed it.

(Also lol at all the teenage fandroid rage here --- Samsung will eventually settle this and cross-license patents, just like they did with Microsoft. count on it.)

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (3, Informative)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760121)

lol at all the teenage fandroid rage

I shouldn't reply to an immature cunt, but

Samsung will eventually settle this and cross-license patents

Apple are refusing to allow licence Samsung to licence them. And Apple's patents are utter bullshit. And Apple is refusing to pay for FRAND licences.

I'm not seeing much misbehaviour from Samsung on this one. Why would they settle?

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757967)

General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.

The thing is, this is really a cry for overall IP (Patent, Copyright, Trademark, Design Rights, etc) reform to stop being able to patent stupid, obvious things. Software developers create things all the time that they don't know if it's patentable or someone they're in communication with is patenting all their stuff.

The current IP system should have gone away in 1995 when the unwashed masses discovered the internet with the help of MS Windows. It's now almost 20 years later, and we're still seeing people sued for doing what's normal.... sharing ideas and culture.

There are no sides only facts. (5, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758311)

General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.

This had *nothing* to do with feelings. Apple is unable to maintain its massive mark-ups of rebadged foxconn phones through innovation; its massive market share gone; the days of the iPhone killer long behind us; its marketing machine pushing it as the *one* phone turning on Apple. When Jobs went thermonuclear on Android he should have been spending money on diverse product lines; Company acquisitions....hell competed on price, but instead he deicide to *litigate* over a few interface patents on devices covered by thousands of patents, often shared at little or no cost between traditional phone manufactures.

This court case was a massive win for Apple, but without product bans...toothless. I suspect even with them there are simply too many compelling Android phones; from a diverse collection of manufactures. All with an Mountain!? of there own patents [Hell even Google has them now]...Apple is terrified of them forming a cartel.

The bottom line is this is nothing to do with feelings this is everything about poor corporate strategy.

Re:There are no sides only facts. (1, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758607)

General feelings from the Apple side is that this is unfortunate but would rather Apple stop wasting time on it. General opinion from the Samsung/Android side is, **** Apple, waste as much money as possible.

This had *nothing* to do with feelings. Apple is unable to maintain its massive mark-ups of rebadged foxconn phones through innovation; its massive market share gone; the days of the iPhone killer long behind us; its marketing machine pushing it as the *one* phone turning on Apple.

[cough]iPhone snags its highest U.S. market share ever [cnet.com] [/cough]

Re:There are no sides only facts. (2)

HuguesT (84078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758707)

In Europe (similar market to the US) the market share of the iPhone is 25% compared to 44% to Samsung. Same article you quote.

Seriously Market Share (4, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758729)

https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23916413#.UQte-5G3PGg [idc.com] *Worldwide* Q4 post earning release from a real market analyst. However you spin it Apples share of the pie is shrinking. In Larger markets than the US like China Apple have no market share...and don't have a competitive product in that market. You should reread my post, its pretty good.

Re:There are no sides only facts. (1)

YojimboJango (978350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762887)

Hrmm... that's weird: Checks cnet article, "the research firm pegged Apple's U.S. smartphone share at 53.3 percent"
Ok where's that source: Follows to sub article, "Apple has achieved its highest ever share in the US (53.3%) in the latest 12 weeks"
Ok where's the actual data: No, link. Checks google. Oh here's the actual data, "This data is exclusively focused on the sales within this 12 week period rather than market share figures." http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/news-articles/US-iOS-Maintains-Lead-Among-US-Smartphone-OS-Sales [kantarworldpanel.com]
Checks dates: Ok so the 12 weeks directly after the iPhone 5 release saw 53% of smart phone sales being iPhones.

Ok so cnet is calling percentage of sales in a 12 week period directly after a the iPhone 5 launch 'market share', while the data it quotes from states that this is not market share. Aside from the dishonesty in cnets reporting that's still kinda impressive.

Re:There are no sides only facts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759113)

And the facts are that they're retaining their 70% profit share of the industry, and their userbase growth is still accelerating. Samsung are not eating into Apple's potential market, they're hoovering up the standard phone market as it transitions to an all-smartphone industry. Apple have never, ever expressed an interest in that section of the market, making their *relative* decline in it irrelevant. So their corporate strategy is in fact still serving them very well - and given they're the second biggest company in the world I'd say it's objectively one of the best corporate strategies there is.

Re:There are no sides only facts. (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759397)

their userbase growth is still accelerating.

Wow, an AC using a third derivative to argue his case. That's gotta be a first (though oinly for ACs, not for sitting US presidents [smc.edu] ). Actually, from the first chart I found when googling [businessinsider.com] , it looks as if the userbase has been linearly rising since November 2010, so the rise is not growing, much less accelerating.

