Apple vs Samsung - Jury awards Apple with 1B in Damages

[generator_g1]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/24/appl ... -decision/

The federal court jury in the patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung has presented its verdict after deliberating for just 21 hours and 37 minutes following the three week trial. This particular case started with Apple's lawsuit last April and now the jury's decision is that Samsung did infringe on Apple's '381 bounceback patent with all 21 of its products in question. For the '915 patent on pinch-and-zoom, the jury ruled all but three of the devices listed infringed, and more damningly, found that Samsung executives either knew or should have known their products infringed on the listed patents. The jury has also found against Samsung when it comes to Apple's contours on the back of the iPhone and its home screen GUI. The Galaxy Tab, was found not to have infringed upon Apple's iPad design patents. The bad news for Samsung continued however, as the jury decided that not only did it willfully infringe on five of the seven Apple patents, but also upheld their validity when it came to utility, design and trade dress.

The amount of the damages against Samsung is in: $1,051,855,000.00 (see below). That's less than half of the $2.5 billion it was seeking, but still more than enough to put an exclamation point on this victory for the team from Cupertino. The final number is $1,049,343,540, after the judge found an issue with how the jury applied damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE and Intercept. The jury also ruled that Apple did not infringe upon Samsung's patents with the iPhone 3G and 3GS, and has awarded it zero dollars in damage. We'll have more information for you as it become available.

Update: Both companies have released statements on the matter, with Apple stating via the New York Times the ruling sends a loud and clear message that "stealing isn't right." Samsung has its own viewpoint calling this "a loss for the American consumer" that will lead to fewer choices, less innovation and high prices. You can see both in their entirety after the break.

Apple:

We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

Samsung:
Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer

[weemadando]

Regardless of what you think of the participants, I think this says it all about the Jury:

RT @LiamPomfret 109 pages of jury instructions and 700 questions to answer, yet the #applesamsung jury only took 22 hours? I smell a rat.

RT @LiamPomfret According to the #applesamsung jury, Apple did not infringe any of Samsungs patents. Apple itself had agreed in court it had infringed some.

[Mr Bean]

This entire verdict just furthers my call for patent reform when the fucking contours were a point of discussion. I can't believe a shape as generic as a rectangle can be patented.

[bilateralrope]

There are a lot of oddities with this jury verdict. I'm not quoting the whole blog post, since it's mainly quoting other articles each pointing out other problems.

I can't see this verdict standing.

[generator_g1]

I'm not familiar with how the jury system works in the state but maybe the recent ruling for Samsung and Apple in South Korea may have influenced the jury somehow?

[Ford Prefect]

The things I would do to be Apple's lawyer right now, with something as minimal as a 10% costs agreement.

[Lost Soal]

Oddities is putting it mildly. The Jury awarded damages for patents it said that Samsung did not infringe upon.
Why do I have a feeling the Jury went in there thinking "I like Apple. Apple's American. How much shall we give them?"

[DaveJB]

It sounds like Samsung's legal team also made some major screw-ups during the case, which probably made the jury ill-disposed toward them. While I don't see the verdict being completely overturned (mostly for political reasons), I'd imagine the damages will be substantially reduced by the time all this is over.

Still, for all the stuff that Apple has unjustifiably claimed to have invented, I have to laugh at the number of people who seem under the impression that they invented patent trolling, when companies going around suing each other for patent infringement on the slimmest of reasons has been part and parcel of the tech industry since forever. Heck, it's not even as if the whole Rambus and SCO affairs were that long ago, right?

[Irbis]

Oddities is putting it mildly. The Jury awarded damages for patents it said that Samsung did not infringe upon.
Why do I have a feeling the Jury went in there thinking "I like Apple. Apple's American. How much shall we give them?"

This. IMHO, if the jury was actually made from Apple staff, if would deliver less biased verdict than this

[Vendetta]

It turns out that jury trial is a pretty terrible way to decide patent law, and it might be better to have arbitration by an expert panel in instances like this.

But then we all knew that from basically every other internet and software patent case ever, right?

[Alyeska]

The Jury foreman was a freaking patent holder and wanted to punish Samsung to send a message. Other jurrors admit to relying on the foreman for his technical expertise and that he drove the entire deliberation process.

So in short we have a verdict from a single angry person who wanted to punish Samsung and used his exptetise to manipulate everyone else.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... a-message/

[weemadando]

Well, I can't see that not getting overturned at appeal, especially after the jury have come out and talked about it like that.

But then again, is that even deemed relevant in the civil appeals process?

[Flagg]

Well, I can't see that not getting overturned at appeal, especially after the jury have come out and talked about it like that.

But then again, is that even deemed relevant in the civil appeals process?

I would hope so considering the fact that the guy gave testimony in the jury room.

[General Zod]

It turns out that jury trial is a pretty terrible way to decide laws.

Fixed that for you.

[DPDarkPrimus]

It turns out that jury trial is a pretty terrible way to decide laws.

Fixed that for you.

Shouldn't you have changed it into something about how terrible US patent law is to begin with?