Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[Melrose]

Look at what Microsoft is doing. Now that's competition. Competition is coming up with your own ideas and running with it on the fair, open market. We'll see how well Metro does in the mobile space. I don't particularly like it, personally, but I respect Microsoft for the choices they made, and for doing their own thing. Apple won't be suing them. Apple has no grounds for suing them, under the law or under common sense.

What Samsung has been doing is not even close to competition. The copying was blatant. The copying was willful. We know this from Samsung's own internal documents. It was Samsung's goal to create cheap clones of Apple's products, rush them to market, and take advantage of Apple's efforts in R&D and marketing to coast along.

I'm not crazy about Microsoft, but I have to hand ti to them for seeing the mobile landscape, seeing what's popular, and going back to the drawing board and creating their own way of interacting with a mobile handset. Kudos to the guys in Redmond for that; And double kudos for producing a mobile OS that is actually pretty cool and easy to use. I never thought something like that would come from Microsoft. It's the move of a smaller company, or a company with nothing to lose. But either way, they have a solid product with it.

It's too bad the anti-fanboys just put on their silly blinders and bash it without giving it a try. I have to laugh at the newbies who bash Microsoft just because it's cool and they think it makes them sophisticated, not having knowledge or knowhow enough to give something a fair go with an open mind. It's become popular in a certain demographic to hate on Microsoft without just cause, and in this respect that's unfair and too bad.

 

[iEvolution]

TVs look similar, yet they don't sue each other.
Microwaves look similar, they don't sue each other.
Washers look similar, they don't sue each other.
Cars look similar, they don't sue each other.

Apple is one of the biggest cry babies in the industry. As if all their product ideas are 100% original.

I don't like Samsung either but I think this lawsuit was a bit on the tempertantrum side. Samsung has always been a me-too company and the only reason they have a market lead is not because of phone quality it's because of their relentlessness to spam the hell out of the phone market.

Apple makes quality products but they don't walk on water. Perhaps if Apple enters the TV market it'll give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

[GadgetDon]

TVs look similar, yet they don't sue each other.
Microwaves look similar, they don't sue each other.
Washers look similar, they don't sue each other.
Cars look similar, they don't sue each other.

Apple is one of the biggest cry babies in the industry. As if all their product ideas are 100% original.

I don't like Samsung either but I think this lawsuit was a bit on the tempertantrum side.

What comes around goes around and I hope Apple enters the TV market, perhaps in that market Samsung can get some frivolous lawsuit on them.

Personally, I don't see Apple entering the TV market - they enter markets where people may like what can be done with them but hate using them and create a product that does it in a new way people love. I don't see that in the TV market, the TV does a good job of doing what it does, display video from various content sources. Oh, maybe some room for a better remote or something. I think there's a lot more opportunity to enter the cable box market.

But whether Apple enters the cable box market or the tv market, if history is to be a guide, it'll go like this.

Apple introduces new box. The interface is something that's not on other tvs/cable boxes now, it's intuitive, people love it and say "why isn't everything else like this?" Within 6 months, most new tvs/cable boxes will have a very similar interface but with some bells and whistles, the manufacturers will market them with feature lists and bristle at the concept that it was in any way influenced by what Apple did.

 

[tranceme]

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

I hate lawsuits and patents too. But, I'm really not sure what you mean. They offered to license some tech. Samsung willing decided to do this and didn't care. They should have licensed it and all would be fine. Microsoft is doing that with the Surface Tablet. And, that thing looks pretty damn cool. Apple actual needs competition...not copy cats. But, you say "innovation". How is it innovation if they copied?

 

[alhedges]

TVs look similar, yet they don't sue each other.
Microwaves look similar, they don't sue each other.
Washers look similar, they don't sue each other.
Cars look similar, they don't sue each other.

I don't know about washers and microwaves, but cars certainly sue each other over trade dress; it happens all the time. Just recently there was litigation involving: (1) the Jeep grill design; (2) the Ferrari body design; (3) the Viper body design; and (4) the Hummer body design.

Off the top of my head, I know of trade dress cases involving guitars, bicycles, and fashion.

Apple is one of the biggest cry babies in the industry. As if all their product ideas are 100% original.

Crybaby? Seriously? A victim who complains is a crybaby? What are you, 8?

