Judge Koh Rules That Samsung Did Not Willfully Infringe Apple Patents

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Solomani

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]

So if you just inform yourself bad enough, you can do whatever you want? Is that the moral of the story?

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Monkeydude

So if you just inform yourself bad enough, you can do whatever you want? Is that the moral of the story?

Mmmm, no?

[BvizioN]

Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire

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]

Originally Posted by inscrewtable

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]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by quagmire

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]

What this means, Samsung won't end up paying even half that billion dollar verdict

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by inscrewtable

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.

Originally Posted by Bernard SG

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]

Originally Posted by Aluminum213

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Rene.V

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]

What's her heritage?

[Rene.V]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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]

Originally Posted by elietabet

What's her heritage?

Why her heritage matters?

[entatlrg]

Originally Posted by elietabet

What's her heritage?

Korean

[flameproof]

Apple could try to get back at Samsung by designing a better phone.

[elietabet]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Why her heritage matters?

She's probably a Samsung fan.

----------

Originally Posted by entatlrg

Korean

Yep

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Rene.V

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.

----------

Originally Posted by Oletros

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]

Originally Posted by elietabet

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Oletros

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]

Originally Posted by samcraig

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. :-)