Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Refuses Apple Request For Samsung Ban, But Denies New Trial, Too

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the you-may-not-seek-quite-so-much-rent dept.

Patents 156

SternisheFan writes with this news from the Register: "Apple has failed in its attempt to obtain a permanent ban on several Samsung products in the U.S., but Samsung's accusations of jury misconduct have also been rejected. As she has so many times before, Judge Lucy Koh kept things even between Apple and Samsung by rejecting most of their requests. After Apple won $1bn in its patent infringement case against the Korean firm, it set about pursuing another win in the form of permanent injunctions on the products in the case. The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobile phones and tablets in the U.S., but the judge said the company hadn't done enough to legally support such a ban." More details at Groklaw.

cancel ×

156 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Thank the ghods. (4, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325635)

I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.

This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P

Re:Thank the ghods. (4, Funny)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325715)

When Apple's attorneys wanted to submit a huge amount of paperwork evidence, she asked them, "Are you on crack?!"

That's when I got a good feeling about her ability to remain fair and impartial.

Re:Thank the ghods. (4, Informative)

micheas (231635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327427)

The question "Are you on crack?" was not in response to them wanting to submit a huge amount of paperwork. It was about claiming that they could go through a large number of witnesses in the remaining time and that Samsung should have to prepare for them.

The game that they were trying to play was to make Samsung guess which witnesses would be called in the last two days. MoFo (Apple's lawyers) tried this because they were getting away with similar tactics leading up to the trial.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325739)

I don't think that this must be attributed to common sense but to a "I am tired of this apple-samsung bullshit and have other work to do" sense.

Re:Thank the ghods. (5, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325775)

Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.

Re:Thank the ghods. (4, Informative)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325841)

Sad this judge should set a retrial as to how bad the jury screwed up not just with the foreman but as in terms of all the prior art they didn't even bother to look at that instructions said they had to. AN appeal will come from samsung, so as with cases like this its never over for years.

Sigh, this again.

The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325999)

Doh, saw this right after I posted. Exactly. This also explains why she is refusing any current request for a retrial as well. you'd think people can understand the difference between "somewhat frustrated judge" and actually being biased, but apparently not.

Incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326187)

The judge refused Samsung's response to a NEW Apple claim against them, despite this being within time.

Such evidence being for one of the claims that the jury WERE considering infringement.

PS how can they ignore prior art for "non infringement" unless they looked at evidence for the application of the patent (i.e. scoping prior art)?

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326465)

The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

But they jury still somehow managed to award damages even where they said there was no infringement!

Re:Thank the ghods. (4, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326935)

I think the OPs point was that the way the jury behaved was very questionable in many respects. Their verdict was inconsistent with itself and had to be sent back for them to try again not once but multiple times, if I recall correctly. Also, the foreman pretty much admitted to presenting himself as an expert and telling the jurors things that are simply not true about patent law. Not to mention the general bogosity of the patents themselves.

The question here is, if this case is not re-tried and cannot be appealed, what does that say about the reliability of the US legal system? How could anyone sanely subject their company to a jury trial about patents when the process appears to ignore its own rules of engagement?

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327619)

It works very well for preserving the wishes of the rich elite that can hire the lawyer's guild to squash peple they don't like.

Sorry, you thought it was designed to achieve justice?

Government has always been twisted to serve the elite.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

voiceofworldcontrol (1805010) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327013)

The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

This is not correct as Hogan admitted post trial to the many erroneous legal theories that he led the jury into. Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial.

Re:fed law disallowed any consideration of errors (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327131)

"Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial."

Isn't that the loophole of the century? The way to play Jury 2.0? Sneak a biased member onto the jury who says them, and then jury errors don't matter?!

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327785)

Yes, while that's true... it's still misconduct. Just because the jury found no infringement doesn't mean they can ignore evidence, though this is civil, so I suppose there's a bit more leeway.

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327851)

Sigh, this again.

The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

Sigh, this again.

A blatant lie by a fanboy gets modded informative

Go read the transcripts, and the interviews of the lying foreman. Nowhere is said or written that there was no patent infirngement, in fact the ridiculous veridict is only because Hogan convinced the other members of the jury that there was patent infringement and that prior art didn't count.

I know that the truth is the first victim of fanatism, but come on, this is so easy to check that I don't understand why even fanbois would vote you as anything else but a troll.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325985)

why? She's showing signs that she might not even accept damages. She basically said flat out samsung has substantial noninfringing use. That is usually the bar for defining patent infringement in the first place.

So the question is more like "why does she need a retrial if the result is no damages awarded"?

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

NixieBunny (859050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326543)

The last I heard, there was a $1 billion damage award. Has that been overturned while I wasn't looking?

Re:Thank the ghods. (2)

micheas (231635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327581)

No, but the billion dollar award is not official until several motions by Samsung are heard.

On the other hand Apple has been ordered to pay damages for the injunction against the galaxy tab that they got granted.

News reports on the day of the trial: Samsung lost a billion dollars to Apple. Actual payments ordered so far: Apple has to pay 2.6 million (IIRC).

It is far from clear who is going to win this trial, but MoFo has scored some impressive wins for Apple.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327647)

It hasn't been awarded yet, and the judge gets the final say on the amount. Plus, I believe, some of the patents have been invalidated since the trial.

Re:Thank the ghods. (2)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326249)

The jury's verdict meets the reasonable man standard. While the foreman may have been more hostile than warranted and Samsung has grounds to have the evidence looked at, in an appeal the burden will be on Samsung not Apple. I don't see how Samsung, based on what we know at this point can possibly meet that increased burden.

As for prior art, the comments below apply.

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328253)

Very funny... the judge was right to deny Apple's application to ban Samsung's infringing products... and they were wrong to deny Samsung's application for a retrial.

I am certain that had the decision gone the other way there would be an equal number of people protesting that the judge was wrong to grant Apple's application banning Samsung's infringing products and was right to grant Samsung a retrial.

Sometimes it seems as if the only acceptable decision would have been one that denied Apple's application to ban Samsung's infringing products while granting Samsung a retrial.

Personally, I think that this is the best decision... it maintains the juries verdict (that Samsung willfully infringed on Apple's intellectual property), pending an appeal of course, but by not banning Samsung's infringing products it forces Apple to license its intellectual property to its competitors (in much the same way that Samsung has to license its intellectual property on a FRAND basis) or risk having their intellectual property being declared essential to the implementation of multi-touch user interfaces (which which would drop them into the FRAND pit-hole)

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325803)

Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not alive to celebrate his thermonuclear war flops.

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326307)

Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not alive to celebrate his thermonuclear war flops.

Yeah... they could only squeeze a billion dollars in damages out of that verdict... I mean... it's like a token verdict... I mean, Apple technically won, but reality is the damages they were awarded really means they lost. What can you even buy with a billion dollars these days? a cup of coffee? a gumball? a postage stamp? A billion dollars isn't even worth the ink and paper it's printed on! So maybe they can recycle the paper in the money and get something for their troubles... recycled note pads or something...

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326617)

Samsung is going to pull that billion right back out by raising prices on iDevice components for which they are currently the sole source.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326741)

Samsung is going to pull that billion right back out by raising prices on iDevice components for which they are currently the sole source.

'If' Samsung ever has to pay. We have years to go for the appeals process to wind down.

Re:Thank the ghods. (3, Informative)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326769)

Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not alive to celebrate his thermonuclear war flops.

Yeah... they could only squeeze a billion dollars in damages out of that verdict... I mean... it's like a token verdict... I mean, Apple technically won, but reality is the damages they were awarded really means they lost. What can you even buy with a billion dollars these days? a cup of coffee? a gumball? a postage stamp? A billion dollars isn't even worth the ink and paper it's printed on! So maybe they can recycle the paper in the money and get something for their troubles... recycled note pads or something...

Samsung electronics had $148Bn in revenue last year. So let's just say you earned $50k last year; this is like losing a court case about how your work was supposedly derived totally on the designs of someone else, and you being ordered to pay $335 and being told you are OK to keep "doin' your thang".

So the question is, how big of a deal is $335?

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327257)

So the question is, how big of a deal is $335?

Give me $335 and I'll let you know.

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327433)

Also remember that just for Facetime, Apple recently lost over a third of that number.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57547606-37/in-your-facetime-apple-gets-sued-by-virnetx-again/

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327599)

Samsung electronics had $148Bn in revenue last year. So let's just say you earned $50k last year; this is like losing a court case about how your work was supposedly derived totally on the designs of someone else, and you being ordered to pay $335 and being told you are OK to keep "doin' your thang".

So the question is, how big of a deal is $335?

Revenue isn't the important number. Any damages that Samsung has to pay to Apple will come out of their *operating profit*. For Q1-Q3 2012, Samsung reported an operating profit of $18.3 billion. Assume another $5 billion for Q4 (not yet announced) and their total 2012 profit comes to ~$23 billion. So a $1 billion payout to Apple would be about 4% of Samsung's total 2012 profit. No company wants to cough up 4% of its total profits to a competitor. It wouldn't bankrupt them, but it would hurt.

To use your analogy, that would be the equivalent of somebody making $50k having to pony up $2k. Not enough to bankrupt, but certainly enough to sting.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327977)

Samsung electronics had $148Bn in revenue last year. So let's just say you earned $50k last year; this is like losing a court case about how your work was supposedly derived totally on the designs of someone else, and you being ordered to pay $335 and being told you are OK to keep "doin' your thang".

So the question is, how big of a deal is $335?

Revenue isn't the important number. Any damages that Samsung has to pay to Apple will come out of their *operating profit*. For Q1-Q3 2012, Samsung reported an operating profit of $18.3 billion. Assume another $5 billion for Q4 (not yet announced) and their total 2012 profit comes to ~$23 billion. So a $1 billion payout to Apple would be about 4% of Samsung's total 2012 profit. No company wants to cough up 4% of its total profits to a competitor. It wouldn't bankrupt them, but it would hurt.

To use your analogy, that would be the equivalent of somebody making $50k having to pony up $2k. Not enough to bankrupt, but certainly enough to sting.

Bad analogy guy would even disagree with you there. My conversion to a base of $50k was to make it similar to the average US salary (this is gross revenue, not net, so the $335 was appropriate). But let's play it your way... Their electronics division had a net of $12Bn last year (nice and round since there are 12 months in a year). That means they were ordered to basically forego 1 month of profit. So if you think about how much money you blow on worthless things every month (like going to the movies, saving up for a vacation, etc) and you are asked to give that up as a one-time penalty for infringement, how damaging is that?

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328231)

Well, go find some tech CEOs and ask them how they feel about giving up 1 month of profit and get back to us.

My guess that you won't find any who are as nonchalant about the idea as you are. And Samsung will be no different. Because regardless of what percentage it is of their total profit, $1 billion is still real money.

Re:Thank the ghods. (3, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326949)

Yeah... they could only squeeze a billion dollars in damages out of that verdict...What can you even buy with a billion dollars these days?

Very true. Which is why the idiot Steve Jobs said:

"I don't want your money. If you offer me $5bn, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."

So the Judge Koh has denied Steve Job's death wish. Besides, as I understand she has yet to rule on the $1 bn damages figure, arrived at by the jury. And again, even if she upholds it, it looks very likely that Samsung would prevail on an appeal, since many of the underlying patents based on which Apple brought this case, are looking very shaky on review, around the World.

Re:Thank the gods. (2)

mk1004 (2488060) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325899)

I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.

Re:Thank the gods. (1, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325947)

I agree with Judge Koh that the limited infringement doesn't warrant banning Samsung's products. OTOH, Both parties were time constrained, and Samsung didn't get some evidence of prior art submitted, and of course they weren't able to make detailed checks of the jurors. That seems unfair, particularly when the Juror in question seemed to pretty much be boasting about how he manipulated the other jurors.

Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence. Laziness isn't an excuse to change a verdict.

Re:Thank the gods. (4, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326091)

Samsung and Apple had the same deadlines for submitting evidence.

Why do you think that makes things even? The prosecution could take years to prepare a case before submission if they want to. They have all the time in the world. So the defending side obviously will always have less time.

Re:Thank the gods. (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326273)

Apple needed evidence from Samsung, the discovery process. Some of this evidence Samsung destroyed and some of which Samsung handed over late. Apple can make allegations but the actual proof of the process of how Samsung developed their ideas was not something Apple had prior to the case.

Re:Thank the gods. (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326313)

No, but being shorted on time is.

My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.

Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.

Re:Thank the gods. (0)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327957)

No, but being shorted on time is.

My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.

Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.

Let's pretend Samsung didn't have months to present that evidence - then they still had time enough to present that specific piece of evidence in time. Because it was the only device they made themselves.

Re:Thank the gods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326353)

NO patent infringement warrants a product ban. The whole point of patents is to allow others to create products using an invention while rewarding the inventor. It is NOT there to give the inventor exclusive rights to the invention. The only recourse for patent infringement should be monetary payments, and if you don't like it then don't patent your invention, keep it a trade secret.

Re:Thank the gods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326553)

What a laughably stupid statement. The purpose of patents is most certainly NOT to allow others to create products, it is to encourage invention and the release of information. The exact phrase is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Seems to me 'exclusive rights' are exactly what the patent law is there to provide.

Re:Thank the gods. (1)

fangorious (1024903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327643)

What a laughably stupid statement. The purpose of patents is most certainly NOT to allow others to create products, it is to encourage invention and the release of information.

The purpose is to ensure that inventions and works of art are shared, to improve all of society.

The exact phrase is: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Seems to me 'exclusive rights' are exactly what the patent law is there to provide.

See how that starts? "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That's the purpose, promoting progress. The second half, the half that you're focusing on, is how patents accomplish that purpose. By offering a limited time exclusive right. The problem is the limited time is currently 14 years for utility patents and 20 years for design patents. That's several generations of obsolescence in mobile tech. That doesn't promote progress. It promotes a stagnated market with no consumer choice whatsoever. We have an alternative form of intellectual property protection that lets the holder hoard it in private forever. It's called Trade Secret. It would be more in line with the stated purpose of patents to simply require all patent holders to license their patents under FRAND rules.

Re:Thank the ghods. (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326177)

Sense? That judge? Let's keep the trial fair by ignoring everything everyone says and then I won't look bad to the media is not sense, it's bullshit. That jury was the most crooked one I've ever heard of and she's ignoring it so not start another firestorm. Guess what, Apple started it and she has a job to do.

Re:Thank the ghods. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327717)

I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.

This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P

May be you should write to your congressman/senator about this instead of just complaining online.

AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325637)

Sell if you can !!

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325847)

The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.

I hope every sane person will realize that both Apple and Samsung will appeal the rulings. And I agree with the concensus that the just was simply tired of dealing with both parties and the mess that this case had become.

The more interesting rulings over Apple's design patents, though, I hope remain. The matter of jury misconduct, I hope fails. Even if Samsung "should have known" in advance is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The juror did not properly answer the screening questions and thus had violated any oaths and qualifications for being a jurist. Further, the jurist provided his own evidence and became a biased party in the case. In my view, jury misconduct is clear and obvious.

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326595)

In my view

yeah... but... see... your opinion doesn't matter and is likely wildly inaccurate only because you don't know what you're talking about... you don't have the faintest idea of what jury misconduct is and I'm not sure why you think you do... because you have not studied law and passed the bar... because you only have a simplistic and pedestrian understanding of patents and the law. See... um... the judge? She went to law school, and has law experience. She was given authority by the United States Congress to do her job. She's no slouch. You, OTOH, not only have no understanding nor expertise in the matter, you also have no authority mandated by Congress.

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327007)

Worst troll ever.

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327099)

Yeah... I know... the style of writing is pretty identifiable even if it isn't littered with bold headings and a thousand links. The troll is Already Proven Krazy and is best left ignored.

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327791)

Hi, thanks for posting. I'm sure erroneus is as aware as anyone else that has ever read any of his posts that although he often speaks knowledgeably and condescendingly about subjects he has no knowledge of, he really never has any idea of what he's talking about. It's a good bet that he's a teenager, so please cut him some slack.

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327509)

The stock price has dipped according to Google's report when searching "AAPL" however I don't think it's an amount worthy of panic just yet. However the dip would seem to coincide with the news.

Apple's stock has been in free fall for the last couple of months.
They're down to $532 from a September peak of $705.

That's a 25% drop in stock valuation and has nothing to do with the trial.

Re:AAPL HAS CRASHED !! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42328081)

Point taken. I didn't look back that far on the graph. I did also see links to stories talking about the value dropping below $500 for the first time in a long time or something like that. Perhaps a 25% drop *is* something to be concerned about. If I were a shareholder, I think I would be upset.

Why the register? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325661)

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

Re:Why the register? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325693)

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

No kidding.

WTF is a "sammy mobe?"

Does it come with fries?

Re:Why the register? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325793)

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

No kidding.

WTF is a "sammy mobe?"

Does it come with fries?

It get's evern better in TFA; "The Korean firm is no doubt quite chuffed that its mobes and fondleslabs can stay on sale in the US"

Re:Why the register? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326045)

I think that "fondleslab" (ipad) and jesusphone (iphone) are excellent sobriquets for those devices given the worship and adoration your average iSheep's (apple user) view of those devices.