I don't like Samsung either but I think this lawsuit was a bit on the tempertantrum side.

What comes around goes around and I hope Apple enters the TV market, perhaps in that market Samsung can get some frivolous lawsuit on them.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Michael Scrip]

TVs look similar, yet they don't sue each other.
Microwaves look similar, they don't sue each other.
Washers look similar, they don't sue each other.
Cars look similar, they don't sue each other.

Apple is one of the biggest cry babies in the industry. As if all their product ideas are 100% original.

Maybe a TV manufacturer should have patented the look and feel of a TV long ago.

Apparently you can do that

 

[bobinhell]

This is a sad day. And I say this as an Apple fan.

I love their products, but they seem to be turning into bigger and bigger control freaks as time goes on. I'm worried about Apple becoming *too successful*, because if they do they are likely to engage in monopolistic practices, which still stifle innovation and give people little choice in platform.

Apple really needs to learn to play well with others.

I disagree. Apple IS playing well with others. They are playing a fair game based on their hard work. If they acquire a monopoly in the industry it won't be because illegal and unethical tactics but simply because they are better than anyone else.
Furthermore what I think people still cannot see is that you, the people, have no automatic right for better products at cheaper prices. That only happens if two competitors do actually 'compete' against each other. Then better products at cheaper prices happen. Until now nobody can 'compete' with Apple and so I'm sorry but you folks will have to pay a little more.
Providing you with cheaper products MUST not come at the expenses of a single company and their employees (Apple).
You have no clue about the meaning of fairness: in Communist Russia whether you were a hard working scientist of a lazy worker, all salaries where the same. This is basically what you are saying: Apple innovates, Samsung sits down and copies, both get rewarded pretty much the same (so you get your next phone. Lame!).
Last time I checked this way of thinking was very much frowned upon the the USA. I'm sure if you move to China they will agree with you. Go US!

 

[tranceme]

I'm not crazy about Microsoft, but I have to hand ti to them for seeing the mobile landscape, seeing what's popular, and going back to the drawing board and creating their own way of interacting with a mobile handset. Kudos to the guys in Redmond for that; And double kudos for producing a mobile OS that is actually pretty cool and easy to use. I never thought something like that would come from Microsoft. It's the move of a smaller company, or a company with nothing to lose. But either way, they have a solid product with it.

It's too bad the anti-fanboys just put on their silly blinders and bash it without giving it a try. I have to laugh at the newbies who bash Microsoft just because it's cool and they think it makes them sophisticated, not having knowledge or knowhow enough to give something a fair go with an open mind. It's become popular in a certain demographic to hate on Microsoft without just cause, and in this respect that's unfair and too bad.

Agree with both of you. The Surface tablet is ready to roll on paper. I still like iOS and not sure how the usability on this will be on this tablet. But, I'm willing to be open and see what it's about. I use Apple and MS products everyday. I have issues with both companies at times. I'm just glad we are doing something good in US with tech. Getting our butts kicked with other things often now. I want both Apple and MS to stick around. This competition from MS is good for Apple and Apple FanBoys They just don't see it.

 

[bobinhell]

TVs look similar, yet they don't sue each other.
Microwaves look similar, they don't sue each other.
Washers look similar, they don't sue each other.
Cars look similar, they don't sue each other.

Apple is one of the biggest cry babies in the industry. As if all their product ideas are 100% original.

I don't like Samsung either but I think this lawsuit was a bit on the tempertantrum side. Samsung has always been a me-too company and the only reason they have a market lead is not because of phone quality it's because of their relentlessness to spam the hell out of the phone market.

Apple makes quality products but they don't walk on water. Perhaps if Apple enters the TV market it'll give them a taste of their own medicine.

Apple does indeed walk on water! They have launched a phone and disrupted the phone market with 1 single phone! Samsung, Nokia, etc, they couldn't do that in 2 years on the market and hundreds of phones. And that is way the iPhone is the 'Jesus Phone'. And that is also way Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
The reason is that finally we have a company where their leadership thinks that it's better to create amazing products rather than smooching with other companies and exes and screw us over.
Have you ever though about why for so many years in the US you only had that crappy little shell-flipping phone while in EU, Japan, etc they had tons of choice? The reason is because the execs at companies like Nokia and Samsung didn't need to innovate. They had each carved their market share, each of their exec was earning super fat pay checks and you guys where stuck with crappy phone. No that Apple finally has given you an amazing phone lots of people complains they are bullies. No they are not bullies, they woke up in the morning and went to WORK, and they worked hard and succeeded with the folks at Samsung where sitting of their buts. Awesome and fair game if you ask me. To an extent if Apple puts them all out of business might not be so bad. It just demonstrate how poor they are at their job.

