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!

Apple's $1B Patent Award From Samsung Gets Cut By $450M

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the snip-snip dept.

Patents 56

New submitter charlesj68 writes with news that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has cut Apple's $1.05 billion patent infringement award from Samsung down by $450.5 million. She also said Samsung deserves a new trial over claims related to some of its smartphones. "Koh rejected Apple’s request to enhance the jury’s award, saying the amount Samsung owed was heavily disputed and the jury wasn’t bound to accept either side’s damages estimate. 'It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury’s factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation,' Koh said in her ruling. Apple is entitled to additional damages for sales of infringing products that weren’t considered by the jury, Koh ruled, saying she intends to calculate the amount beginning on Aug. 25, the day after the jury reached its verdict. As the case has been appealed, Koh said she would delay considering evidence of actual post-verdict sales and pre-judgment interest until the appeals are completed."

cancel ×

56 comments

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

No Job for Her (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43049523)

Looks like Lucy won't be getting a "consulting" job with Samsung once the smoke clears...

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/28/uk-judge-who-ruled-against-apple-hired-by-samsung

luton to w2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43049549)

I would like to start writing articles and post them like you do, but i just can’t decide which platform to use, between blogger and wordpress. Which 1 would u recommend for a newbie like me? By the way good articles you have!
gatwick to w2 [ak-cars.co.uk] | luton to w2 [ak-cars.co.uk]

Re:luton to w2 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43049575)

Slashcode. It's what this site runs, and it's probably the best blogging software on Earth. It's written in Perl, so you know it's easy to maintain, and the look and feel is superb, just look at Slashdot's leading edge high quality clean design.

Re:luton to w2 (1, Redundant)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049695)

It's written in Perl, so you know it's easy to maintain

Ha ha. Good one!

Re:luton to w2 (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43053459)

just look at Slashdot's leading edge high quality clean design.

Ha ha. Good one!

Seriously does anyone care? (0)

Lefty2446 (232351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049561)

This stoush has been going on for so long with dirty tricks from both sides about hardware that is obsolete.

my 2c

Re:Seriously does anyone care? (1, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049927)

It's still a very current event and one that is quite relevant to "the new PC." In case you haven't been paying attention, the notion of the smart phone is still developing quite rapidly. Also, the thing about patents... software patents, F/RAND patents, standards critical patents and all that. This one trial encompasses many hot issues. Also it involves Apple whose new empire no longer cares about the computers it was once known for and now the devices and the media it sells... err... I mean "licenses."

You might be bored already and that's understandable. You have been conditioned like all the rest of the sheeple to only being able to care about something for a short time. How's that conditioning working out for you? Works great for slaves to have no long term memory, no long term vision of the future and only cares about today and what you can buy with that little you have + whatever credit you qualify for.

(sorry, that's a bit rough, but it's rather true of the larger demographic in the US today... they can't care about anything for any amount of time and can't begin to understand why anyone else cares about anything else.)

Too little, too late (3, Interesting)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049577)

It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049833)

It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

If that was the case, how come shes still practicing law? In other civilized countries we have laws against judges preciding over cases where they have personal stakes in the outcome of the case - She should receive the judicial version of curbstomping if the bolded is correct.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

Lisias (447563) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049877)

It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

If that was the case, how come shes still practicing law? In other civilized countries we have laws against judges preciding over cases where they have personal stakes in the outcome of the case - She should receive the judicial version of curbstomping if the bolded is correct.

Yep. But on these same civilized countries, one must first file a denounce. The denounce is studied and, if accepted, a lot os legal proceddings (including a trial) is needed before the judge is discharged from his/her duties.

I don't see no denounce being filed. Yet. But things can change - mainly by the fact that Samsung's case didn't had a very... up to the letter... treatment under this judge's rule.

Re:Too little, too late (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050137)

I look forward to compelling evidence of your charges against judge Koh. In the future, you may want to include that with the charge.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050635)

Check out icebike's comment above. If you were really "looking forward", you wouldn't have much trouble finding the evidence you claim to seek.

