PDA

View Full Version : Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents




MacRumors
Jan 29, 2013, 11:32 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/30/judge-koh-rules-that-samsung-did-not-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/)


Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a court filing (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.sbnation.com%2Fassets%2F2090509%2F2220.pdf) (via The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3931066/judge-rules-that-samsung-did-not-infringe-apple-patents-willfully)) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/)*awarded to Apple last August.
As this is the sum total of Apple's arguments and evidence that Samsung's infringement was willful, the Court cannot conclude that Apple has met its burden to show willfulness by clear and convincing evidence.Samsung argued that they had reason to believe that Apple's patents were invalid and therefore did not willfully infringe Apple patents. Judge Koh ultimately concluded that there had been no willful infringement but did not overturn the validity of Apple's patents.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/01/NewImage43.png (http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/01/NewImage43.png)

Judge Koh also denied Samsung's bid for a new trial, saying that "the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied on both sides." She went on to write that "a new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice."

If Samsung had been found to be willfully infringing Apple patents their penalty might have ballooned well over $1.05 billion that they must pay Apple. In December, Judge Koh had denied (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/judge-koh-denies-juror-misconduct-claim-in-samsung-v-apple/) another Samsung retrial request based on juror misconduct. The decision is yet another milestone in the long saga that is Samsung v. Apple.


Article Link: Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/30/judge-koh-rules-that-samsung-did-not-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/)



quagmire
Jan 29, 2013, 11:39 PM
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

ben123456
Jan 29, 2013, 11:40 PM
I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?

jav6454
Jan 29, 2013, 11:41 PM
I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?

Nothing of that sort happened. All that actually happened is that Apple is not getting more $$$ from Samsung due to another suit. Simple.

cmChimera
Jan 29, 2013, 11:42 PM
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

I agree. I thought that was pretty silly reasoning.

TMar
Jan 29, 2013, 11:47 PM
While I tend to side with Samsung through this, you can't say you believe them to be invalid as an argument to have infringe. While they might invalid in practice they are valid until they are overturned. At the time you infringed if you didn't also file to have them reviewed you screwed up.

THOPMedia
Jan 29, 2013, 11:52 PM
Well, I guess that's the end of that.*


* (yeah right)

theanimaster
Jan 30, 2013, 12:03 AM
This news has become such *yawn* that hardly anyone comments on it anymore.

...


... yeah.


But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products. They don't play 'fair'. They take calculated risks and pour their resources into it. They got lucky with the battery industry -- one of the first markets that they flooded their 'crap' into. The quality of their products however, is something to consider. They don't make absolute crap stuff (like a lot of Chinese companies do when they flood markets) but then again they don't make the absolute best stuff either, unless you're talking about the components industry (where they seem to produce some of the best components because of the research and development they put into it).

They gamble. A lot. For the past few years, they've been lucky at it too -- after batteries came lighting. From their lighting industry they started building TVs. They have enough money to play dirty and take huge risks where other companies can't afford to.

In the cellphone industry they designed their phones after EVERY popular phone that was trending at the time. They copied the RazR, the BB and of course, the iPhone because a lot of people don't know better.

Are they evil? Depends on how you perceive 'fair' in the giant corporate space. Because they actually put a enough (just enough) quality in their products, consumers can't say they're evil.

To corporations however, they're a NECESSARY evil because of their research and technology. Just ask Apple and everyone else who relies on them.

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:08 AM
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them?
Because the 1st has nothing to do with the 2nd. The validity of patents and a violation are not the same thing. I thought that this was obvious. Not?

StarPower
Jan 30, 2013, 12:09 AM
Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.

Technarchy
Jan 30, 2013, 12:11 AM
Cough up that billion...

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:11 AM
I agree. I thought that was pretty silly reasoning.
On the contrary!

quagmire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:14 AM
Because the 1st has nothing to do with the 2nd. The validity of patents and a violation are not the same thing. I thought that this was obvious. Not?

They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid. But since they are valid, they should pay, no? Saying they didn't willfully violate them means that they created something that was infringing on Apple's patents inadvertently. Which wasn't the case here. Samsung full knowingly infringed on Apple's patents. They willfully did it on the basis of thinking they were invalid according to Samsung's own defense.

