Jury Finds Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1 Billion in Damages

[KnightWRX]

Reading through the verdict by the jury is interesting. I wonder what they found in evidence and what motivated some of the choices. Skipping utility patents (software patents are bad in general, just ask Apple about Visual Voice Mail...) and looking at the design portion (Section 25) of the case (the Copying!!), I find some of the decisions... strange.

Let's take question 5 of the jury form which relates to patent D'677 which is basically a drawing of what could be an iPhone 3G with a big home button :



Looking at the devices in question here, the Jury found "most" to be infringing except the Galaxy Ace. Here's the Ace :

Taking other devices on the list, the Galaxy S II Skyrocket and Galaxy S II Epic, you're left to wonder what elements of those phones the jury found infringed on D'677 while the Galaxy Ace did not :

If it were me, personally, I think the Ace looks a lot more like the drawings, being seperated by its square home button from the drawing's round one. The 2 other models have capacitative buttons on the bottom, the proportions of the screen is quite obviously not in line with the design (again unlike the Ace), etc.. etc..

A lot of it seems like this. Anyway, it's like I said, Apple was going to win some claims and lose others. Interesting that the jury found that Samsung was not abusing its FRAND position though with the UMTS patents, which would have been a bold verdict in light of saying Apple does not infringe on them (though I don't think Samsung made a very convincing case of this, having to spend their trial time on defending against Apple's multiple designs and utility patents).

Also what happened to sections '44 to '54 of Apple's complaint (the icon trademarks) ? There is nothing in the jury form for them, it only addresses the trade dress claims (sections '26 to '43). Is there a seperate ruling on this that we somehow missed ? This one is big on MR, with a lot of people accusing Samsung of using the white old phone on green and there being so much use of that same icon design in the past. Would have been great to get some form of closure on that one.

Anyway, it's obvious that Quinn (Samsung's law firm) has been setting up the appeal on grounds of fairness for a while now. I think they will mostly target Judge Grewall's rulings as grounds for appeal, indicating that a lot of their evidence was thrown out on technicalities that shouldn't have been applied. Remains to be seen how well that goes for them.

 

[entatlrg]

Anyway, like we've been saying all along : some claims will be won, others lost. Let's wait before calling things. Macrumors did quite jump the gun with "Jury Finds in Favor of Apple".

In fact, it's a lot of "YES/NO" for multiple devices on multiple patents.

KnightWRX - Where did you go??? Can we "jump the gun" yet?

Since they started reading the verdict you disappeared. Are you working on the appeal already? I can understand you must be REALLY disappointed Apple won. After all, it goes against almost every post and prediction you've made on the topic for months.

Surely you can come back and enlighten us all with the reasons why the jury, courts and Apple are all wrong, or the numerous ways this is going to hurt the consumer and kill innovation.

No doubt you'll surface soon, with an arsenal of answers as to what went wrong with the trial and beloved Samsung and how they'll still win in appeals. C'mon don't give up yet.

Edit: There you are! You got in one post ahead of me. Excellent, I'm really wanting to read your take on this whole ordeal of a massive Apple win.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't think you get AT ALL the point I am trying to make. There is something called trade dress. It is how your product LOOKS.

The icons are not part of the trade dress portions of the claims. Look at the actual complaint please. Specifically, the phone icon on a green, stripped background is addressed under claim 45 which reads :

45. For example, U.S. Registration No. 3,886,196 covers an icon that is green in color
with a white silhouette of a phone handset arranged at a 45 degree angle and centered on the icon
that represents the application for making telephone calls:

This is not Trade Dress, it's a registered US Trademark. They also misrepresented the mark as the stripes are part of it.

The iPhone trade dress you refer to (claims 27 to 33) covers the overall appearance of the phone and its packaging, not the designs of icons at all. Don't misrepresent the decision here. Read it, understand it. It's all public, there's no reason to spread FUD here.