 

[fred222]

TVs look similar, yet they don't sue each other.
Microwaves look similar, they don't sue each other.
Washers look similar, they don't sue each other.
Cars look similar, they don't sue each other.

Apple is one of the biggest cry babies in the industry. As if all their product ideas are 100% original.

I don't like Samsung either but I think this lawsuit was a bit on the tempertantrum side. Samsung has always been a me-too company and the only reason they have a market lead is not because of phone quality it's because of their relentlessness to spam the hell out of the phone market.

Apple makes quality products but they don't walk on water. Perhaps if Apple enters the TV market it'll give them a taste of their own medicine.

Two points:

1. So you say "Samsung has always been a me-too company and the only reason they have a market lead is not because of phone quality it's because of their relentlessness to spam the hell out of the phone market."

You realize that spam is propagated mostly through illegal bot-nets and those same bot-nets are often wielded in illegal phishing / malware attacks, right? You realize that law enforcement and national security interests have been focused on destroying these bot-nets and have recently knocked out a bot-net that was responsible for 75% of the world's spam, right? You sure you want to equate Samsung's market position to illegal and immoral con artist spam hacker phishers who are rightly targeted by LEO / intelligence?

2. So you say "Apple makes quality products but they don't walk on water. Perhaps if Apple enters the TV market it'll give them a taste of their own medicine."

Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I'm not blaming the jurors, I'm blaming the system that put them in this position. I don't think the jury system is the right system for highly technical cases like these. They should have some form of national IP court manned by specialist judges who can hear and decide upon these cases.

PS I wonder if the decision had gone the other way you would be shouting out what a bunch of idiots the jury was, I rather think so.

Would never work. Each country has its own laws and to expect it to be international, with a multinational panel of judges, each with knowledge of the law of both host countries is just not feasible in any sense of the word.

Apparently you did not have a problem with the decisions of courts in other countries that sided with Samsung. Only when the American court system mostly ruled with on Apples side did this seem to matter.

Who made you God? Who decided that only you have all the answers? Who decided that you have all the answers and nobody else's opinion matters. Were all idiots if we disagree with you. It must be difficult walking around with that halo on all day.

I don't see him as that far off. I talked with plenty of Canadians and British who think we need to have a universal heath care or banning of all our guns.

 

[iEvolution]

Two points:

1. So you say "Samsung has always been a me-too company and the only reason they have a market lead is not because of phone quality it's because of their relentlessness to spam the hell out of the phone market."

You realize that spam is propagated mostly through illegal bot-nets and those same bot-nets are often wielded in illegal phishing / malware attacks, right? You realize that law enforcement and national security interests have been focused on destroying these bot-nets and have recently knocked out a bot-net that was responsible for 75% of the world's spam, right? You sure you want to equate Samsung's market position to illegal and immoral con artist spam hacker phishers who are rightly targeted by LEO / intelligence?

2. So you say "Apple makes quality products but they don't walk on water. Perhaps if Apple enters the TV market it'll give them a taste of their own medicine."

Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.

When I say spam I mean flood the market with 10,000 varients of phones vs Apple's ONE model of phone. I'm not referring to the email reference of spam.

Sorry if I wasn't exactly clear on that.

 

[HiRez]

Copying, by definition, is not innovation. Samsung has been proven to copy. Therefore, there is no innovation being inhibited here, and consumers will not be harmed by this decision. In fact, this decision may help innovation flourish, by forcing competitors to come up with their own way of doing things, and their own unique look, some of which may well end up being better than what Apple had done. I love my Apple devices but they're not perfect. I still find the typing correction to be awful and not very smart, Siri is close to useless, cut & paste works but it's clumsy to use for lots of typing, and so on. There is room for improvement.

 

[uberman15]

Most of the complaints I've seen thrown at the patent system are silly and nonsensical.

I suggest you watch the video here: http://patentabsurdity.com. It's a half hour long and outlines, at a cursory level, the fundamental problem with software patents. I think a lot of people interested in this debate might find this video informative.

