Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 2, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    After three days of deliberations and several weeks of testimony, the jury reached a unanimous verdict in the second Apple vs. Samsung trial (via CNET). The jury found that Samsung willfully infringed on three of the five patents involved in the lawsuit, ordering the South Korean company to pay $119.6 million, far from the $2 billion total Apple was hoping for.

    All of Samsung's devices were found to have infringed on the '647 data syncing patent, while some were found to have infringed on '721, slide-to-unlock. Samsung was not found to have infringed on '959, universal search, or on '414, background syncing. Judge Koh had also previously ruled that Samsung had infringed on Apple's '172 autocomplete patent.

    As for Samsung's claims against Apple, Apple was found guilty of violating the company's '449 patent related to an "Apparatus for recording and reproducing digital image and speech", and was ordered to pay Samsung $158,400.

    In this second lawsuit, which began on March 31, Apple argued that Samsung owed it $2.2 billion in damages for infringing on five separate iPhone patents. Samsung argued that Apple had infringed on two of its own patents, asking for $6.2 million in damages.

    Over the course of the trial, Apple called in numerous experts to argue why it was owed $2 billion, chalking the total up to lost profits and reasonable royalty estimates. Samsung argued that Apple's $2 billion request was ludicrous, insisting it should owe only $40 million, or $1.75 per device.

    While Samsung focused on proving that Apple was actually targeting Android in its suit, calling multiple Google witnesses like former Android chief Andy Rubin, Apple presented the jury with testimony from its own employees on the design, development, and marketing of the original iPhone.

    During the trial, news broke that Google agreed to cover lawyer fees and potential damage awards related to some of the patents in the lawsuit. Four of the five patents Apple has accused Samsung of infringing on are part of the Android operating system, but the two Google had agreed to help with were not the same patents Samsung was found guilty of infringing.

    This damages award adds to the recalculated damages from the original Apple vs. Samsung trial, in which Samsung was ordered to pay Apple a total of approximately $890 million. This suit focused on newer devices, including the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy Tab 10.1, the iPhone 4/4s/5, the iPad 2/3/4, the iPad mini, and fourth and fifth generation iPod touch.

    Update 5:50 PM PT: Apple issued the following statement to Re/code following the verdict:
    Update 6:05 PM PT: Apple's lawyers claim to have identified an error, suggesting one product (the Galaxy S2) found to infringe on the '172 patent received no damages award. The jury will need to return on Monday to finalize the damages award.

    Update 5/4 11:40 AM PT: After calculating damages for the missing Galaxy S2, the jury has awarded Apple an additional $4 million and adjusted the damages for some other products, keeping the overall amount that Samsung owes at the original $119.6 million.

    Article Link: Jury Finds Both Apple and Samsung Guilty of Patent Infringement, Samsung to Pay $119.6 Million, Apple to Pay $158,400
  2. macrumors 6502


    Aug 1, 2009
    Los Angeles
    And in the end, $117mm is a slap on the wrist.

    The only people that benefit from all this childishness are the IP attorneys.
  3. macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2003
    Silicon Valley
    $2B seems pretty high, but $120M is a small price to pay, considering their success. I mean when you look at the whole "smartphones before the iPhone" and "smartphones after" it's pretty obvious...

    Now that being said, I'm certainly one for a complete restructure of the patent system and potentially getting rid of software patents, but considering the system we have now, this does seem a little easy... $120M is really nothing...
  4. macrumors 6502


    Oct 3, 2009
    is this money apple will use to pay it's attorney's fees? no way this whole legal battle has been profitable for either company
  5. macrumors 6502a

    May 22, 2009
    With iPhone 6, iTV, and iWatch around the corner, It makes sense why Google would lessen the blow to Samsung; a blow to the company just before these product releases just may knock android down a huge notch.
  6. macrumors G5


    Nov 14, 2011
    Thank Steve Jobs.
  7. macrumors 6502


    Mar 28, 2013
    Its not about the money as Tim Cook said.

