Samsung Denied New Trial Over Apple's 'Bounce-Back' Patent

gnasher729 said:

You mean it was Apple who invented stupidly small attachments where you can't see anything? Or was that you?

Click to expand...

you know you can MAGNIFY, but if that's not enough for you:

bnnentertainmen said:

1) it took the court a year to recalculate, seriously? the fine was reduced because samsung succeeded in convincing the judge that they infringed apple's patents unintentionally, they "thought" that the patents were invalid (and they were able to prove this)

Click to expand...

No... you don't understand this at all. Had Samsung been found to do this willfully (which they were by the jury), the judge had the OPTION to triple the original damages up to 3 times the $1.05B. Damages were reduced because of jury error in calculation. They incorrectly applied a rule in damage calculation that the judge had told them was not permissible (only allowed for design patents). They also used the wrong time period in calculating damages. Reverse engineering the damage results proved that the jury calculated the damages wrong on several items.

The court has been trying to schedule a new trial for damages and Samsung has been trying everything they can to delay it with procedural motions. The latest failed attempt was asking for a new trial on the bounce-back patent, which they were just denied. Now the date is set for a new damages trial so round 1 of Apple v Samsung can finally come to an end (barring appeals once damages are set).

Here is the Cliff Notes version since you obviously are not taking the time to read this original article which you responded to or the other reports on this:

http://www.law360.com/articles/467363/new-damages-trial-set-for-apple-samsung-patent-fight

And if you think that setting trial dates taking up to year is uncommon you obviously are not familiar with the US legal system. Either way, Samsung owes Apple damages and it seems the minimum amount is going to be $598M and could be more (likely less than the original $1B).

A more complete article is here: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/40...ed-apple-down-to-598-million-in-samsung-trial

bnnentertainmen said:

the fine was reduced because samsung succeeded in convincing the judge that they infringed apple's patents unintentionally, they "thought" that the patents were invalid (and they were able to prove this)

Click to expand...

You're thinking about the triple award, not the original one. BC2009 is right about that one.

The extra award was denied because, in the view of the court (not Samsung - their thoughts didn't matter) a reasonable person would think that the patents might be invalid.

Klosefabrinio said:

but shouldn't apple work towards stopping these lawsuits and making better products? couldn't find anything wrong in that guy's post.

Click to expand...

No? Apple should work towards winning these lawsuits AND making better products since they are independent.

iBug2 said:

No? Apple should work towards winning these lawsuits AND making better products since they are independent.

Click to expand...

support the minor community(who's the right side) and everyone loses their mind