Re:Too little, too late (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050157)

It's been pretty obvious from the start that Koh was in the tank for Apple. I suspect at this point, she's worried about what the appeals court might have to say about her conduct, especially if they can't find grounds to overturn her verdict.

I suspect that Koh pretty much handed Samsung grounds for appeal when she ruled the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury [groklaw.net] . Groklaw saw this coming from day one.

Further Groklaw noted months ago that

The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything

.

And of course there was Lucy Koh shooting off her mouth about the Galaxy 10 being in obvious infringement (even imposed an injunction, since lifted), when in fact it was found not to infringe by the jury. Ooops, how embarrassing.

Koh is probably going to get overturned entirely on this trial. It hasn't even gotten to the appeal stage yet.

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050837)

She is full of shit.

No, she just jumped to a conclusion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053285)

That is entirely wrong for a judge presiding, but as a human she did no worse than make up her mind before getting evidence.

You know, like many slashdotters did.

Remember, Samsung is foreign and Apple American.

Re:Too little, too late (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050245)

It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

Re:Too little, too late (0)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050307)

It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

.... [Citation needed] ..?

Re:Too little, too late (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050389)

It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites. After all, their marketing budget is bigger than Apple & Sony combined.

.... [Citation needed] ..?

Have no idea if Samsung is bribing /. posters to astroturf, seems like a waste of money since half the people on this forum would do that for free. He was right about Samsung's ad budget though, it appears to be bigger than Apple's, HP's, Dell's, Microsoft's and Coca Cola's budgets combined: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-samsungs-massive-marketing-budget-2012-11 [businessinsider.com] .

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050747)

The other half apparently are getting paid to shill for Apple. I'm surprise bonch hasn't appeared yet. That's the main shill account used by Apple marketing contractors.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050997)

Well, they kind of are a gigantic company present in a lot of markets and market segments. Samsung likely is a direct competitor of all of the companies they outspend (Coca Cola is active in certain segments of chemical research). You'll have to compare to a company of similar breath to get a realistic picture.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061313)

Well, they kind of are a gigantic company present in a lot of markets and market segments. Samsung likely is a direct competitor of all of the companies they outspend (Coca Cola is active in certain segments of chemical research). You'll have to compare to a company of similar breath to get a realistic picture.

If only we were talking about all of Samsung and not just Samsung Electronics. But we aren't talking about Samsung (Fine) Chemicals, nor Insurances, nor Engineering, nor Heavy Industries, nor etc. Only Samsung Electronics. Not that much breadth left.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

thedarknite (1031380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43064287)

Samsung Electronics also covers their home appliances. I've seen more advertising for Samsung fridges and washing machines than phones/tablets.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065833)

Samsung Electronics also covers their home appliances. I've seen more advertising for Samsung fridges and washing machines than phones/tablets.

Good one. And still doesn't account for spending more on advertising than Coke.

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43067383)

Yes it does. Coke sells a relatively tiny number of products compared to Samsung electronics. Worse, the products Coke does sell compete with one another - so it would destroy Coke if they advertised most of their products most of the time.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050681)

Samsung really doesn't need to astroturf anything. Apple's recent attempts to patent everything in sight, including Star Trek's "PADD" haven't earned them a lot of friends.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43061315)

Samsung really doesn't need to astroturf anything. Apple's recent attempts to patent everything in sight, including Star Trek's "PADD" haven't earned them a lot of friends.

Samsung still has several times as many patents as Apple. Esp. design patents.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43064573)

Do any of Samsung's design patents attempt to teleport Star Trek's designs into the future so they can't qualify as "prior art"?

Re:Too little, too late (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43065819)

Do any of Samsung's design patents attempt to teleport Star Trek's designs into the future so they can't qualify as "prior art"?

Yes. And way before Apple too. Why do you ask?

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43061271)

It's also pretty obvious that Samsung is astroturfing social web sites.

.... [Citation needed] ..?

Quite obviously http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507985&cid=43050307 [slashdot.org]

Re:Too little, too late (-1)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052443)

It was obvious from the beginning that Samsung (a Korean company) stole Apple's design ideas outright, because that's what most Korean tech companies do. I've worked with a ton of Korean businessmen in Chicago (whose Korean population is second-largest only to Seoul) and not a one of them valued copyright or trademarks developed by other people -- from my girlfriend's boss who made her rip off designer-brand styles to the owner of "Popeye's" coffee shop.

