Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict

[trouble747]

I've still not read a single post which explains why this is a bad idea other than narrow minded nationalism.

Maybe it's not a "bad" idea, it's just an incredibly unrealistic one. Why doesn't everyone follow the same laws, is basically what you're asking. At that point, there's no point to distinguishing between countries.

But I am quite glad that I am not subject to the laws of certain other countries on this planet, and that country's inhabitants might feel the same (or agree, and wish they could live somewhere else!).

 

[TMay]

As someone who has been studying patent litigation, would you be able to comment on whether Apple's offer to settle was reasonable? From here in the cheap seats, yeah, it was a settlement offer but so high it wasn't serious.

(As much as I've been supporting Apple's patents here, I'm still hoping that the result is a fair agreement to both sides - the most general gesture patents licensed at a nominal fee, some specific elements like bounceback reserved for Apple, and a general "let's not try to make our phones look like each other" agreement.)

The rumor was that the offer was $250 M. If so, that would be a $5 for a current years production of 50 million units.

Only, Samsung is selling close to 100 million units a year. Maybe Samsung in 2010 wasn't appreciative of the pricing at that time, and my guess is that the fees will now be higher, if Apple licenses at all.

 

[trouble747]

They take it so personally, because of the massive amount of Steve Jobs marketing.

Oh, there's plenty of lamenting for poor Samsung here. So that doesn't really explain it...

 

[kdarling]

I haven't been following the case as closely as you guys here, but was Samsung ever interested in negotiating the use of the patented items? Apples offer may have been high, but did Samsung counter offer? Did they even attempt to negotiate or did hey have no interest at all in paying to use apples patents?

From what I can tell, Samsung did the same thing that Apple did when Samsung tried to license them their 3G patents: they both refused to negotiate.

Both companies apparently thought it was better to try to challenge patent validity and infringement first. In other words, why pay any royalty if you don't have to.

 

[nexusrule]

MS's cost structure includes IP so It is a level playing field for Apple and MS, albeit a different business model. MS has licenses with approximately 70% of Android OEM's, and I'm guessing that this win for Apple will drive the balance to license MS IP.

Whether Apple licenses it's IP to Android OEM's is up in the air.

My opinion is that Apple is licensing to other too. Why? When other phone maker doesn't copy package, charger, cables, design of their phone, they are also going to sell to a different set of people and they are not stealing what Apple see like its "hard work". Licensing means apple make moneys from people it would have probably never bought its product. Being a design company I think it's fair for them to try to protect design work. If this has the right to be defendend or not it's up to the law.

----------

I don't see what this has to do with an international patent court. Most of the world are able to agree on matters pertaining to climate change so why can't they agree on an international patent system. I've still not read a single post which explains why this is a bad idea other than narrow minded nationalism.

I was referring to the many trials done against dictator since the IIWW.

I already explained because what you want it's not being done.

Nations don't "easily" agree even to climate change and similar matters; it tooks years, maybe decades so that they sort of agreed on some principles, despite the problem affect billions of people health in underdeveloped countries and will affect all of use in a matter of years). In fact, even now, the bigger polluters are against it (china is against. u.s.a were with bush, don't know with obama, they will for sure with romney). So, even this "simple" problems it's not solved at all.

To get to some shared principles about human rights it took more than one genocide (millions of people killed more than once). Then you have nations like UK that today fight to bring Assange in U.S.A. and years ago left Pinochet go back in Chile where it would have been untochable.

Now, given the state of the world, how this things works, how this Apple.vs Samsung probem doesn't actually affect nobody, thinking about an international patent jury is delusional/utopistic at least. It won't never happen.

 

[trouble747]

From what I can tell, Samsung did the same thing that Apple did when Samsung tried to license them their 3G patents: they both refused to negotiate.

Both companies thought it was better to try to challenge patent validity and infringement first. In other words, why pay a royalty if you don't have to.

Exactly. Which doesn't make anyone a big bad meanie, but suggests a business strategy based on the rules of the game that everyone knows they're playing by.

 

[nexusrule]

They take it so personally, because of the massive amount of Steve Jobs marketing.

Exactly. In the same way android "people" thake it so personally because Google firstly targeted Android as the open-source-for-real-engineer vs. walled-garden-for-jailed-users smartphone system with a good marketing move.

 

[kdarling]

As someone who has been studying patent litigation, would you be able to comment on whether Apple's offer to settle was reasonable? From here in the cheap seats, yeah, it was a settlement offer but so high it wasn't serious.

Apple's presentation offer to Samsung was a royalty rate of $30 per phone and $40 per tablet, with discounts for cross licensing, using Windows Phone (licensed OS) instead of Android, not using their designs, etc:

 

[TMay]

From what I can tell, Samsung did the same thing that Apple did when Samsung tried to license them their 3G patents: they both refused to negotiate.