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:19 AM
They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid.
Then you know more than the Judge. iLOL

----------

Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung

According to wikipedia, Samsung needs less than a month to pay the 1 billion US$ fine (net income in 2011: ≈ 21 billion US$).

quagmire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:21 AM
Then you know more than the Judge. iLOL

It's not what I am getting in this situation which no one is explaining. Samsung's defense was that they didn't believe Apple's patents are valid so they ignored them and infringed them( which I think is a BS excuse to infringe on patents. It's like I don't believe a law is valid so I am going to ignore it). That shows that they willfully infringed on those patents since they were valid upon infringement and then backed up by her ruling.....

If Samsung believed Apple's patents were invalid, then they should have challenged them without infringing them( maybe Samsung was the anonymous challenge with the patent office....)

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:23 AM
...
This discussion makes no sense, and you know that. We do not change the verdict, which in this case, is a good thing.

quagmire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:27 AM
This discussion makes no sense, and you know that. We do not change the verdict, which in this case, is a good thing.

No I do not know that because I don't understand it. I am not saying change the ruling. I do not care that Samsung won or complaining that Apple lost because Apple is the best and Samsung is evil.....

It's the fact Samsung's defense was they infringed on the patents because they believed they were invalid. Is that really a good excuse to use to show that you didn't willfully infringed on a persons patent? Hence why I am asking for an explanation which you aren't doing.

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:28 AM
But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products.
You know obviously nothing about Samsung. Try wikipedia, google or some books!

macs4nw
Jan 30, 2013, 01:11 AM
[/url]

Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a [url="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.sbnation.com%2Fassets%2F2090509%2F2220.pdf"]court filing (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/30/judge-koh-rules-that-samsung-did-not-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/) (via The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3931066/judge-rules-that-samsung-did-not-infringe-apple-patents-willfully)) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/)*awarded to Apple last August.
Samsung argued that they had reason to believe that Apple's patents were invalid and therefore did not willfully infringe Apple patents. Judge Koh ultimately concluded that there had been no willful infringement but did not overturn the validity of Apple's patents.

Judge Koh also denied Samsung's bid for a new trial, saying that "the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied on both sides." She went on to write that "a new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice."

If Samsung had been found to be willfully infringing Apple patents their penalty might have ballooned well over $1.05 billion that they must pay Apple. In December, Judge Koh had denied (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/judge-koh-denies-juror-misconduct-claim-in-samsung-v-apple/) another Samsung retrial request based on juror misconduct. The decision is yet another milestone in the long saga that is Samsung v. Apple.

Article Link: Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/30/judge-koh-rules-that-samsung-did-not-willfully-infringe-apple-patents/)

There are more appeals coming, no doubt! We're all burned out with these lawsuits.
$1B=pocket change for those in the big leagues. Merely the cost of doing business.

heghead
Jan 30, 2013, 01:14 AM
Cool. Let's move on now...

CEmajr
Jan 30, 2013, 02:49 AM
Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.

viewfly
Jan 30, 2013, 03:13 AM
No I do not know that because I don't understand it. I am not saying change the ruling. I do not care that Samsung won or complaining that Apple lost because Apple is the best and Samsung is evil.....

It's the fact Samsung's defense was they infringed on the patents because they believed they were invalid. Is that really a good excuse to use to show that you didn't willfully infringed on a persons patent? Hence why I am asking for an explanation which you aren't doing.

Apple still won. Samsung still must pay the $1.05 Billion...this ruling saying that they don't have to pay more than the $1.05 Billion.

Samsung's believing that Apple's patent claims don't cover or prevent Samsung from building their product...is not the same as believing Apple's patents are invalid.

This is the norm. A company(Samsung) reads another's patents, decides that their product is different and does not fall under any patent. Then Samsung builds and sells the product. Apple disagrees and sues. When Samsung realizes that they may lose, then they will try to challenge the validity of the Apple patents. So it was not done 'willfully' means that Samsung first thought was that the patents did not cover their product...they may have thought them invalid, in general, too, but that was not a necessary argument. And now, the judge says it was not willful, and seems to support that the Apple patents are valid in regards to Samsung's products.