    Knowing Samsung is convicted copycat again is a win.
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Nov 20, 2012
    That's very little. Considering the lawyer fees and lost time for the people involved in the trial, $120 million certainly doesn't seem worth all the trouble. But I guess even $2 billion wouldn't have been "worth" it.
  9. macrumors member

    Jun 23, 2009
    And Samsung would do it again

    Crime is pretty cheap when you consider the resulting revenues from Samsung's strategy. Best $119.6 million they ever spent.
  10. Yojimbo007, May 2, 2014
    Last edited: May 5, 2014

    macrumors 6502


    Jun 13, 2012
    At end jury said .. crime is good way to make money !
    Copy, make billions and get a slap on you wrist.

    Great message jury.

    Someday soon :

    Attached Files:

  11. macrumors 6502


    Jan 5, 2009
    At this point all I want from Apple is to give us a few more screen size options since that seems to be the ONLY reason why so many people buy Samsung devices.

    I don't care if some people think that the Note 4 or 5 or whatever number they are is HUGE, I want a few more options..

    IMO that would be the biggest blow to Samsung.
  12. macrumors regular

    Sep 11, 2013
    Banksters, politicians, Samsung... the American people just love to reward crooks, cronies and copying.
  13. macrumors regular

    Oct 9, 2010
    Innovation on sale. Buy now pay later.

    This is like driving a new car out of the lot, denying you stole it, then haggling down the price by 94%.

    This tells software engineers and designers that their work just isn't worth much.
  14. Amacfa, May 2, 2014
    Last edited: May 2, 2014

    macrumors 6502a

    May 22, 2009
    Which could help Apple greatly when it happens again. See: iWatch, iTV, or really any company victim to Samsung's thievery.

    You do realize Samsung was selling smartphones prior to the release of the iPhone?
  15. macrumors 65816

    Jun 20, 2010
    You do realize that Samsung already sells connected TVs and smartwatches and Apple doesn't?
  16. macrumors 65816


    Apr 26, 2002
    Meat Space
    Very well put. I wish this would be the headline in newspaper articles and tv stories on the subject
  17. Yojimbo007, May 2, 2014
    Last edited: May 5, 2014

    macrumors 6502


    Jun 13, 2012
    LoL .. Pathetic view!


  18. IJ Reilly, May 2, 2014
    Last edited: May 2, 2014

    macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    The concept of "owing" is kind of a strange one to introduce into a description of a lawsuit. In lawsuits, parties claim damages. If the courts agree, they award damages in a judgement. Nobody "owes" anybody anything.

    And nobody is "guilty" of anything. Guilt or innocence can only be found in a criminal trial. This was a lawsuit, a civil matter.
  19. macrumors 68000

    Jun 24, 2010
    Samsung's CEO has that much cash under his mattress.
  20. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    Presumably, findings of fact made in support of the damage award can also be used to sue other Android OEMs, and possibly at some point, Google.
  21. macrumors 6502


    Oct 19, 2005
    The only Samsung product I own is a fridge.

    Bet they stole the patents to make that also.
  22. macrumors 68000

    Sep 24, 2008
    Boon Docks USA
    About time this is over. Samsung needs to pay it and move on. Apple does the same BS to other companies by stealing too so don't act surprised on this outcome. Time to close this chapter and move on. BTW, haha apple. You got what you deserved for being greedy!
  23. macrumors member

    Feb 3, 2014
    Apple should pay $158k to Samsung in 200 iPhones.
  24. macrumors regular

    Apr 14, 2010
    According to you Apple is a convicted copycat too. You read the part how Apple infringed on Samsung, right?
  25. macrumors 68000


    Nov 19, 2013
    3 winners.
    Apple for the patent infringement and reputation.
    And the lawyers on both sides that get the big checks. :rolleyes:

Share This Page