Re:There are no sides only facts. (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759675)

I do actually see the rise growing (err...growth rising) in that chart (eg. the 4s section is steeper than the 4 section), but I agree that I certainly don't see it accelerating.

Unsustainable Business Model (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759479)

And the facts are that they're retaining their 70% profit share of the industry, and their userbase growth is still accelerating. Samsung are not eating into Apple's potential market, they're hoovering up the standard phone market as it transitions to an all-smartphone industry. Apple have never, ever expressed an interest in that section of the market, making their *relative* decline in it irrelevant. So their corporate strategy is in fact still serving them very well - and given they're the second biggest company in the world I'd say it's objectively one of the best corporate strategies there is.

There is no such thing as *profit share* there are only profits, and nobody will ever suggest that Apple *right now* are not making money hand over fist, although that [dubious] 70% figure for *hardware profits* does not include *future profits* or profits from *advertising* *content* [ignoring intangibles], ironically its why Apple have lost 35% of their market cap losing the crown of *largest* company in the world.

[Part of] My point is that Apple are none existent in certain markets China/Brazil, markets Apple have said are their *primary focus* for obvious reasons, Android is going to get Apps from those markets while Apple get none...falling behind even more.

Apple is selling more phones that it ever has...but is experiencing slower growth that the market is growing, with its potential customers reaching saturation, with customers opting for its cheaper [lower margin] models.

I agree Apple re-badging foxconn phones at a massive mark-up has been wonderful, but its looking a weak strategy in a maturing market with competitors with arguably better hardware software and value, and the stock market agrees.

Re:Unsustainable Business Model (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760151)

Interpret 'profit share' the share of the overall profits within the specific market.

Apple does make more profit from the mobile business than their competitors.

(It does this by employing cheap Chinese labour, hammering its supply chain costs, leveraging efficiencies of scale and taking advantage of the cash wealth of the people that want a shiny status symbol)

Re:Sensible for both sides to appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42761399)

Groupthink on Groklaw? I haz a shock.....

no but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757185)

just because Koh-rupt isn't granting another trial doesn't mean any of the multiple ongoing appeals won't overturn the verdict, this is hardly the last say

Next stop...appeals court. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757193)

Where this entire farcical trial will be laughed at and the judgement thrown out.

Re:Next stop...appeals court. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757237)

Where this entire farcical trial will be laughed at and the judgement thrown out.

exactly.. "there won't be a new trial" is pretty bullshitty on that level.

what's strange though.. isn't the whole jury's damages that they came up with(quite randomly) based on that it was willful(so damages were crazy)? so wtf? it's not news on any level that Koh took it as a fair trial - Koh being very unlikely to fess up to having fucked up.

Re:Next stop...appeals court. (0)

reub2000 (705806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757637)

If there was any deity up there in the sky then this would be thrown out on appeal. However, I'm afraid that's not the case.

Re:Next stop...appeals court. (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757959)

By St Jobs of the Apple?

Samsung isn't your friend (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757241)

Seeking treble damages is SOP for these kinds of suits. You do it because you have a reasonable chance of succeeding and there is no penalty for the attempt.

Anyway, don't be quick to jump to Samsung's defense because they're on the other end of Apple in this suit, or because they make your favorite smartphone. Samsung pretty much owns the SK govt and aggressively attacks its overseas competitors in every manner you could imagine. There are plenty of blogs detailing Samsung's domestic abuses of power (That far predate any smartphone). Samsung isn't a friendly company and they aren't looking out for you. Like any company, they just want your money.

Re:Samsung isn't your friend (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757491)

Fuck Apple. Troll harder next time, bitch.

Re:Samsung isn't your friend (1, Troll)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758073)

I hate to break this to you but Apple is still getting $1 billion. The only bitch here is Samsung. :)

Samsung wasn't the beligerant party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758503)

Samsung was manufacturing real products and not using litigation as a business method until Apple started the legal war.

The fact that all products (including Apple's) are based on products that went before is normal in engineering, and only Apple seems to think that square panels with rounded corners are a unique concept which must not be copied by their competitors.

Re:Samsung wasn't the beligerant party (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42759247)

Samsung was manufacturing real products and not using litigation as a business method until Apple started the legal war.

Couldn't agree more. I'm posting anonymously for reasons that will become obvious below...

I work for a direct competitor of Samsung in a different space to smartphones. Samsung is a relative newcomer in our market, and are comparatively tiny compared to the big players (such as my employer, one of the "big 5" in our industry).

