Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:32 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents




Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a court filing (via The Verge) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion*awarded to Apple last August.
Quote:
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.



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 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
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:39 AM   #2
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
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).
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:40 AM   #3
ben123456
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
I'm confused.. The judge is able to overrule the jury?
ben123456 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:41 AM   #4
jav6454
macrumors G5
 
jav6454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben123456 View Post
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.
__________________
Al MacBook 2.4GHz Late '08 | 5 S⃣ | Macross Click Me
jav6454 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:42 AM   #5
cmChimera
macrumors 68000
 
cmChimera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
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.
cmChimera is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:47 AM   #6
TMar
macrumors 68000
 
TMar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ky
Send a message via Yahoo to TMar Send a message via Skype™ to TMar
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.
__________________
I wish more wireless service provider owners posted here so talk about tethering would be taboo too.
.....Theft is Theft....
TMar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 12:52 AM   #7
THOPMedia
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Well, I guess that's the end of that.*


* (yeah right)
THOPMedia is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:03 AM   #8
theanimaster
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
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.
theanimaster is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:08 AM   #9
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
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?
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:09 AM   #10
StarPower
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Destroy, smarmy Shamsung.
StarPower is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:11 AM   #11
Technarchy
macrumors 601
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Cough up that billion...
Technarchy is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:11 AM   #12
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmChimera View Post
I agree. I thought that was pretty silly reasoning.
On the contrary!
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:14 AM   #13
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
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.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:19 AM   #14
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
They did willfully violate the patents on the basis of they thought they were invalid.
Then you know more than the Judge. iLOL

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarPower View Post
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$).
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:21 AM   #15
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
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....)
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:23 AM   #16
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
...
This discussion makes no sense, and you know that. We do not change the verdict, which in this case, is a good thing.
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --

Last edited by stridemat; Jan 30, 2013 at 07:47 AM. Reason: Removed quote
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:27 AM   #17
quagmire
macrumors 603
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
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.
__________________
Crimes against US History:
CV-6 USS Enterprise
Yankee Stadium
Penn Station-New York
quagmire is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 01:28 AM   #18
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by theanimaster View Post
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!
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 02:11 AM   #19
macs4nw
macrumors 68020
 
macs4nw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On Safari…..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post

Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a court filing (via The Verge) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion*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 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
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.
macs4nw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 02:14 AM   #20
heghead
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Cool. Let's move on now...
heghead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 03:49 AM   #21
CEmajr
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Alright so now just pay out the $1B and end this.
CEmajr is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:13 AM   #22
viewfly
macrumors 65816
 
viewfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
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.

Last edited by viewfly; Jan 30, 2013 at 04:23 AM.
viewfly is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:27 AM   #23
inscrewtable
macrumors 6502a
 
inscrewtable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
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.
inscrewtable is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:37 AM   #24
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEmajr View Post
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.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2013, 04:41 AM   #25
Solomani
macrumors 68000
 
Solomani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
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.
Solomani is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Japanese Court Rules Apple Does Not Infringe on Samsung Patents MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 41 Mar 27, 2014 10:56 AM
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 366 Sep 25, 2013 12:29 PM
Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 93 Dec 19, 2012 10:06 PM
ITC rules that Samsung violates four Apple patents covering design, touch craftytony iPhone 0 Oct 25, 2012 12:30 PM
UK Judge Rules Apple Must Publish Notices Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Copy iPad MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 798 Oct 18, 2012 10:25 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC