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

[SlCKB0Y]

1. Not really. In fact this makes no sense at all. U.S. companies sue each other in U.S. courts all the time.

The research supports the following things:

1. In cases with a domestic (US) patent holder-plaintiff and a foreign infringer, the domestic litigants much more frequently apply for jury based trials over judge based trials:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=btlj

2. In cases with a domestic (US) patent holder-plaintiff and a foreign infringer, juries find for the domestic patent holder with much greater frequency than judges do, supported by a paper by Judge Moore:

Xenophobia in American Courts
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=566301

This paper was cited by Judge Lucy Koh after she found that Apple was potentially trying to stir up nationalistic bias in their closing statement:

When I was young, I used to watch television on televisions that were manufactured in the United States. Magnavox, Motorola, RCA. These were real companies. They were well known and they were famous. They were creators. They were inventors. They were like the Apple and Google today.

But they didn't protect their intellectual property. They couldn't protect their ideas. And you all know the result. There are no American television manufacturers today.

- Apple Lawyers.

She had this to say:

"Judge Moore's study found that 'foreign patent holder win rates in jury trials against domestic infringers (38%) are significantly lower than domestic patent holder win rates against foreign infringers (82%). In contrast, in cases decided by judges, the patentee win rate is almost identical, with domestic patentees winning 35% of the time against foreign infringers, and foreign patentees winning 31% of the time against domestic infringers

Putting these things together means that if you are a US company which owns patents and you sue a foreign company (Eg. Apple v Samsung) and get a jury trial, you have a much greater chance of winning. Apple lawyers would know this.

They would also know that if they sue another US company and get a jury, they lose this massive advantage.

Further reading:

WHO WINS PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES?
http://www.licensinglaw.net/Litigation_files/Paul_M_Janicke.pdf

If you’re suing a U.S. company in America, avoid juries
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/02/14/if-youre-suing-a-u-s-company-in-america-avoid-juries/

Attitudes Toward Japanese Corporations
http://www.faegrebd.com/webfiles/FTD-1302-LeiboldPiteraPriceDukart.pdf

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/judge-denies-samsung-retrial-of-retrial.html

 

[IJ Reilly]

The research supports the following things:

Fine, as far as it goes, but what all of this avoids is that theses patent wars are also being waged in courts outside of the U.S., where I think you'd find that similar bias exists against U.S. corporations. By no means does the U.S. have a monopoly on being unfriendly to non-domestic economic interests.

 

[mib1800]

Fine, as far as it goes, but what all of this avoids is that theses patent wars are also being waged in courts outside of the U.S., where I think you'd find that similar bias exists against U.S. corporations. By no means does the U.S. have a monopoly on being unfriendly to non-domestic economic interests.

Then again the rest of the world are not sue crazy like the US. I bet there are many more US companies initiating lawsuits than the other way round.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Then again the rest of the world are not sue crazy like the US. I bet there are many more US companies initiating lawsuits than the other way round.

I have no idea one way or another, but I do know that the regulatory regime is far stronger in the EU and elsewhere in the world than it is in the U.S. Corporations can get away with far less in other countries, particularly in the realm of antitrust.

 

[Boomish69]

So if SAMSUNG is copying stuff all over the place, how come APPLE (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't just buy the "original" parts from the "original" manufacturers? And if APPLE jumps of the bridge, you will too???? How old are you?

Who says that anyone is evil? Talk about "picking holes", you are ready for the olympics!

What? none of that even makes sense! I was talking about buyers choice not buying anything silver, shiny that says Apple on it. In fact I think Apple have seriously lost the plot and are not some apotheosis of technical excellence. how old am I? lol well old enough to be your dad obviously if you need to ask.

The previous poster was accusing Apple of being of having similar copycat ethics as Samsung, where as the two companies backgrounds, location and management system couldn't be more different. try reading next time you reply, it helps to understand the topic.

 

[RobertoCravallo]

lol well old enough to be your dad obviously if you need to ask.

That would make you 92!!!!

 

[Boomish69]

That would make you 92!!!!

Hello son!

 

[brentsg]

I think he was referring to an obligation to their shareholders. You're also thinking of trademarks, and I'm pretty sure it is a troll account.

I was referring to an obligation to their shareholders. Thanks for the additional commentary.

I also see that the troll account that I "insulted" and was subsequently reprimanded for, was banned.

It's a shame we can't simply downvote the trolls.

 

[thekev]

I was referring to an obligation to their shareholders. Thanks for the additional commentary.

I also see that the troll account that I "insulted" and was subsequently reprimanded for, was banned.

It's a shame we can't simply downvote the trolls.

Yeah. I don't remember what I responded to, but I don't think I was referring to your comment as being from a troll account. I only call that when it's a new account + obviously targeting a reaction. Anyway my main purpose was to point out the trademark detail.

 

[brentsg]

Yeah. I don't remember what I responded to, but I don't think I was referring to your comment as being from a troll account. I only call that when it's a new account + obviously targeting a reaction. Anyway my main purpose was to point out the trademark detail.

Yeah sorry for the mixup. I did the same and called a now banned troll a troll, but I was smacked for it.

Just appreciated your comment, that's all.

 

[Premium1]

That is a ridiculous statement. Do you think all the engineers have stopped working whilst the trial was ongoing? Do you honestly believe that Apple expects to ever live off the courts? Come on…

No apple wants to kill innovation in the courts.

 

[NTACvOS]

Irony...

Image

Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2014/02/12/a-look-at-apples-randd-expenditures-from-1995-2013/

I'm not sure I follow you.

Ironic because they spend so much and get so little in return vs Apple?

Or ironic because they spend so much and STILL have to steal from Apple to make a product?



(I think the reality is that they spend a lot on R&D outside of Apple's sphere. Apple doesn't manufacture anything - they are a design firm. I think if you combined Pegatron and Apple you'd have a more....ahem....apples to apples comparison with Samsung Electronics. FWIW.)