Right now, we're shitting our pants over them. Their product is half the price of ours and around 3/4 the quality. They'll bump the quality up to ours or higher and easily keep their price below. I KNOW they can do this, because they manufacture a lot of the components that we have to buy; and can integrate their technologies much more fluidly than we can.

Our management are looking at all kinds of legal ways to try to fight them, including digging through our patents to figure out what we can sue them for. The simple fact of the matter is, they've got a product that WILL be better than ours and instead of improving our devices to stay ahead, we want to try to squash them down before they become too big.

I'm seriously considering looking in to employment at Samsung in the coming years...

Re:Samsung wasn't the beligerant party (1)

Tanman (90298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762443)

Allow me to rephrase:

I don't work for samsung, I'm a definitely-not-Samsung-person, buuuuut . . .

The monolithic competitors to the small, agile little tech/phone startup company, Samsung, want to squash it with legal action because they have no prayer of defeating the high-value, unmatched technological innovations Samsung is or will be offering shortly! Samsung's victory is inevitable! ALL HAIL SAMSUNG!

I say again, I am not a Samsung employee. However, as an insightful, intelligent employee, I am looking at employment there in the coming years (and maybe you should too, fellow insightful employees of Samsung's doomed-to-be-destroyed competitors!).

State Taxes on Winnings? (2, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757247)

If I'm not mistaken Apple will have to pay California income tax on the money they get from Samsung. With a corporate tax of nearly 9% that'd be close to $90M added to the coffers. If one was into conspiracy theories this would be an interesting avenue to pursue.

$100 iTunes Gift Card... maybe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757485)

If you shut your pie hole.

Re:State Taxes on Winnings? (2)

tgetzoya (827201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757603)

I'm sure Apple will find a way to not pay taxes on it.

Apple don't pay tax (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758249)

If I'm not mistaken Apple will have to pay California income tax on the money they get from Samsung. With a corporate tax of nearly 9% that'd be close to $90M added to the coffers. If one was into conspiracy theories this would be an interesting avenue to pursue.

I don't think you have any idea how much money the state gets in Tax. State spending was $127 billion in 2011

Re:Apple don't pay tax (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758301)

You're right, they'd never miss $90M, even with them running a deficit for several years end-on-end. If they're fortunate and their forecast comes through for 2013, they'll just barely squeak into the black. I wonder if that forecast included this little windfall...

Re:State Taxes on Winnings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758327)

No. They won't have to pay taxes on it.

Re:State Taxes on Winnings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758589)

No because all Apple IP is actually owned by their Double-Dutch Irish Sandwich subsidiary. Or whatever.

Also this was a federal judge, so why should she care?

New term! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757281)

Ignoring the obvious in a decision should now be called "being Koh'd"

No aria yet (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757451)

I don't think that "the fat lady" has sung yet in this opera! Personally, I think that at the end of it all, either A&S will enter some sort of x-licensing agreement, or Samsung will kick Apple's butt to the curb and Apple will end up with a lot less proprietary IP than they started with. If Apple is smart, they will come to some sort of licensing agreement with Samsung.

Patent Law doesn't care about Willful Infringement (-1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757723)

Theft is theft.

It only affects the jail terms and the final penalties, not the fact that they're guilty.

Re:Patent Law doesn't care about Willful Infringem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42757841)

u must drink the apple kool aid a lot. nothing was stolen from crapple. they stole their ideas from sony but sany isnt whinibg like they are.

Re:Patent Law doesn't care about Willful Infringem (3)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758351)

Yes, you're right, theft is theft. But theft is also completely unrelated to this case as no theft is even alleged to have happened.

This case is not about theft, it's about patent infringment. Something not in any way related to depriving someone of their physical property.

Re:Patent Law doesn't care about Willful Infringem (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42763411)

Is patent law broken in the US? Yes. But just because the Law is an Arse does not mean it's not illegal.

Lots of things are illegal. In my state most of them aren't, cause we're not that insane. Except for patents and copyrights, we're still stuck on stupid.

can't even write a summary accurately (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757831)

From the summary:

She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple

From the article:

So, Samsung owes Apple US $1 billion for a non will ful infringement.

Re:can't even write a summary accurately (4, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758089)

From the summary:

She also ruled that there won't be any more money for Apple

From the article:

So, Samsung owes Apple US $1 billion for a non will ful infringement.

"More" in this case would be $3B as da,ages may be tripled for willful infringement.

Koh is a Korean name, right? (-1, Troll)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757947)

I wonder how much Samsung stock her family has. Probably some to lots, especially if she has relatives inside Korea itself.

For her to determine that Samsung didn't willfully infringe indicates that she is not paying close attention!