Stripes or no stripes doesn't matter. Why would Samsung make their phone icon GREEN, with a white phone glyph in the middle? That's the question. Think about it.

Because that's how phone icons for placing calls have been made for the good part of the last 20 or so years. All my cell phones have had that design either with the handset being green itself drawn on a physical button or a green icon with a white handset.

It's called recognizability. And again let's note : there was no verdict on these claims at all.

----------

KnightWRX - Where did you go??? Can we "jump the gun" yet?

I went to get propane, do the grocery shopping, pick up a burner for my dinner party tonight where we're making corn on the cob, and managed to get home well past 10 p.m., read the final verdict quickly before heading to bed and haven't had time to actually sit down until this morning while eating breakfeast.

And no, you can't jump the gun once the whole verdict is out. Jumping the gun is basically calling a victor before one is declared. You can see my analysis higher.

Why are you calling me out anyway ? What's your goal ? I find it funny how some posters just can't stick to facts and need to attack other people for their opinions. You have your own, I'm entitled to mine. At least I back mine up with facts, documents, decisions, unlike some others who just don't even bother to read the claims, the verdicts and rulings and fail to understand any of this. They just have this opinion based on some corporate favouritism.

 

[entatlrg]

The icons are not part of the trade dress portions of the claims. Look at the actual complaint please. Specifically, the phone icon on a green, stripped background is addressed under claim 45 which reads :



This is not Trade Dress, it's a registered US Trademark. They also misrepresented the mark as the stripes are part of it.

The iPhone trade dress you refer to (claims 27 to 33) covers the overall appearance of the phone and its packaging, not the designs of icons at all. Don't misrepresent the decision here. Read it, understand it. It's all public, there's no reason to spread FUD here.



Because that's how phone icons for placing calls have been made for the good part of the last 20 or so years. All my cell phones have had that design either with the handset being green itself drawn on a physical button or a green icon with a white handset.

It's called recognizability. And again let's note : there was no verdict on these claims at all.

----------



I went to get propane, do the grocery shopping, pick up a burner for my dinner party tonight where we're making corn on the cob, and managed to get home well past 10 p.m., read the final verdict quickly before heading to bed and haven't had time to actually sit down until this morning while eating breakfeast.

You can see my analysis higher.

Why are you calling me out anyway ? What's your goal ? I find it funny how some posters just can't stick to facts and need to attack other people for their opinions. You have your own, I'm entitled to mine. At least I back mine up with facts, documents, decisions, unlike some others who just don't even bother to read the claims, the verdicts and rulings and fail to understand any of this. They just have this opinion based on some corporate favouritism.

Calling you out? I'm most interested to read what your take on this is!!!

I'm wondering. Now that the trial is over and it's been prepared for and argued by some of the best Lawyers in the country, the jury has deliberated and read their verdict. Can you let this go or will you continue to write at length endlessly debating point after point of the trial? That's what I'm wondering. It's interesting reading, and somewhat entertaining too!

 

[flottenheimer]

Ladies and gentlemen, let the royalties start rollin'.

 

[Oppressed]

If Apple genuinely has the consumer as a priority then they should NOT seek to ban simply get Samsung to pay for the devices that are deemed to have infringed (on pathetic patents)

Whilst Samsung should not have stolen any ideas.....one thing they have done with them is make them even better for many people where Apple seem to keep an idea stagnant for as long as they can and even then only slightly improve it

Take the device shape for instance....the devices may have a similar shape but Samsung identified a demand for larger screen sizes so did so, whereas Apple have simply refused no matter how many of their consumers have been screaming for it for years they will then next month increase the screen size and claim it is again revolutionary in some way (even though for many 4" is not enough)

iPhones used to be great, I had the first one, the 3G, 3Gs, iP4 & 4s but I ultimately got bored with how restrictive iOS is and wanted something outside of the 3.5" screen and saw something better in my Galaxy Nexus........oh and BTW I am switched on enough to know that it is different and didn't but it thinking it was an iPhone!!!