A lot of people have an emotional connection to this problem because the immediate thought is that because you were the first and had the key intuition, you need a patent to protect your brilliance. While there may certainly be cases in which granting a software patent would have been useful, more often than not trade-secret (distribution of compiled code) and copyright (for user interface/experience elements) would be sufficient.

The video contains two examples that I think illuminate the tremendous shortcomings of software patents.

The first is a software patent granted to eHarmony for basically doing principal component analysis. As someone with a mathematical background, the absurdity of this seems unparalleled. That PCA was applied for dating might have been the key intuition of the eHarmony folks but there is fundamentally nothing in that idea that should be patentable. It's almost like patenting addition for summing the price of goods in a shopping bag on an e-commerce site.

The other example the video gives is what classical music would have been like if all the composers prior to Beethoven had patented various different types of musical ideas such as how to transition from one set of chords to another or a specific repetition of a note, etc. Instead of composing his wonderful symphonies, he'd have to navigate the minefield of patents to ensure that his did not infringe. Worse yet, he'd have to pay substantial amounts of money once he composed his symphonies because there is no way he wouldn't have. And yet, people look at software patents as protection of innovation.

None of this is a commentary on this specific case. I don't fundamentally know what the litigation would have been like had software and business method patents not existed. I'm inclined to believe that Samsung did infringe Apple copyright. And perhaps there were some legitimate patents in there as well.

But the primary problem with patent industry today is that too much capital is spent on defensive patenting and litigation rather than innovation. Had FFT been patentable, I shudder to think what technology would not exist today as a result. Software patents are far too vague and often have to wide of an influence. So even though software patents might be good in theory, their implementation in practice has been utter disaster. And I see no fix other than to rid of them altogether.

 

[SPUY767]

Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.

Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.

Considering that design patents last 14 years, and sprite has been around since 1961, that's an irrelevant and idiotic argument.

----------

Well for me - trade dress patents seem to be completely inappropriate use of patents. Patents are about protecting processes and actions, ways of solving problems. Trade dress is appearance, so would fall under trademarks and copyrights.

I do think the utility patents are reasonable, assuming they meet the legal standard of originality (and I don't know enough to say for sure if they do or don't).

You'd prefer that they copyright a design? Those last a lot longer than a patent.

 

[djphat2000]

I'm not crazy about Microsoft, but I have to hand ti to them for seeing the mobile landscape, seeing what's popular, and going back to the drawing board and creating their own way of interacting with a mobile handset. Kudos to the guys in Redmond for that; And double kudos for producing a mobile OS that is actually pretty cool and easy to use. I never thought something like that would come from Microsoft. It's the move of a smaller company, or a company with nothing to lose. But either way, they have a solid product with it.

It's too bad the anti-fanboys just put on their silly blinders and bash it without giving it a try. I have to laugh at the newbies who bash Microsoft just because it's cool and they think it makes them sophisticated, not having knowledge or knowhow enough to give something a fair go with an open mind. It's become popular in a certain demographic to hate on Microsoft without just cause, and in this respect that's unfair and too bad.

I'm sorry, but MS earned that reputation. Everything is always coming next with them. Rarely do they actuallly bring out a great product. I'll give them Xbox (both why not), Win 7, Win2k, and XP (its not dead yet), and there Explorer mouse (I really like it and use it still). MS has always been however, a ME TOO player IMHO. So, if there phone OS is great, that's awesome. However, I know I will never buy one.

 

[iEvolution]

Apple does indeed walk on water! They have launched a phone and disrupted the phone market with 1 single phone! Samsung, Nokia, etc, they couldn't do that in 2 years on the market and hundreds of phones. And that is way the iPhone is the 'Jesus Phone'. And that is also way Apple is the most valuable company in the world.
The reason is that finally we have a company where their leadership thinks that it's better to create amazing products rather than smooching with other companies and exes and screw us over.
Have you ever though about why for so many years in the US you only had that crappy little shell-flipping phone while in EU, Japan, etc they had tons of choice? The reason is because the execs at companies like Nokia and Samsung didn't need to innovate. They had each carved their market share, each of their exec was earning super fat pay checks and you guys where stuck with crappy phone. No that Apple finally has given you an amazing phone lots of people complains they are bullies. No they are not bullies, they woke up in the morning and went to WORK, and they worked hard and succeeded with the folks at Samsung where sitting of their buts. Awesome and fair game if you ask me. To an extent if Apple puts them all out of business might not be so bad. It just demonstrate how poor they are at their job.