You couldn't make this stuff up (1)

Severus Snape (2376318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049659)

Sometimes I feel like these patent cases have more in common with a TV drama than a court of law. We already know there is going to be another trial anyway rending all this completely moot. No doubt there will be many more twists and turns to come after that. What makes it even more ridiculous is that the $1B in the first place simply amounted to a small rebate for the money Apple give Samsung to make chips for them.

And the winners are: the lawyers.

Re:You couldn't make this stuff up (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049773)

Correct. This is not your typical frivolous or meritorious personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff doesn't pay the barrister unless they win. The only thing better than 11,000 billable hours at the Cadillac Corporate Rate for the first trial? Why, the sequel.

Re:You couldn't make this stuff up (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050079)

Partly true there... but the other part is that she was not prepared for what she had. She saw Apple as most people generally do from the beginning. "Winner" was her presumption. Following the ["what's the point of having a trial at all!?"] trial showed how things were stacked against Samsung, "the evil asian company who couldn't possibly do anything but shamelessly copy honest American companies" AMIRITE? As the trial went on, she began to see things a bit differently. But the Jury foreman made his mind up long before the trial had begin -- his dream of revenge had come true and he couldn't hold back.

This truth is most certainly stranger than fiction. Good fiction has basis in fact. This trial had less of that.

Another commenter accurately observes that the appeals would likely trash her whole case in a most humiliating way if she didn't do something herself. And for a while there, it looked like she wasn't going to do anything at all!! This makes me wonder what thing occurred to spur her into action on this issue. Still, she maintains her stance on the matter of Jury Misconduct -- she won't call it that at all... won't even come close to it. But I'm really curious about what revelation caused Koh to take action.

She needs to order a new trial. Not just one for the damages. The jury's rulings themselves are in as much question as the damages. And to say "these damages make sense but these others don't?" I'm sorry. But I can't see logic or reason behind this sort of selective editing. The jury was screwed up and all over the place. A whole new trial is warranted here.

Re:You couldn't make this stuff up (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050167)

That's an impressive amount of speculation into the judges motivations and thoughts. Do you have anything other than your opinions to back that up?

Re:You couldn't make this stuff up (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050265)

Her behavior, actions and reaction spoke volumes. Yeah sure, it's all speculation even if she were to personally respond to my commentary personally admitting or denying everything I said. But based on what people do, it's not often hard to peice together what motivates a person to have done them.

At some point, when a thing is so broken that you can't possibly piece it back together with any coherence, you just have to toss it out and get a new one.

Re:You couldn't make this stuff up (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43051499)

You can practically see Apple HQ from the roof of the courthouse.

Argument against IP laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43049665)

I hope someday people realize that ideas are not scarce goods (queue jokes about common sense). Apple's invention - rounded corners and all - was built on the collective shoulders of all of civilization. Likewise Samsung's ideas built on the same thing - possibly including some ideas put forward by Apple. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. In fact, what I just describe is exactly how Markets work.

The sooner we stop treating ideas like real physical property, the better off we will as a society will be. Punish people for stealing actual things instead of hypothetical customers (lost sales).

And while we're at it, every criminal must have a victim. No victim, no crime.

Re:Argument against IP laws (1, Insightful)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049895)

No victim, no crime.

But corporations are people, and rounded corners belong to Apple - clearly if Samsung had used razor-sharp edges on their tablet, people would have bought iPads instead, and so Samsung did steal from Apple.

This is depressing. On a slightly related note, I'm looking at my (physical) desktop and can't find one single device (including keyboards, monitors, computer cases, etc) without rounded corners.

Re:Argument against IP laws (3, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050109)

One the biggest issues in this case was use of a double standard. The jury ruled that cause prior art couldn't run on iOS device it wasn't valid prior art. But if you use same logic the iOS patents wouldn't run on Andriod hence no infringement, but they ruled that part didn't matter and found Samsung did infringe. Its what i like to call the Political standard, commonly employed by Obama.