Simply put if Apple is going to patent EVERYTHING then at least Apple.......innovate and improve them.....THAT is why people choose another make.....your devices have become boring!!

Oh....one more thing.....there was a story on MR regarding a 7" iPad and how one of Apple's execs had sent an email saying that they had seen and used a 7" tablet and said "it was good.......we should make one" Is that not simplified stealing of ideas?? I do wonder if Apple will patent a 7" Tablet now if Samsung haven't!!

Just wanted to point out that your entire post is based on your opinion only and not on any facts. Meanwhile a good majority of people tend to disagree by voting with their wallet and in cases such as this one.

 

[Azzin]

Or maybe it's what the Samsung lawyers were thinking when the verdicts were being read out!

 

[entatlrg]

The icons are not part of the trade dress portions of the claims. Look at the actual complaint please. Specifically, the phone icon on a green, stripped background is addressed under claim 45 which reads :



This is not Trade Dress, it's a registered US Trademark. They also misrepresented the mark as the stripes are part of it.

The iPhone trade dress you refer to (claims 27 to 33) covers the overall appearance of the phone and its packaging, not the designs of icons at all. Don't misrepresent the decision here. Read it, understand it. It's all public, there's no reason to spread FUD here.



Because that's how phone icons for placing calls have been made for the good part of the last 20 or so years. All my cell phones have had that design either with the handset being green itself drawn on a physical button or a green icon with a white handset.

It's called recognizability. And again let's note : there was no verdict on these claims at all.

----------



I went to get propane, do the grocery shopping, pick up a burner for my dinner party tonight where we're making corn on the cob, and managed to get home well past 10 p.m., read the final verdict quickly before heading to bed and haven't had time to actually sit down until this morning while eating breakfeast.

And no, you can't jump the gun once the whole verdict is out. Jumping the gun is basically calling a victor before one is declared. You can see my analysis higher.

Why are you calling me out anyway ? What's your goal ? I find it funny how some posters just can't stick to facts and need to attack other people for their opinions. You have your own, I'm entitled to mine. At least I back mine up with facts, documents, decisions, unlike some others who just don't even bother to read the claims, the verdicts and rulings and fail to understand any of this. They just have this opinion based on some corporate favouritism.

Ah, in true form. So when you write it's debate, when others do it's attack. Thanks for clearling that up. Yes, yes I know we're all just part of a mindless fan club as you've eluded to SO MANY TIMES.

Thankfully, you do read the claims, check facts, rulings, verdicts and then you enlighten us all by endlessly writing about it showing us you understand it all while we fail to.

It's gone well ... Oh wait ... Apple won, Samsung lost. Must of been a little more to it than corporate favouritism. Its over, let it go. May be a good time to work on Samsungs appeal They're going to need all the help they can get.

 

[joniaske]

I have mixed feelings about this....

1) I support apple in their quest for justice, some elements where indeed clearly stolen. But where does it end? How can new parties even enter the market? there are only so many ways to invent a smartphone. You can't make it round, nor triangular (hehe the office 'pyramid'). And what about the icons? Is a green phone icon suddenly also patented? should alexander bell receive money for inventing the phone design? or the universe for the color green :S?

2) 1 Billion dollars! thats great for apple! but is it great for the consumers? will apple cut 100 dollars on the next 10 millions devices? No off course not... The only people who will benefit from this money are the shareholders....

3) look I love apple products, I adore my new macbook air, it's great and simple. But i don't adore the company, nor will i ever do. It's a company, their focus is money and profit. Embrace a healthy market people, but please don't treat apple like a religion. There is nothing worse than a monopoly

 

[shk718]

I have mixed feelings about this....

1) I support apple in their quest for justice, some elements where indeed clearly stolen. But where does it end? How can new parties even enter the market? there are only so many ways to invent a smartphone. You can't make it round, nor triangular (hehe the office 'pyramid'). And what about the icons? Is a green phone icon suddenly also patented? should alexander bell receive money for inventing the phone design? or the universe for the color green :S?