Re:Why the register? (0)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326893)

I think that "fondleslab" (ipad) and jesusphone (iphone) are excellent sobriquets for those devices given the worship and adoration your average iSheep's (apple user) view of those devices.

And here I was thinking that "fondleslab" was the best new word I would learn today, and you go and throw "sobriquet" out there...

Re:Why the register? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42328019)

I think that "fondleslab" (ipad) and jesusphone (iphone) are excellent sobriquets for those devices given the worship and adoration your average iSheep's (apple user) view of those devices.

Opposed to "Samsung Copyly"?

Re:Why the register? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326661)

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

It get is evern better in TFA

I love the smell of ironic aliteracy in the morning!

Re:Why the register? (0)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325753)

Here you go, grouchy can't google it myself AC's... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp [pcmag.com]

Re:Why the register? (3, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325801)

from the PCMag link above: "Among the considerations, "the Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss," Judge Koh said. On the damages front, Apple argued that $1.05 billion alone was not enough, but Judge Koh was not convinced. "Apple's licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it," she wrote. "Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp [pcmag.com]

Re:Why the register? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326577)

Because no other website gets such a raging hard-on over mentioning apple on their front page.

Re:Why the register? (1)

miroku000 (2791465) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327287)

Couldn't you find a source that doesn't sound like it was written by a 14 year old British girl?

Because we all know British people can't speak proper English like Americans?

Re:Why the register? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327531)

My encounters with 14 year old British (Welsh, if you want to be pedantic) girls have left only positive vibes. You must not insult them on Slashdot.

Apple must be wondering... (4, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325673)

... whether all this was worth it.

I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.

I personally doubt that it was worth it.

Re:Apple must be wondering... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325729)

Agreed, but pro se temp can be unfair to all parties involved.

On a more important note, the judge is smokin hot:
http://www.cultofmac.com/185127/u-s-district-judge-lucy-koh-apples-lawyers-are-smoking-crack-in-samsung-case/ [cultofmac.com]

Re:Apple must be wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325871)

Smokin hot seems to be a variable.

Re:Apple must be wondering... (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326337)

No. She is female and asian. For some that means smokin hot. But when you place her within the spectrum of asian woman? She scores rather low.

http://www.macworld.com.au/news/apple-vs-samsung-patent-trial-judge-wants-court-to-stay-awake-69231/ [macworld.com.au]

She is a 4 at best.

Re:Apple must be wondering... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325763)

I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.

You assume that they work on something more than just gut feeling.

They are probably thinking that this was a bad luck and have already moved on.

Re:Apple must be wondering... (3, Insightful)

venicebeach (702856) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325967)

Perhaps they will factor in the one billion dollars they won.

Re:Apple must be wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325989)

... whether all this was worth it.

I mean, Apple executives will be asking themselves whether the publicity given to Samsung, is worth the time/cash spent on the trial.

I personally doubt that it was worth it.

While Apple's attorneys' fees amount to a small fortune, I seriously doubt that number even approached $1B. Even with $120B in cash, I personally believe Apple will see the at least $700M (a guess at what's left after paying lawyers) is not nothing.

Re:Apple must be wondering... (4, Interesting)

gutnor (872759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326033)

Apparently the publicity works both ways, so much that the judge in the UK requested Apple to put the disclaimer on their home page. (reasoning was that the publicity of Apple victories in other countries of the world was impacting negatively the judgement in favor of Samsung)

The real confirmed loser here is the rest of the Android makers. In small mobile shop, 3/4 of the shelves are filled with Samsung models, I don't remember having seen a brand so dominating the shelve space before. IMO that is not good for Android to have only Samsung and Amazon as steward, but I have been told that's ok because the Galaxy S3 is a great phone :-/

Re:Apple must be wondering... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327703)

You're assuming it was about the money. It wasn't about the money. It was about sending a message to anyone else who wanted to copy Apple's industrial designs, etc. Samsung had virtually infinite resources to defend itself, still lost the case, and will have to pony up $1 BILLION dollars barring a successful appeal.

Any other company in the world will now look at that case and ask, "is copying Apple's design worth risking a legal fight against a company that has a $100+ billion dollar war chest, and which will cost us probably a hundred million dollars in lawyer fees minimum and which could cost us a possible $1 billion dollar damage award if we lose?" Any sane CEO with fewer resources than Samsung had will conclude that the answer is no. "Message received, Mister Cook."