Re:Argument against IP laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050753)

Dude its employed by them all.

Re:Argument against IP laws (1)

sysrammer (446839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052067)

* Not intended to be a factual statement

Re:Argument against IP laws (1)

gnupun (752725) | about a year and a half ago | (#43051271)

The sooner we stop treating ideas like real physical property, the better off we will as a society will be. Punish people for stealing actual things instead of hypothetical customers (lost sales)

You have it backwards. Physical property is worth less than good ideas (not common ones). What you call actual things are simply = good ideas (design etc) + cheap raw materials + manufacturing machines. As you can see, the most valuable factor in the above equation is "good ideas."

Re:Argument against IP laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43054489)

Good ideas are easy. Actual implementation is difficult.

Any reasonably creative and intelligent person can come up with more ideas than he can successfully implement in his lifetime.

The ones who keep going on about needing protection for their "precious idea" are one trick ponies.

The others who want patents are the Corporations who figure they make more money by monopolizing ideas even if they never ever get around to implementing them. Which is probably true, but it slows down the rate the rest of the world gets to benefit from all those good ideas.

Ummm... (2)

notknown86 (1190215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049667)

So Judge Koh said 'It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury’s factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation,'.

And then proceeded... to second-guess the jury’s factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation by $450,000,000?

Am I missing something here? I would prefer to not RTFA if at all possible..

Re:Ummm... (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049903)

Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing that she didn't second guess the jury's factual determination, she "identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award".

There is a difference between matters of law and matters of fact (in a jury trial in the US, the former is the purview of the judge and the latter that of the jury, generally.)

Re:Ummm... (2)

oxdas (2447598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049967)

The jury had some problems with a few phones. In one case, they ordered the phone had not infringed and then later ordered compensation for the phone. In another instance, the breakdown of compensation didn't equal the total compensation awarded (bad math on the part of the jury) and the judge doesn't know which amount they meant. There are probably more, but those are the first two I can remember.

So, the judge order new trials on all the phones she couldn't figure out what the jury meant or they clearly used "impermissible legal theory" in determining damages.

Re:Ummm... (3, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#43050295)

Sad thing about this case, its a Shorter list of what jury did right then what they completely screwed up on

Re:Ummm... (1)

TheLink (130905) | about a year ago | (#43054507)

Maybe most of the good ones got booted out during jury selection... ;)

YOU FAIL IT]... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43049707)

I've never seen out of bed in the continues in a Fear the reaper so thaT you don't rules are This market share. Red Brain. It is the Not going home was in the tea I Ul7imately, we same worthless Baby take my the project to Discussion I'm every day...Like WASTE OF BITS AND WOULD BE A BAD [idge.net] Of the founders of

Big Deal (0)

slapout (93640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43049889)

450Million would only run the US Government for what, like 2 seconds?

Re:Big Deal (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050503)

About an hour.

Annual expenditure is $3.8 trillion.

how do they select jurors in such a complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43050883)

case?

Re:how do they select jurors in such a complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43051147)

Apparently a lot of crystal meth is involved.

Fair Use ignored (1)

DrHappyAngry (1373205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43051393)

It should have been obvious that a new trial was necessary when the foreman said they completely skipped fair use because it was bogging them down. Fair use is a part of the patent system whether they like it or not. You can't just take something from a 50 year old movie and patent it.

she's an ass (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052435)

I don't agree with her decision and she's done too much meddling and wavering. Nobody should be happy with how things have turned out. And after all, isn't that's what compromise is about -- disappointing both parties.

Corporate Antics (1)

willem_pardieck (2854975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43052761)

Something that damages any corporation and puts their stockpiles of money back into circulation into the general economy is a good thing. Lawyers are the natural parasites that feed on money and therefore this is the natural order of things. In a perfect world I would say that they should concentrate on innovation and develop new and improved products. It's not a perfect world, so this is just fine. Let them spend years and years raking over the same coals, appealing, getting injunctions and so on, all the while with lawyers sucking off of the jugular of these behemoths.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>