So Samsung lost twice. They only 'won' in limiting their liability to $1.05 Billion, and the public disgrace that they infringed on Apples patents, not willfully. So they need better lawyers, or a CEO that listens to their lawyers. ;)

However, I do believe that Samsung has built their company by taking this risk often, while other companies will be less risk adverse.

inscrewtable
Jan 30, 2013, 03:27 AM
One thing is certain and that is in the minds of consumers, a company that is now forced to pay more than (cue dr evil) one thousand million dollars will certainly be percieved as having done something wrong. And that something, willful or not, will be deemed to have copied Apple rather than innovate.

thekev
Jan 30, 2013, 03:37 AM
Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.

Appeals options and proceedings don't disappear simply because you're tired of reading these articles. This may drag on for some time.

Solomani
Jan 30, 2013, 03:41 AM
Interesting. So in essence, she has closed this case. Judge Koh basically says that the verdict of $1.05 billion stands as it is, no more, no less. She seems to be closing any gateways for retrial.**


** although I'm not really sure if California laws could allow Samsung the possibility to appeal by going to ANOTHER (higher) appelate court which is above Judge Koh's jurisdiction, maybe a resident lawyer here can shed more light on the process? The legal process can differ from state to state. At least we know one definite thing, in Judge Koh's court, this case is closed and the verdict stands.

Oletros
Jan 30, 2013, 03:46 AM
Interesting. So in essence, she has closed this case. Judge Koh basically says that the verdict of $1.05 billion stands as it is, no more, no less. She seems to be closing any gateways for retrial.**

Both Apple and Samsung can and will appeal

Monkeydude
Jan 30, 2013, 03:49 AM
So if you just inform yourself bad enough, you can do whatever you want? Is that the moral of the story?

Oletros
Jan 30, 2013, 03:51 AM
So if you just inform yourself bad enough, you can do whatever you want? Is that the moral of the story?

Mmmm, no?

BvizioN
Jan 30, 2013, 04:00 AM
OK, then do not use your devices. They have Samsung components or use Samsung patents.

Yes, and we are made of Stardust so mother Earth did not make us.

Bernard SG
Jan 30, 2013, 04:02 AM
One thing is certain and that is in the minds of consumers, a company that is now forced to pay more than (cue dr evil) one thousand million dollars will certainly be percieved as having done something wrong. And that something, willful or not, will be deemed to have copied Apple rather than innovate.

I don't know that consumers give a damn about that. I mean average consumers who don't really follow tech news.

SockRolid
Jan 30, 2013, 04:18 AM
This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion*awarded to Apple last August.

It's not about the money. It's to prevent further copying.

tjl3
Jan 30, 2013, 04:30 AM
Semantics. They didn't intend to infringe on valid patents, because they thought Apple's patents were invalid. But because Apple owns valid patents, they still infringed, even if their intent (argument) was not direct.

Just like Samsung not being as cool and posting that they did not copy Apple (that whole incident). All semantics.

alexgowers
Jan 30, 2013, 05:10 AM
I'm confused how apple still has bad rep when Samsung are the ones illegally copying here. I suppose when it comes to a product a consumer will pick a cheaper one over any moral obligation to buy the originators version. Shame society still hasn't progressed from cave man ethics.

M-O
Jan 30, 2013, 06:17 AM
this just means the damages won't be tripled. also, i disagree with the judge. they knew exactly what they were doing. they did it willfully.
and it was a smart move. in this case, for samsung, crime does pay.