It'd be terrible to have a company like Apple as the only option because as we know they like to keep it simple where as other companies offer a better power user friendly device. Many just want their product to work and that's fine but there are also other "geeks" out there that want features features features rather than just the basics.

Apple has done a great job with the concept KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) but it's nice to have some power user friendly options out there.

Apple definitely should NOT be a overwhelming majority in ANY market because without competition they don't do ANYTHING with their products. iPod Classic for instance no longer has the Zune 120 as a competitor, updates have been essentially null for going on three years now.

Nano has no real competition, Apple has stuck with the same capacities for almost 4 years now and hasn't offered new features since the 5th generation because there is no competition.

iPod Touch skipped a year of updates. Now there are a few rumors of the iPod Touch getting a upgrade this year and that's possibly because the Samsung Galaxy Player has been moderately successful.

Apple is at their best when they have competition as are other companies, Apple has shown that once they take a commanding lead they sit on their products. Some may say this lawsuit is good because it makes Samsung have to do some innovating (though they've always been a me-too company, to my knowledge I don't know of anything that Samsung has done on their own that is truly unique), but at the same token this gets Apple one step closer to dominating and stagnating their products.

Apple has some ethical faults as well...
1) Firmware updates are often used to try to address hardware defects, such as the inverse blacks on the iPod Touch in 2007, several video card/monitor issues with the macs. I know its just to save them money but I feel like if there is a hardware defect it should be replaced rather than tried cheaply to be covered. The 2007 touch update was a gamma change to "hide" the factory coating issue.
2) QC has some faults of its own. The iPods of 2007 were horrendous for about the first 6 - 8 months (especially the classic) it made you wonder if anyone even bothered to test the product before releasing it and instead having the public be the test subjects...as well as the previously mentioned 2007 iPod Touch coating issue.
3) Software side the company has gotten better but I still feel they do not acquitely test their software fixes before they release them. For example, iTunes for PCs. I've lost my library several times from so called "updates" which trashed the library.
4) They are absolute control freaks with their products. They fought against jail breakers and fortunately lost. Apple seems to be a very controlling company with what you can do with their products. I mean if I buy something I should be able to do what I want to it right?
5) They're known to silence critics, as such the 3rd generation iPod Shuffle review iLounge gave it a "C-" and as a result apparently they were denied access to some Apple event. They do a great job at this quite frankly.
6) They are HEAVY moderators on the discussion boards, some things even remotely negative about their products will get deleted even if it is a genuine concern.

I've gotten a little off topic but what I'm saying is Apple would definitely not be a company I would love to see take over the smart phone market by a large majority or any other market for that matter. They make great products sure but they definitely have their share of faults.

 

[doelcm82]

Yeah man, Apple invented rounded corners. How dare anyone use rounded corners on industrial designs since the existence of the square?

If "rounded corners" is your whole argument, you've already lost.

 

[roasted]

The patent system is the problem, not the jury, or Apple/Samsung.
This is a pebble, or maybe a boulder, on a mountain of wrong.

You're definitely right. The patent system is the single most biggest issue I've ever seen. The fact that law suits like this can go on and Apple is continually granted the absolute most ridiculous patents I've ever seen in my life is beyond disturbing.

Hopefully some day we'll get smart and throw that system out the window. The only problem with that is Apple will have no court-based foundation to stand on, thereby removing their prime source of income.

 

[harlequinn]

These laws weren't written to favor one specific company (like Apple, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Wonderbra, whoever).

You are correct, it is designed to protect all large American incumbents and the USA in general, and stifle smaller startups or overseas companies that cannot afford cross-licensing agreements or a massive defensive patent portfolio of their own.

The USA already had a clear system in place for designs and that is the copyright system. Extending patents to cover overly broad and generic designs that offer no technical invention (they are "design patents" that don't cover an invention) was never intended to protect anyone but the USA as a whole.