Both companies thought it was better to try to challenge patent validity and infringement first. In other words, why pay a royalty if you don't have to.

Unsaid is that Samsung's IP is FRAND, so in most jurisdictions, the last avenue for the parties would be for the court to determine licensing fees. In Korea, the court went from from a failed negotiation to an injunction, which may create some trade problems not to mention political problems for South Korea.

Whatever happens, it might be easier for Apple to abandon the Korean market until the WTO or some other international trade organizations determine the legality of the injunction.

It's isn't like you don't know this.

 

[nexusrule]

Exactly. Which doesn't make anyone a big bad meanie, but suggests a business strategy based on the rules of the game that everyone knows they're playing by.

Explain that to the fanatics of both empires. I follow this website since at least 1999 and never registered or commented before this trial, reading all these people getting hot about corporations profits and patents drive me crazy. Just when the Mac vs. PC ******** (the people diatribe not the tv spots) seemed to be put to an end…

 

[fly75]

I think the patent system is broken for a reason. If one of us here came up with something innovative in the tech industry, but Apple copied us and sold millions...leaving us with nothing....don't you think that you would be glad it protected you?

Even if you as the inventor were able to successfully establish the patent (it's who files first, not who actually invents), you as an individual would be at an economic disadvantage when it came to defending your patent against a large corporation.

I think patents are made for smaller people than larger folk..actually. To long did we have a history of the richer, more powerful folk just copy and destroy lives.

Too bad the game is now about building suitable portfolio patents so that you can negotiate cross licensing agreements from a position of strength. Even supposed foes like Apple, Samsung, and Google are bidding as part of a consortium to acquire the rights to Kodak patents.

 

[gnasher729]

How is this high profile ? Notice that in 2010, they filed against Apple too and Apple settled. "Straight copying of NTP IP!".

RIM was forced to pay several hundred million dollars to NTP. That was _huge_. Maybe not on MacRumors, but for anyone with a slightly broader view of things it was absolutely huge. Especially unfortunate for RIM since they managed to invalidate many of NTPs patents later on.

As someone who has been studying patent litigation, would you be able to comment on whether Apple's offer to settle was reasonable? From here in the cheap seats, yeah, it was a settlement offer but so high it wasn't serious.

The fact that it was very high, too high for Samsung, doesn't mean it wasn't serious. The offer was "for this much money we will give up the competitive advantage that we have from exclusive use of the technology". Since Samsung wanted the technology without paying, whatever price Apple asked for was too much for them.

Too bad the game is now about building suitable portfolio patents so that you can negotiate cross licensing agreements from a position of strength. Even supposed foes like Apple, Samsung, and Google are bidding as part of a consortium to acquire the rights to Kodak patents.

That's some rather simple maths. Take the court decision we just got. So the lawyers both at Apple and at Google figure out "if Apple owns these patents then they can force Google to pay $1bn; if Google owns these patents then they can force Apple to pay $1bn". So for each company it makes sense to buy the patents for $2bn, and it costs both the winner and the loser in the auction $1bn, with a huge risk. By buying the patents together, they get them much much cheaper.

 

[trouble747]

Explain that to the fanatics of both empires. I follow this website since at least 1999 and never registered or commented before this trial, reading all these people getting hot about corporations profits and patents drive me crazy. Just when the Mac vs. PC ******** (the people diatribe not the tv spots) seemed to be put to an end…

Oh yeah I've seen it. Equally strange are all of the posts that seem to suggest that some people aren't aware we are discussing for-profit businesses. "Apple charges too much for their products!" (Read: "Mean!").

Well, don't buy them. They're priced by what the market will bear. There's no moral imperative that a manufacturer of smartphones must only accept enough profits to keep the lights on.

 

[GadgetDon]

Unsaid is that Samsung's IP is FRAND, so in most jurisdictions, the last avenue for the parties would be for the court to determine licensing fees. In Korea, the court went from from a failed negotiation to an injunction, which may create some trade problems not to mention political problems for South Korea.

Whatever happens, it might be easier for Apple to abandon the Korean market until the WTO or some other international trade organizations determine the legality of the injunction.

It's isn't like you don't know this.

Also unsaid is that Apple didn't implement 3G on themselves, but bought the module from Intel who paid the license fee on the module. Samsung was just trying to double-dip.

 

[DeathChill]

Apple has brought more litigation to the phone arena that we've ever seen in the last couple of years.

Is that actually true? Wasn't there an image made showing who was suing who in the mobile industry because there's so many lawsuits? As well, I believe Apple became the most sued company in tech after the iPhone was released, no?

