Samsung to Appeal $119M Patent Verdict as Foreman Says Apple Should Target Google Instead

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 6, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Samsung yesterday confirmed it will challenge the $119.6 million verdict in the second Apple versus Samsung patent infringement trial, claiming the decision was "unsupported by evidence." According to Bloomberg, Samsung will ask Judge Lucy Koh to reduce the damages to zero and will follow with an appeal if this initial request is denied.

    After several days of deliberations and weeks of testimony, the jury found that Samsung willfully infringed on three of the five Apple patents involved in the lawsuit and ordered the company to pay $119.6 million, a figure well below Apple's requested $2 billion. Speaking after the verdict, jury foreman Thomas Dunham said the compensation was "fair and just" based on the evidence presented at the trial (via Re/code).
    Dunham, who is familiar with the patent system from his work at IBM, hinted that Apple should pursue Google because the Android operating system is the real target in this case, an argument that Samsung's lawyers used during the trial (via The Wall Street Journal).
    Though Samsung was the defendant, Google played a role in the case as it was part of a larger "holy war" against Android instigated by Steve Jobs following Android's debut Google also sent VP of engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer to testify on behalf of Samsung and agreed to offer partial legal protection to Samsung in case of an Apple win.

    While Dunham suggests that Google should be Apple's real target in the ongoing litigation, jurors claim that Google's part in the trial was not a factor when they were deciding on the merit of the infringement claims. It also did not influence the amount of damages ultimately awarded to Apple.

    Article Link: Samsung to Appeal $119M Patent Verdict as Foreman Says Apple Should Target Google Instead
  2. macrumors 68000

    Four oF NINE

    Sep 28, 2011
    The legal saga here is off the graph in terms of irrationality
  3. macrumors regular

    Nov 26, 2002
    Do these companies ever have to pay money if they just keep dragging this out forever or what? Talk about a joke of a system.. If you have enough money, copy your competitor and it will be years before you ever get in trouble. By then you would have made enough money to negate any court costs.
  4. Guest


    Jan 22, 2014
    Earth's Core
    There we go again, confirming the prior post. Way to go Samsung, do what you do best! :apple:
  5. macrumors 68040

    Oct 21, 2012
    It kind of confirms the articles floating around re Samsungs business practices.

    Steal an idea. Delay. Delay. Delay. Delay. Countersue. Delay. Delay. Delay.
  6. irnchriz, May 6, 2014
    Last edited: May 6, 2014

    macrumors 65816


    May 2, 2005
    Standard stuff. Lose then appeal. Everyone does it not just Samsung and Apple.

    Samsung usually settle these cases eventually as they don't want a string of losses in patent cases as it sets a negative precedent for them. The more cases they lose and are guilty of wilful infringement the easier new cases against them will be to win. "Samsung has a record of wilful infringement..." will be the opening line of future patent trials against them.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they lose the appeal and triple damages are awarded to Apple for the 3 patents that Samsung wilfully infringed.
  7. macrumors 68000


    Jul 19, 2010
    Samsung is going to end up paying that much in legal fees with how long they're stretching this out anyway. They need to accept that they copied Apple, pay what they have to pay, and move on. This is getting tiring.
  8. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Jul 16, 2002
    I believe going after Google is Apple's ultimate strategy. Each of these verdicts and the findings of fact behind them can be used to petition for summary judgements against Google.
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Sep 18, 2007
    New Mexico

    Hang on. Did someone, named Thomas Dunham, just say something that made sense? I'm not used to anybody saying things to the press that make sense, or that isn't a lie, or that isn't being said to cover someone's ass. Excuse me, but I'm going to have to go lay down for a bit.
  10. macrumors 603


    Jul 27, 2009
    Premià de Mar
    Shocking, a company appeals a ruling that doesn't like

    And exactly what can achieva Apple when almost all of that patents are not part of AOSP
  11. macrumors regular

    Nov 21, 2009
    This is an extremely high legal standard that Samsung has to fight against. An appellate court would have to say that construing the facts in the light most favorable to Apple that there were no facts that supported the judgment. That is highly unlikely.
  12. macrumors 603


    Jul 27, 2009
    Premià de Mar
    it has been just one wilfully infringement in this case
  13. macrumors 68000

    Apr 23, 2009
    I really hope apple is making the necessary moves to create/enter a market that Samsung simply has no capability of copying and implementing their own products effectively. I think apples push into health will be a whole health ecosystem and they are forging partnerships that Samsung won't have and as a result will never be able to compete.

    I have no problem with competition but Samsung is a scum company that does not deserve one bit of its success in any market.
  14. macrumors regular

    Nov 21, 2009
    There are actually rules of evidence intended to prevent inferences like that, but I agree that it sets a bad precedent for Samsung.
  15. macrumors 6502

    Oct 9, 2006
    Since Google is more or less standing behind Samsung to keep them out of any cost (legal, financial, etc.), then they are forcing Apple to take them on. Apple is best off trying to garner a decent return for their patents from Google/Android on a per phone basis (Microsoft makes something like $5 per phone with their patents). They aren't going to be able to tie up Samsung any longer, the court system isn't likely to net them any monetary return or ban any future products. Samsung will probably be able to do whatever they want, legal or otherwise :(.
  16. macrumors G3


    Aug 3, 2011
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    A bit more fair and reasonable article on the whole deal.

    Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Makes the whole case sound less like a battle between two goliaths over billions and billions of stolen IP, and more a billion dollar slap fight over minutiae.

    And the one biggest quote of the whole article...

  17. macrumors 68020

    Jan 5, 2012
    When you say that Samsung copies other companies the best reply is "so does Apple! so does everyone!" like that makes it any better.

    Look at how much either company was told they had to pay. Gives you an idea of the scale of patent infringement involved.
  18. macrumors 603


    Mar 11, 2013
    Those rich lawyers get even richer.

    Defending your rights is one thing, but ugh....

    Invest these millions into R&D.
  19. macrumors G3


    Aug 3, 2011
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    If you read other articles on other sites, and read all the various quotes from the foreman, you'll see that everyone except Apple, Samsung, and their various hangers-on think the whole thing is pretty dumb.
  20. macrumors 65816

    Apr 21, 2011
    The issue is basically they are allowed to continue to do this strategy...which is an issue with the court/judicial system.

    And every time they do it, the $$$ should double. If they are truly innocent then it won't cost them a dime. If they aren't this would then prevent this whole delay tactic they use.
  21. macrumors 6502


    Mar 1, 2014
  22. macrumors 6502


    Mar 30, 2009
    I thought this round was an appeal from the last trial? So you can appeal an appeal? (I know nothing about the details of the court system) When does the court says "You've lost deal with it"?
  23. macrumors 68000

    Oct 21, 2009
    If you lose ann appeal the judgement should increase. That way far less people would be appealing
  24. macrumors 65816


    Jun 27, 2011
  25. macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    Nope. New trial.

Share This Page