Re:Koh is a Korean name, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758231)

I'd guess "none", given, strangely enough, Koreans aren't racial stereotypes. I know, it's hard to believe, but they're actual human beings! Imagine that!

Re:Koh is a Korean name, right? (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758685)

Pretty much every South Korean is heavily invested in Samsung through their retirement plans. They are like Brits with BP stock in this respect.

horse poop (-1, Flamebait)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758347)

how did Samsung unwillingly infringe? By copying the complete design of the original iPhone, they were just doing what a lot of Koreans do: make copies of original American products. My ex-gf was involved in a sportswear company and it was part of her job to create infringing designs so people would believe they were buying original clothes from the famous labels she stole the look from.

Please... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758365)

how did Samsung unwillingly infringe? By copying the complete design of the original iPhone, they were just doing what a lot of Koreans do: make copies of original American products. My ex-gf was involved in a sportswear company and it was part of her job to create infringing designs so people would believe they were buying original clothes from the famous labels she stole the look from.

... like we're supposed to believe a Slashdotter even has an ex-gf?

Delusional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758695)

What's even more concerning is the fact he said his ex-girlfriend worked at a sportswear company. Someone should really call his mom and see if they can get PERT down there with a crowbar and pry open the basement so they can give this poor guy the kind of help he so desperately needs.

jsepeta - listen carefully, those girls in /home/jsepeta/pr0n/* are not really your girlfriends, they are paid actresses.

More likely than not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42758637)

Hard to demonstrate it is more likely than not that Samsung willfully infringed.

I happen to believe they knew full well what they were doing, as they described the difference between their own handsets and the iPhone as being "like the difference between Heaven and Earth."

Re:More likely than not? (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760171)

Jury verdict notwithstanding, it's pretty hard to demonstrate that Samsung infringed, let alone wilfully.

Provided a misquote wont change that.

Apple is spending its patent portfolio (4, Interesting)

HuguesT (84078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758725)

One very important sentence in the groklaw article:

The reason she found Samsung was not willful is because of all the prior art that their experts testified showed that the Apple patents were invalid.

Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market.

Re:Apple is spending its patent portfolio (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about a year and a half ago | (#42758867)

Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market

Yes. This is standard operating practice for a thug protection racket operation like Apple.

Re:Apple is spending its patent portfolio (3, Informative)

afaik_ianal (918433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42759007)

I think you might be misreading it.

"their" refers to Samsung. So she's saying since Sasmsung's experts testified that there was prior art, she's assuming they genuinely believed the prior art to be valid. The jury disagreed, but without other evidence she has assumed the experts genuinely believed there to be prior art.

Re:Apple is spending its patent portfolio (1)

oztiks (921504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760453)

Which is a bit schizophrenic if you consider that most of the attempts Samsung made at raising prior art were thrown out at the beginning of the trail.

Re:Apple is spending its patent portfolio (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760579)

One very important sentence in the groklaw article:

The reason she found Samsung was not willful is because of all the prior art that their experts testified showed that the Apple patents were invalid.

Am I reading this correctly? Apple has invalid patents but still got damages out of them? Does this mean they are a one-shot deal and that other manufacturers can infringe now? In this case 1 billion dollars to render Apple's portfolio irrelevant was effectively very cheap, given the size of the relevant market.

No, you're misreading it. To willfully infringe a patent, you must know about the patent, believe its valid, and go ahead and infringe anyway. What she's saying is that Samsung got expert opinions that said that Apple's patents weren't valid. Those experts were apparently wrong, according to the jury, but that belief takes out the second prong of willfulness, so Samsung didn't willfully infringe, and damages are not tripled.

Re:Apple is spending its patent portfolio (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42760931)

No, you're misreading it. To willfully infringe a patent, you must know about the patent, believe its valid, and go ahead and infringe anyway. What she's saying is that Samsung got expert opinions that said that Apple's patents weren't valid. Those experts were apparently wrong, according to the jury, but that belief takes out the second prong of willfulness, so Samsung didn't willfully infringe, and damages are not tripled.

But why wern't the 'damages' reduced? At least two of the patents from the trial were invalidated since.

Re:Apple is spending its patent portfolio (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42762199)

No, you're misreading it. To willfully infringe a patent, you must know about the patent, believe its valid, and go ahead and infringe anyway. What she's saying is that Samsung got expert opinions that said that Apple's patents weren't valid. Those experts were apparently wrong, according to the jury, but that belief takes out the second prong of willfulness, so Samsung didn't willfully infringe, and damages are not tripled.

But why wern't the 'damages' reduced? At least two of the patents from the trial were invalidated since.

That's an issue for appeal, not this stage of trial.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?