It's clear why the USA government doesn't review the patent system. Granting as many patents as possible to Americans, even ones that do not deserve patent protection, gives America a huge amount of power in regards to intellectual property. The onus is always on the alleged infringer to prove they are either not infringing or that the patent is invalid, and both are time consuming costly ventures. So anyone trading with America needs to pay respect to (i.e. pay royalties or design around) any American company with the appropriate patent - even if the patent deserves no protection.

 

[MikeX74]

Everybody claiming that the jury was biased should remember that Samsung's lawyers helped pick each juror.

 

[Snowy_River]

I'm not blaming the jurors, I'm blaming the system that put them in this position. I don't think the jury system is the right system for highly technical cases like these. They should have some form of national IP court manned by specialist judges who can hear and decide upon these cases.

PS I wonder if the decision had gone the other way you would be shouting out what a bunch of idiots the jury was, I rather think so.

Actually, the kind of specialized court your talking about does exist. It's part of the patent approval process.

 

[winterspan]

only "generic" in retrospect

.... Apple weren't patenting inventions. They were patenting generic design features. The whole patent system needs overhauling.

I'm feeling mixed emotions.. While most of us NOW take different design features for granted --- multitouch swiping, pinch-to-zoom, the scroll-past-the-end "bounce", etc ---- the fact is that they were quite amazing and innovative when the iPhone came out. NO other Samsung (or other) smartphone on the market was anything like the iPhone. And a few years later, Android through out their original blackberry like design and implemented something very close to the iPhone. Samsung was certainly the most egregious in modifying Android to come even closer to iOS and the iPhone 3G/3GS when it came out.

So while they may be "generic design features" now, how would you feel if you invented them and everyone else copied. Would you feel that they are "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable?

The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface.

Not too mention I'm sure FingerWorks (the mutli-touch company that Apple bought) had a lot of existing patents on this stuff that Apple inherited when they acquired them...

----------

.... Apple weren't patenting inventions. They were patenting generic design features. The whole patent system needs overhauling.

I'm feeling mixed emotions.. While most of us NOW take different design features for granted --- multitouch swiping, pinch-to-zoom, the scroll-past-the-end "bounce", etc ---- the fact is that they were quite amazing and innovative when the iPhone came out. NO other Samsung (or other) smartphone on the market was anything like the iPhone. And a few years later, Android through out their original blackberry like design and implemented something very close to the iPhone. Samsung was certainly the most egregious in modifying Android to come even closer to iOS and the iPhone 3G/3GS when it came out.

So while they may be "generic design features" now, how would you feel if you invented them and everyone else copied. Would you feel that they are "obvious" and shouldn't be patentable?

The only counter-point I can find is prior-art with people like Jeff Han, Microsoft Surface, and other researchers implementing similar features around the time of the iPhone development (2005-2006). However, if they were developed in parallel and Apple got the jump on patenting them then there is not much they can do. I also would think Microsoft Research would have patented everything they did with surface.

Not too mention I'm sure FingerWorks (the mutli-touch company that Apple bought) had a lot of existing patents on this stuff that Apple inherited when they acquired them...

 

[lazard]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

"If the jury instructions [PDF] are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?

Time will tell, but keep in mind that one of the plays you'll see next will likely be a Rule 50(b) motion by Samsung, and that's the one where you ask the judge for various relief on the basis that no reasonable jury could find what it did find on the evidence presented."


"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

"I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages [as PDF], they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.


-----

Should be easy for Samsung to trim down the $1B awarded to Apple.

 

[alhedges]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

"If the jury instructions [PDF] are as long and complex as they were in this case, a quick verdict can indeed mean it shirked its duty. For example, if the jury rushed so much it assigned $2 million dollars to Apple, and then had to subtract it because there was no infringement, it raises a valid question: what was the basis for any of the damages figures the jury came up with? If they had any actual basis, how could they goof like this? Was there a factual basis for any of the damages figures?

Time will tell, but keep in mind that one of the plays you'll see next will likely be a Rule 50(b) motion by Samsung, and that's the one where you ask the judge for various relief on the basis that no reasonable jury could find what it did find on the evidence presented."


"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

"I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages [as PDF], they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.


-----

Should be easy for Samsung to trim down the $1B awarded to Apple.

If you are interested in good legal coverage, don't waste your time with Groklaw - it's a free software advocacy site (which is fine), but their all of their analysis goes through that filter. Which is why they have been so wrong about this case.