Rene.V
Jan 30, 2013, 06:23 AM
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

I'm a patent attorney so I can shed some light on this. The consequences of being held to be a "willful infringer" are severe. The judge can triple the damages awarded. Under current law, one of the ways of avoiding this is to request a legal opinion from independent counsel as to whether or not you infringe the patents and whether or not the patents are valid. When Samsung was accused of infringing these patents, I'm sure they hired outside counsel to evaluate the validity of the patents, as well as to evaluate whether they infringed. Outside counsel prepares a formal written opinion as to these issues. If this written opinion states that it is likely that the patents are invalid or that Samsung does not infringe, then Samsung may be allowed to rely on that opinion to the point that they are no longer considered a "willful infringer". There are no hard fast right or wrong answers when it comes to these legal issues....they are subject to the juries' and judge's interpretation of the facts and application of the law. The judge takes a look at the legal opinion that Samsung relied on, and if the conclusions in the opinion are based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and a reasonable application of the facts, then it will be sufficient to absolve Samsung from a willful infringement charge. Typically, the attorney that prepared the opinion is put on the stand and questioned by both sides. Samsung's attorneys try to show that his opinion was well reasoned and based on a proper application of the law and Apple's attorneys try to show that the analysis in the opinion was flawed. That's how the game is played. What trips people up is that they think that there is an absolute answer to these questions. That the patents are either valid or they're not, and if the judge finds that they're valid then how can Samsung claim to not be a willful infringer because they thought the patents were invalid. Well, the application of most laws involve a subjective component. That's why we have trials....because the facts are subject to more than one interpretation. Just because Samsung lost at trial does not mean that they could not have reasonably relied on opinion from outside counsel that the patents were invalid. The fact that the patents were ultimately held valid does not absolve them from liability, but it does absolve them from the punitive damages associated with being a willful infringer.

Aluminum213
Jan 30, 2013, 07:03 AM
What this means, Samsung won't end up paying even half that billion dollar verdict

samcraig
Jan 30, 2013, 07:11 AM
One thing is certain and that is in the minds of consumers, a company that is now forced to pay more than (cue dr evil) one thousand million dollars will certainly be percieved as having done something wrong. And that something, willful or not, will be deemed to have copied Apple rather than innovate.

I don't know that consumers give a damn about that. I mean average consumers who don't really follow tech news.

Agreed. The average consumer doesn't care. As long as they can buy the product they want and it works like they want it - they don't give a crap whether or not they were sued/lost/won a patent fight.

Safety recall, and those matters - definitely. But patents? Who really cares other than the companies involved (and their lawyers).

Rene.V
Jan 30, 2013, 07:15 AM
What this means, Samsung won't end up paying even half that billion dollar verdict

Actually no. This ruling will not result in the damage award being lowered. This ruling keeps the damage award from being increased. If you are held to be a willful infringer, then the judge can increase the award by up to 3 times as a punitive measure. That's not to say that the award won't be lowered on appeal based on other grounds, but this particular ruling won't lower it.

samcraig
Jan 30, 2013, 07:16 AM
I'm not an attorney - but I just wanted to add that if companies never took the risk (re: Patents) then no doubt, the competitive landscape across industries would be vastly different.

I'm sure Samsung not only had outside counsel - but also had a "bean counter" to determine worst case scenarios. In the end - Samsung took the risk because they believed in their product. Whether you think that was right or wrong or if they copied Apple or didn't - I, for one, am glad that comanies DO take the risk (if they can afford to). If they didn't - there could easily be products we love today that never existed.

I'm a patent attorney so I can shed some light on this. The consequences of being held to be a "willful infringer" are severe. The judge can triple the damages awarded. Under current law, one of the ways of avoiding this is to request a legal opinion from independent counsel as to whether or not you infringe the patents and whether or not the patents are valid. When Samsung was accused of infringing these patents, I'm sure they hired outside counsel to evaluate the validity of the patents, as well as to evaluate whether they infringed. Outside counsel prepares a formal written opinion as to these issues. If this written opinion states that it is likely that the patents are invalid or that Samsung does not infringe, then Samsung may be allowed to rely on that opinion to the point that they are no longer considered a "willful infringer". There are no hard fast right or wrong answers when it comes to these legal issues....they are subject to the juries' and judge's interpretation of the facts and application of the law. The judge takes a look at the legal opinion that Samsung relied on, and if the conclusions in the opinion are based on a reasonable interpretation of the law and a reasonable application of the facts, then it will be sufficient to absolve Samsung from a willful infringement charge. Typically, the attorney that prepared the opinion is put on the stand and questioned by both sides. Samsung's attorneys try to show that his opinion was well reasoned and based on a proper application of the law and Apple's attorneys try to show that the analysis in the opinion was flawed. That's how the game is played. What trips people up is that they think that there is an absolute answer to these questions. That the patents are either valid or they're not, and if the judge finds that they're valid then how can Samsung claim to not be a willful infringer because they thought the patents were invalid. Well, the application of most laws involve a subjective component. That's why we have trials....because the facts are subject to more than one interpretation. Just because Samsung lost at trial does not mean that they could not have reasonably relied on opinion from outside counsel that the patents were invalid. The fact that the patents were ultimately held valid does not absolve them from liability, but it does absolve them from the punitive damages associated with being a willful infringer.