Common. There are an infinite number of ways to design something. Look at what Nokia and Microsoft are doing. What this verdict says to me is that Samsung willfully copied the iPhone because it was such a success. There are so many different things they could've done to differentiate their product but they didn't want to. They wanted to make an iPhone.

 

[danahn17]

Tim Cook and the other execs deserve to have their wages doubled after this victory! Mega Bucks!!! $$$

I think you mean the lawyers...

Best part is engadget comments. LMFAO.

Just from the constant Android and Google circle jerking I hope Apple and MS straight put them out. I hope WinMO gets the 70% marketshare. Least MS and Apple get the hate unlike the darlings of the world google....for some unknown reason still. I have never seen a company get more praise, ever.

I never thought I'd see the day when Apple fans praise both Apple and Microsoft in the same sentence

 

[KPOM]

Your "retort" to my analogy makes no sense at all. Was it really that above your head or should I start naming models that you would need to look up in Wikipedia?

It's more a function of staying up too late in the morning replying to a number of comments. A lot of the pro-Samsung crowd attributed the verdict to nationalism, which I think does a great disservice to the jury. I saw "Japanese cars" and skipped over the rest. Unfortunately, they didn't give media interviews, so we don't know their reasoning, but I doubt that they wanted to hand a victory to Apple on nationalist grounds. If that were the case, they would have awarded Apple victories on the tablets, which they largely didn't.

Anyway, back to your car analogy, I think the difference is that it is much easier with something so big to differentiate. Cars have always had distinctive features (grilles, fins, spoilers, wheels, etc.) that are distinctive from brand to brand. Since car designs change very often, there is also a lot of prior art. Speaking of Wikipedia and your Taurus example, here's what it has to say:

The Taurus displayed a rounder shape than its contemporaries, often likened to a 'jelly bean' or 'flying potato',[12] inspired by the design of the Audi 5000 and Ford's own Tempo.[2]

.

I'm old enough to remember the original Taurus when it came out. I also remember the Audi 5000 (and how 60 Minutes nearly killed Audi and its parent VW with false allegations of self acceleration). Nevertheless, it was out there as prior art. Undoubtedly Ford had some design patents, but probably wouldn't have been granted one for "rounded sheet metal" since it was too vague. However, although the Taurus proved that the car buying public was ready for a rounded car design, the cars that followed weren't direct copies.

There are certainly utility patents, as well. I remember Mercedes-Benz used to run ads bragging about how they had patented dozens of safety features like the steel safety cage but never enforced them. Today GM is running ads touting how a new Cadillac has a patented safety alert system (that they apparently do intend to enforce) that vibrates the seat bottom instead of beeping like most other cars with similar features.
http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/cad...news/us/en/2012/Mar/0327_cadillac_safety.html

That's probably the closest to the "pinch to zoom" patent. Now that someone has done it, it sounds "obvious," but it wasn't so obvious before.

 

[boronathan]

I believe the word "duh" is appropriate here. There were many here who ignored the blatantly obvious and tried to play the semantics game but this just goes to show what everyone should have known just by looking at the two products being compared here.

It was obvious what Samsung's intentions were. It was obvious that their goal was to simply copy and not try to improve anything the iPhone had done. It was obvious that that document showed bar none that their workflow was "oh apple has that? go ahead and do that."

As I and several posters had said when all the nitpicking and semantics were going on, there's nothing wrong with supporting Apple or supporting Samsung. But when you categorically deny any similarity or try to act like you don't see the obvious or play the "technology was progressing that way anyway" route, it doesn't make you look objective.

I called it as soon as the 132 page document was revealed. And I truly believe that Samsung deserves what they got here. ALL companies (including Apple) borrow and copy ideas. ALL companies (including Apple) are inspired by their predecessors. ALL companies (including Apple) take notes from their competition and try to emulate success. But you simply cannot just create a product that is blatantly a rip-off of another product and expect not to be caught.