 

[pdjudd]

Is that actually true? Wasn't there an image made showing who was suing who in the mobile industry because there's so many lawsuits? As well, I believe Apple became the most sued company in tech after the iPhone was released, no?

I think a lot of those suits started after Apple filed their first suit.

 

[trouble747]

Is that actually true? Wasn't there an image made showing who was suing who in the mobile industry because there's so many lawsuits? As well, I believe Apple became the most sued company in tech after the iPhone was released, no?

Apple apparently 'started it' by being a defendant in a prior suit. That is, by being sued, Apple started a wave of smartphone-related lawsuits. Or something.

Look it up! Prior to the invention and production of smartphones, there was practically zero smartphone-related litigation. A conspiracy is clear afoot.

 

[subsonix]

Is that actually true? Wasn't there an image made showing who was suing who in the mobile industry because there's so many lawsuits? As well, I believe Apple became the most sued company in tech after the iPhone was released, no?

Yes, nyt made an illustrative image on the situation in 2010, everyone is suing everyone, pretty much.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/

 

[GadgetDon]

Apple apparently 'started it' by being a defendant in a prior suit. That is, by being sued, Apple started a wave of smartphone-related lawsuits. Or something.

Look it up! Prior to the invention and production of smartphones, there was practically zero smartphone-related litigation. A conspiracy is clear afoot.

Well, to be fair, Apple did sort of drop the gauntlet in the product launch, "and boy have we patented it". One could have viewed that as a warning to "go ahead and let it spur you creating new cool stuff but don't copy", but those who believe there was an absolute right to make use of anything Apple created, it was clearly attempted extortion and a bullying threat.

 

[webbuzz]

Can you name any high profile lawsuits before Apple v. Everyone Else in the cell phone and smartphone industry ? Seems to me before Apple entered with their "no licensing our IP!", everyone else was quite happy cross-licensing and forming cooperative patent licensing pools.

In the early to late 1990's, there were a lot of lawsuits between handset manufacturers, chip manufacturers, and infrastructure equipment manufacturers.

Motorola, L.M. Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, and Qualcomm were involved in many of those. One of the notable lawsuits was Motorola Vs. Qualcomm. Motorola alleged that the Q Phone violated design patents and infringed on it's trade dress of the StarTac.

Search Justia with your device manufacturer of choice, and view intellectual property lawsuits in the United States. You can filter by patent, copyright, and trademark if you wish.

 

[Scythe5]

Even if you as the inventor were able to successfully establish the patent (it's who files first, not who actually invents), you as an individual would be at an economic disadvantage when it came to defending your patent against a large corporation.

WRONG! In the US at least. The US is going to a first to file system, but not until 16 March 2013. Until that date, the US is still operating on a first to invent system.

 

[GadgetDon]

In the early to late 1990's, there were a lot of lawsuits between handset manufacturers, chip manufacturers, and infrastructure equipment manufacturers.

Motorola, L.M. Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, and Qualcomm were involved in many of those. One of the notable lawsuits was Motorola Vs. Qualcomm. Motorola alleged that the Q Phone violated design patents and infringed on it's trade dress of the StarTac.

Search Justia with your device manufacturer of choice, and view intellectual property lawsuits in the United States. You can filter by patent, copyright, and trademark if you wish.

You must be mistaken, or justia must be mistaken. Only Apple would be so EVIL and BULLYING and MEAN to sue over trade dress.

 

[trouble747]

In the early to late 1990's, there were a lot of lawsuits between handset manufacturers, chip manufacturers, and infrastructure equipment manufacturers.

Motorola, L.M. Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, and Qualcomm were involved in many of those. One of the notable lawsuits was Motorola Vs. Qualcomm. Motorola alleged that the Q Phone violated design patents and infringed on it's trade dress of the StarTac.

Search Justia with your device manufacturer of choice, and view intellectual property lawsuits in the United States. You can filter by patent, copyright, and trademark if you wish.

He hasn't heard of those so they don't count.

 

[phpmaven]

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.

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

[gwsat]

Well, to be fair, Apple did sort of drop the gauntlet in the product launch, "and boy have we patented it". One could have viewed that as a warning to "go ahead and let it spur you creating new cool stuff but don't copy", but those who believe there was an absolute right to make use of anything Apple created, it was clearly attempted extortion and a bullying threat.

In case Apple's verdict against Samsung didn't educate us, patent litigation has been a powerful tool for revenue enhancement for many years. For example, poor little at-death's-door TiVo has managed to stay afloat lo these many years because of the patent infringement lawsuits it has won against its competitors. The lesson here is that if a company builds and comprehensively patents a breakthrough device, its competitors copy it at their peril. I strongly suspect that the companies other than Samsung who market Android smartphones must be shaking in their boots right now.