elietabet
Jan 30, 2013, 07:30 AM
What's her heritage?

Rene.V
Jan 30, 2013, 07:34 AM
I'm not an attorney - but I just wanted to add that if companies never took the risk (re: Patents) then no doubt, the competitive landscape across industries would be vastly different.

I'm sure Samsung not only had outside counsel - but also had a "bean counter" to determine worst case scenarios. In the end - Samsung took the risk because they believed in their product. Whether you think that was right or wrong or if they copied Apple or didn't - I, for one, am glad that comanies DO take the risk (if they can afford to). If they didn't - there could easily be products we love today that never existed.

I agree that these decisions are based on a cost benefit analysis in view of the perceived risk. However, I will add that many people erroneously believe that when a company is faced with a patent infringement charge they only have two choices: (1) pull their potentially infringing product from the market; or (2) proceed with their potentially infringing product and "take the risk" that they will be liable for patent infringement. However, there is a third choice...and that third choice is to "design around" the patent. If a patent exists on a particular feature, then try to come up with your own solution to the problem that is addressed by the patented feature. This is how patents can drive innovation. Admittedly, the patent system has many problems today, but it does encourage companies to think of new and creative ways of addressing problems. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for a company like Samsung to spend millions on R&D. Why would you when you can ride on the coattails of companies like Apple?

Oletros
Jan 30, 2013, 07:35 AM
What's her heritage?

Why her heritage matters?

entatlrg
Jan 30, 2013, 07:40 AM
What's her heritage?

Korean

flameproof
Jan 30, 2013, 07:41 AM
Apple could try to get back at Samsung by designing a better phone.

elietabet
Jan 30, 2013, 07:42 AM
Why her heritage matters?
She's probably a Samsung fan.

----------

Korean

Yep

samcraig
Jan 30, 2013, 07:50 AM
I agree that these decisions are based on a cost benefit analysis in view of the perceived risk. However, I will add that many people erroneously believe that when a company is faced with a patent infringement charge they only have two choices: (1) pull their potentially infringing product from the market; or (2) proceed with their potentially infringing product and "take the risk" that they will be liable for patent infringement. However, there is a third choice...and that third choice is to "design around" the patent. If a patent exists on a particular feature, then try to come up with your own solution to the problem that is addressed by the patented feature. This is how patents can drive innovation. Admittedly, the patent system has many problems today, but it does encourage companies to think of new and creative ways of addressing problems. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for a company like Samsung to spend millions on R&D. Why would you when you can ride on the coattails of companies like Apple?

I think companies do all of the above. Which is why that 100+ page powerpoint document wasn't as damning as some people here want to believe. Companies look to the competition and analyze them - seeing where they can improve (on what they like or don't like). And sometimes - there might only be one "best" way or a patent which was approved (and let's face it - the patent office seems to approve the most vaguest things sometimes) that deserves questioning or "putting to the test."

Just because a company holds a patent - it's not truly valid unless it's tested. In my opinion. Maybe not the courts.

----------

Why her heritage matters?

You know why. Because people will try to rationalize the decision however they can to make it look like Apple was "wronged."

Oletros
Jan 30, 2013, 07:54 AM
She's probably a Samsung fan.[COLOR="#808080"]


Why she had to be a Samsung fan?

It is funny, when her rulings favored Apple she was accused of being pro Apple because it is an American company by "fandroids".

uknowimright
Jan 30, 2013, 08:03 AM
I may be mistaken but I believe she is still considering Samsung's request to lower the damages (which I think there is a good chance of happening, I remember reading the transcript from one of the previous court sessions where she had many doubts about the jury's fuzzy math)

also I would have expected this to be first page news not some story on the side column

elietabet
Jan 30, 2013, 08:06 AM
Why she had to be a Samsung fan?