This jury ruling obviously won't change the mind of those naysayers. They'll now say that other countries showed that Apple was wrong so it doesn't matter. Or they'll insist that the jury was wrong. Or they'll say that they dont care what the jury said.

Bravo to Apple. Unlike what some people say, they didn't just happen to be "at the right place at the right time". Their success, the iPhone's success, was due to several years of R&D and the culmination of that R&D. Samsung deserves every penny of that fine levied against them. Their only hope here is an overturning on appeal because of some technicality.

 

[jonnysods]

EverythingTM in the world seemsTM to be patentedTM.

 

[djphat2000]

Soooooo, it seems that Apple has won. I know I am late to this party. Only just started reading the pages and pages and pages of posts.
Incredible.

 

[msinco]

Steve

Steve, you can now rest knowing that you won the thermonuclear war. It would have been great if you could see it.

Rest in peace Steve.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm wondering. Now that the trial is over and it's been prepared for and argued by some of the best Lawyers in the country, the jury has deliberated and read their verdict. Can you let this go or will you continue to write at length endlessly debating point after point of the trial? That's what I'm wondering. It's interesting reading, and somewhat entertaining too!

Let what go ? If it's a thread of discussion on Macrumors that's current and I'm interested in it, I will discuss it. I make lengthy posts because they are required in these kind of issues, which are not black and white and can't be resolved in a sentence or two. There are mountains of documents to go through and addressing points requires lengthy analysis.

That is why trials aren't submitted as Facebook polls. My question is, why do you care about the length of my posts and what do you want me to "let go" of exactly ?

Again, attacking the poster instead of the argument.

----------

I believe the word "duh" is appropriate here. There were many here who ignored the blatantly obvious and tried to play the semantics game but this just goes to show what everyone should have known just by looking at the two products being compared here.

Call it a semantic game all you want, but this was far from about 2 products being compared. And that's the whole point, there is no duh. There are some infringement, some non-infringement verdicts spread over many devices and utility/design patents and for trade dress.

This is why "many here ignore the blatantly obvious", because even after this verdict, it seems it's not obvious enough yet for the other "many here who ignore even what this is about".

Because if this was a duh like you say, could you say 3 days ago that the Galaxy Ace would be found non-infringing of USD618677 ? Ignoring the "obvious" much ?

----------

EverythingTM in the world seemsTM to be patentedTM.

TM stands for Trademark. Trademarks protect different kind of IP than patents do. I know you were going for irony with your post, but it helps to understand the distinction.

 

[iSengKin]

Samsung have been defeated miserably.

Now, next target -------> Android!

Thermonuclear war is imminent it seems...

If only Steve Jobs was here to press the launch button

 

[Blackberryroid]

Steve, you can now rest knowing that you won the thermonuclear war. It would have been great if you could see it.

Rest in peace Steve.

Not yet. This is just the big branch of the war. There are still other branches to kill. The root of all this is Google, that's the target.

 

[tigress666]

I guess everyone had diff opinions on what they think is awesome. Watching him using the touch screen was just amazing in the demonstration. I have not used the phone you are talking about so I can comment. I agree it was wise to let the app makers into the game. Very wise. The touch interface, and how well it worked, and felt, was like nothing I had ever seen at that point.

I was still in the "Apple should be making computers, not this other crap" mentality (I've always been a Mac fan, I've not always been an "itoys" fan though). But also, I really liked my PDA and scoffed at the fact you couldn't remove the battery, the screen was smaller, you were stuck with whatever storage they gave you, and the fact at the time you were stuck with the apps they gave you (which I really do think was a bad idea still and I really do think the iphone would have failed if Jobs hadn't given in to people bugging him about it). And honestly I didn't want a touch keyboard (something I did want was a slide out physical keyboard), I had actually bought a keyboard attachment for my PDA and when looking for a smartphone to replace it I wanted it to have a slide out keyboard (I originaly wouldn't consider the iphone over that alone. The combo of it having GPS and then discovering it was easier to type on than the badly designed keyboards of the two smartphones I was looking at had me decide on it. They had the small keys recessed into the keyboard so you had to try to use your fingernail to hit them... ).