It is funny, when her rulings favored Apple she was accused of being pro Apple because it is an American company by "fandroids".

I'm just joking around! Relax dude!

Rene.V
Jan 30, 2013, 08:07 AM
I think companies do all of the above. Which is why that 100+ page powerpoint document wasn't as damning as some people here want to believe. Companies look to the competition and analyze them - seeing where they can improve (on what they like or don't like). And sometimes - there might only be one "best" way or a patent which was approved (and let's face it - the patent office seems to approve the most vaguest things sometimes) that deserves questioning or "putting to the test."

Just because a company holds a patent - it's not truly valid unless it's tested. In my opinion. Maybe not the courts.

The fact that there may only be one "best way" to implement something is not a legally recognized excuse for infringement of a patent. The premise of the patent system is that the government will give you a monopoly on your patented system or method for a limited period of time as a reward for your innovation. After the patent expires, the technology covered by the patent becomes part of the public domain and anyone can use it without having to pay. If a company spends money on solving a problem and comes up with the "best way" of solving it, then they should enjoy the fruits of that labor and innovation. There are some exceptions to this when the technology has been characterized as a "standards essential" technology (e.g., JPEG standards), but as a general rule you don't get to infringe someone's patent because the patent holder came up with the "best way" of doing something. Practically speaking, very rarely is there only one "best way" of doing something. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. :-)

BatCraft
Jan 30, 2013, 09:21 AM
If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

Bubba Satori
Jan 30, 2013, 09:33 AM
Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.

Cultists to the front lines. Fix Bayonets. Charge.

cambox
Jan 30, 2013, 09:33 AM
Samsung lost.... Apple lost.... The Lawyers won!

Rene.V
Jan 30, 2013, 09:45 AM
If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

The definition of "willful" in the context of patent infringement is not the same as the dictionary definition of "willful". 'Willful infringement" is defined by the patent statutes, and the statutes state that if one relies on the competent opinion of independent counsel that a patent is invalid and/or that you don't infringe, then you are not deemed to be a "willful infringer", as the statutes define it, if the patent is ultimately held valid and infringed. Understand that this does not let you off the hook! You are still liable for the actual damages that the patent holder can prove ($1 billion in this case). However, the judge won't award a punitive damage award IN ADDITION TO the standard damage award if you obtained a legal opinion that the patent is likely invalid and/or not infringed.

oneMadRssn
Jan 30, 2013, 10:03 AM
They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid. But since they are valid, they should pay, no? Saying they didn't willfully violate them means that they created something that was infringing on Apple's patents inadvertently. Which wasn't the case here. Samsung full knowingly infringed on Apple's patents. They willfully did it on the basis of thinking they were invalid according to Samsung's own defense.

The definition of "willful" in the context of patent infringement is not the same as the dictionary definition of "willful". 'Willful infringement" is defined by the patent statutes, and the statutes state that if one relies on the competent opinion of independent counsel that a patent is invalid and/or that you don't infringe, then you are not deemed to be a "willful infringer", as the statutes define it, if the patent is ultimately held valid and infringed. Understand that this does not let you off the hook! You are still liable for the actual damages that the patent holder can prove ($1 billion in this case). However, the judge won't award a punitive damage award IN ADDITION TO the standard damage award if you obtained a legal opinion that the patent is likely invalid and/or not infringed.

This ^ .... sort of.

Though I'd add there is no statute on willful infringement, it's developed in case law. The only statutory reference says that courts may give enhanced damages for infringement. Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung (1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants]. i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.

pacalis
Jan 30, 2013, 10:16 AM
However, I do believe that Samsung has built their company by taking this risk often, while other companies will be less risk adverse.

Risk aversion suggests that other companies have a high degree of insight into the degree to which their products are likely to be challenged in a patent suit.

I don't think this is mainly what's going on as Samsung is as sophisticated as the come on the patent side. I think it has more to do with other companies are dying in the marketplace, so are far more likely to be offered licenses by Apple and far less likely to be sued.

charlituna
Jan 30, 2013, 10:17 AM
I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?

Kind of. The validity would have granted them a new trial. But the willful judgement was not really solid. It's an odd thing. Basically the jury said that they feel there was enough evidence in all the emails etc to say that Samsung was willful but the final call is in the hands of the judge. Because that call is related to whether the Judge might double or triple the damages. Koh, it seems, feels like while yes they did use Apple as guidance in general stokes and that is proven, no where does it say they where blatantly going to use Apple patents so the gun isn't really as smoking as it seems.

pacalis
Jan 30, 2013, 10:18 AM
This ^ .... sort of.

Though I'd add there is no statute on willful infringement, it's developed in case law. The only statutory reference says that courts may give enhanced damages for infringement. Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung “(1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants].” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.
This ^ :)

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

And certainly not this ^.

A lot of people don't understand that companies like Samsung have thousands of these things issuing each year. You need an army to keep on top of them. And even then, they are tough to interpret.

The patent law for willful infringement is tricky. You can be found to not have willfully infringed by being completely stupid. You can also be found to not have willfully infringed by being informed but diligent (i.e. seek outside opinion). Willful infringement is thus a pretty narrow condition, more or less atune to the company was behaving like a boastful *******.

charlituna
Jan 30, 2013, 10:26 AM
Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.

They won't. They will keep hammering on the whole time limits thing when it was really their fault. They wasted time with their witnesses asking pointless and often repetitive questions probably counting on an appeal over the time issue. Now that Koh has denied them they will likely try to take it over her head.

----------

What's her heritage?

Lets drag out the whole 'She's Korean American and is smacking
Samsung hard so no one thinks she's biased towards the Korean company' nonsense. We never get enough of that one

Solomani
Jan 30, 2013, 10:31 AM
As long as the $1.05 billion damages stick, IMHO I'd still consider this an Apple victory. Not a huge victory, but more of a Pyrrhic Victory.... a token victory because $1 billion is not really all that much for Apple. But they won that modest financial victory at the expense of actually strengthening the brand recognition of their arch-rival Samsung.

Hopefully both sides have learned a lesson. Apple (and other tech titans) in the future may think long and hard before instigating a long legal war of attrition. Meanwhile, Samsung (and other similar tech titans) will be more cautious before they take the calculated risk of copying/stealing/imitating the patented designs of American corporations.

Oletros
Jan 30, 2013, 10:33 AM
There is any order still not issued?

tbrinkma
Jan 30, 2013, 10:53 AM
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

Easy. The term 'willful' in legalese basically means "they knew what they were doing was wrong when they did it".

If the patent is valid, but they had actual, reasonable belief that it wasn't, then they weren't *willfully* violating the patent, even though they were violating it. (Of course, that also wasn't Samsung's *only* argument against their actions being considered willful.)

Rene.V has a post describing the difference between willful and non-willful in a bit more detail. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=16752817&postcount=35)


----------

If someone has a patent for something and you know this but use their technology or idea without their permission regardless then you have done this wilfully. A patent is a patent. You can't just decide that you have good reason to believe that a patent shouldn't have been granted. Releasing a product before going to court to clear up the patent debacle is wilful criminal negligence.

You obviously don't understand what you're talking about. The first clue of that should have been the judge's ruling, where someone who *was* found guilty of patent violation had those actions ruled *not* willful.

inscrewtable
Jan 30, 2013, 11:31 AM
I don't know that consumers give a damn about that. I mean average consumers who don't really follow tech news.

It is more subtle than that, consumer perception as a whole, especially on high volume big ticket items, can have important long term consequences. For example Apple is succeeding in their strategy of painting Samsung as a company that copies Apple and whether it is true or not there will be a perception that a copy is not as good as the original.

Where this becomes important is for those buyers who are on the fence. My point was that a billion dollar fine is a not insignificant number in this propaganda war. You only have to look at Apple's response to the recent Emglish ruling to see how important this propagaganda war is to the companies involved even if we consumers do not see the big picture.

tbrinkma
Jan 30, 2013, 12:10 PM
It is more subtle than that, consumer perception as a whole, especially on high volume big ticket items, can have important long term consequences. For example Apple is succeeding in their strategy of painting Samsung as a company that copies Apple and whether it is true or not there will be a perception that a copy is not as good as the original.