And my PDA had a touch screen too (I honestly at the time wouldn't have been all that impressed with the touch screen, so, so can mine? Granted it was the old style but you still could use your hands if you wanted. I just didn't cause it would cause smudges on the screen. Which I also scoffed at the iphone for the fact you ddn't have a stylus and you'd have to smudge your screen. Which is true honestly but after using it I've gotten over that).

Anyways, my point is, I'm still not sure why people thought it was that revolutionary (I've taken for granted people say it is and at this point I'll take their word for it but I don't really know why). There definitely was equivalents at the time. It introduced a more sensitive touch screen true, but it's not like you couldn't do that with the old style either. Or any of what the iphone claimed to do. There were phones out that did that (and more) already. PEople just didn't know about them so much and they were relegated to the people like me who liked gadgets (and I suppose the whole icon thing was different than the windows phone). What APple did was make more people aware of the phones it seems.

 

[wrightc23]

Samsung have been defeated miserably.

Now, next target -------> Android!

Thermonuclear war is imminent it seems...

If only Steve Jobs was here to press the launch button

Really? The last time I checked the US is a declining market in global terms, this ruling has and will be ignored outside of the US.

Hardly a surprise that a US jury in Apple's backyard go Apples way. I'm not suggesting that they didn't make the right call, they did, it's pretty clear that Samsung have just copied Apples product range.

Apple have been far less successful litigating outside the US and they will continue to be so.

However the more sinister issue is the way Apple is attempting to dominate the market in the US by being allowed to patent generic design elements. It adds up to little more than protectionism.

It's also a sign that Apple have assumed the mantle formerly owned by Microsoft and IBM before them. When an organisation becomes more concerned about protecting what it is has rather than pushing forward it's usually a sign of impending decline.

Bottom line is that whilst Apple is the biggest player in the US, outside of the US it isn't and within a couple of years China will be the dominant market and it won't be Apple dominating that market.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Neither Apple nor Samsung have won or lost. As far as I'm concerned, this is only the beginning of a seriously bad relationship between Apple and other parties.

 

[wrightc23]

Neither Apple nor Samsung have won or lost. As far as I'm concerned, this is only the beginning of a seriously bad relationship between Apple and other parties.

I wouldn't read too much into it, Apple are still Samsung's biggest customer, Samsung are still their biggest supplier. I doubt this will damage that relationship, despite all the hyperbole regarding this ruling, they actually still need each other. Apple have really just given Samsung a slap on wrist reminding them that if they do want to move beyond being an OEM they could at least try to innovate.

 

[kdarling]

Do you think Samsung can appeal to the court regarding the incompetence of the jurors? Or is that unlikely now?

While everyone was shocked at the speed (eagerness to adjourn?) of the jury, I think the appeal will concentrate on all the evidence that Koh kept out of the trial.

At the time, my first thought was that she actually did so in order to help Samsung's inevitable appeal.

Apparently Motorola has just filed a lawsuit against Apple and is planning on banning the iPhone 5, iPad Mini and the new iPod upon launch.

For years, smartphone makers had a sort of gentleman's agreement going, where everyone took cues from everyone else, with few major lawsuits. Now I think Apple will find itself the target of constant attacks from companies with deep phone patent holdings, who want similar awards and/or cross-licensing.

Opposing makers will also innovate more, which is ultimately to Apple's detriment. The last thing you want to do, is force your opponent to come up with something better. That's why Apple was willing to license their IP to Samsung; it would've kept them more under Apple's design thumb.

 

[Dangerous Theory]

Who cares? Okay shareholders probably do, but I'm using my MacBook Pro with Samsung's retina display and a Galaxy S3, and love them both. Guess what - Samsung and Apple are awesome companies.