Where this becomes important is for those buyers who are on the fence. My point was that a billion dollar fine is a not insignificant number in this propaganda war. You only have to look at Apple's response to the recent Emglish ruling to see how important this propagaganda war is to the companies involved even if we consumers do not see the big picture.

I don't think it's as big a factor as your making it out to be. I honestly doubt there are more than 1 million people *world wide* who are actually aware that there was an Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. And only a fraction of those people actually *care* one way or the other.

The thing to remember is that forums (such as this one) *aren't* good benchmarks for the knowledge/attitude of the general population. And that's probably a good thing, especially since internet forums are rarely known for their civil behavior. :D

quagmire
Jan 30, 2013, 12:16 PM
Thanks for those that explained the legal BS around my confusion. Instead of going, " Isn't it obvious", "You're smarter than the judge!", and " This discussion is useless".......

gnasher729
Jan 30, 2013, 03:44 PM
How does she uphold the validity of the patents, but sided with Samsung's argument that they didn't willfully violate the patents due to Samsung questioning the validity of them? They willfully violated them if they are indeed valid....

Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).

There is quite strong precedent that if you take qualified legal advice before doing something that _might_ infringe on a patent, and the legal advice tells you that you wouldn't be infringing (because the patent is invalid, out of date, or just doesn't cover what you are doing), then you are not _wilfully_ infringing, even if the legal advice later turns out to be wrong. (Kodak vs. Polaroid, $925 million payment instead of paying three times of much for wilfull infringement).

bwillwall
Jan 30, 2013, 08:51 PM
This news has become such *yawn* that hardly anyone comments on it anymore.

...


... yeah.


But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products. They don't play 'fair'. They take calculated risks and pour their resources into it. They got lucky with the battery industry -- one of the first markets that they flooded their 'crap' into. The quality of their products however, is something to consider. They don't make absolute crap stuff (like a lot of Chinese companies do when they flood markets) but then again they don't make the absolute best stuff either, unless you're talking about the components industry (where they seem to produce some of the best components because of the research and development they put into it).

They gamble. A lot. For the past few years, they've been lucky at it too -- after batteries came lighting. From their lighting industry they started building TVs. They have enough money to play dirty and take huge risks where other companies can't afford to.

In the cellphone industry they designed their phones after EVERY popular phone that was trending at the time. They copied the RazR, the BB and of course, the iPhone because a lot of people don't know better.

Are they evil? Depends on how you perceive 'fair' in the giant corporate space. Because they actually put a enough (just enough) quality in their products, consumers can't say they're evil.

To corporations however, they're a NECESSARY evil because of their research and technology. Just ask Apple and everyone else who relies on them.

Yes, they most certainly are evil. I see their damn ad on every ****ing facebook page I visit. Underneath it it tells me that about 40 of my friends like their mobile page, most of which don't know anything about Samsung mobile. How they do this? I don't know. But it's very obvious their popularity comes from some kind of manipulation of the mind... just saying

lordofthereef
Jan 31, 2013, 12:12 AM
I'm confused how apple still has bad rep when Samsung are the ones illegally copying here. I suppose when it comes to a product a consumer will pick a cheaper one over any moral obligation to buy the originators version. Shame society still hasn't progressed from cave man ethics.

You made a couple of assumptions and ridiculous accusations here...

1. You assume the reason people buy Samsung products is because they are cheaper than apple. Based on what? Last I checked these similar hardwares sell for similar prices. What about all the other products that are cheaper than Samsung OR Apple? They sell too, just not as well.

2. You assume people are aware these things are copies but feel no moral obligation to steer clear of them. Based on what? The average consumer doesn't look into a product to make sure there was nothing else like it before and if there was whether or not the proper licenses required were used before production. I am sure you have a flat screen tv. Was it produced by the first company to produce flat screens? Did you check and make sure all licenses needed to sell that product in your area were a green light?