If that's the case, Apple's executives will consider it all time and cash very well spent.

Denied (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325691)

Should have sued in East Texas. Both of them. Each other. That way both of them would have won: Apple their injunction and billion dollars, Samsung their injunction rejection and erasure of the billion dollars. Both happy :) Hang on...

English please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325705)

Sammy mobes? seriously?

Samsung drops Apple injunctions in Europe (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325717)

Re:Samsung drops Apple injunctions in Europe (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326615)

In other words they felt they were going to lose.

Apple is evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325759)

And if you buy their products, you support evil.

Re:Apple is evil (1)

noh8rz8 (2716593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42325895)

The only true evil in the world today is the Taliban. Everything else is hyperbole.

Re:Apple is evil (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326839)

You're sure about that? The various holdings of the Rothschild clan seems pretty frigging evil to me. The Taliban can't start and end world wide recessions and depressions, after all. The Rothschild clan can, and has.

Slashdot objectivity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42325949)

On most sites, the subject of this topic is reversed: "Judge says no to retrial, but also says no to ban"

You really think the potential reversal of a $1B penalty is somehow lesser to getting a ban with all bark and not bite approved?

Wake up slashdot, you're losing what little objectivity you had,

fuck this (4, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326027)

I just read the words "sammy mobes" on slashdot...fuck..you...brain...hurts

Re:fuck this (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326239)

Sounds like a character from The Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins and Sammy Mobes set out on an adventure.

the fruity submitter ate a turd and liked it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326155)

The fruity firm wanted a California court to stop sales of the Sammy mobes and tablets in the US,

fuck you, moron

A pretty good job (3, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326223)

I think the judge here has handled this rather well. With the exception of the handling of the F700 evidence, I think the entire case was handled rather well. There were major breakthroughs on patent issues where MeeGo (now Sailfish), Windows 8, and BBOS (9 and 10). Many of the specific patent issues were ruled on.

Taking these bans off the table is a very good thing. While I think Samsung most certainly engaged in patent violations and deserve the penalty, they aren't a criminal enterprise, they are going to pay reasonable fines and comply with the law.

Re:A pretty good job (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326629)

I think you didn't understand the judge's rulings on the issue of design patents. They were all essentially ruled invalid. This, of course, will be appealed by Apple. But the judge's remarks on the matter make plain sense. The design elements essentially lack "design." Sure, the design of Apple's devices capitalize on simple, clean appearance and construction, but the other side of that approach is that it moves in the direction of "functional design" which is not patentable.

And because so much of Apple's case has been called into question (to put it mildly) the awards in the case will have to be reassessed. And given that the methods of calculation for the damage awards were so... well, "weird" and inconsistent, there will be no effective means to update the damages award to match the updated infringement rulings. This will then require a new trial.

Re:A pretty good job (1)

CaptBubba (696284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327079)

That brings forth a real interesting legal question. Design patents protect ornamental design, but how does that relate to design which is characterized by a lack of ornamentation? If you include an inlay in a bezel around a screen that is clearly an ornamental design, but is a design which specifically includes no inlay also ornamental in nature and deserving of protection? What if that piece provides a function, but the function is not dependent upon the lack of ornamentation (an inlaid bezel works just as well as a plain one for providing gripping space and room for electrical connections around a screen).

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" but it would be interesting to see an actual ruling on these issues.

Re:A pretty good job (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327249)

That is what I was driving at. A design patent is essentially a copyright as far as I can tell. I know, they aren't the same, but still. We're talking about a design, in this case, which is essentially the most elementary implementation and application of the materials used to construct the thing. Glass is most often flat. How can that be part of a design patent? The shape is rectangular and necessarily has rounded corners of no specific design. However, rounded corners serves the function of durability, comfort and perhaps even safety. Hard to imagine that being patented anywhere, let along "...on a handheld mobile device." And black in color? Sorry, but whoever the patent examiner was on that patent needs to be examined.

Patents must be non-obvious. Ultra-simple designs would seem to fit neatly within that failure.

Re:A pretty good job (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327151)

No I don't follow.

Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?

Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.

etc...

Re:A pretty good job (1)

miroku000 (2791465) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327363)

No I don't follow.

Take bounce back. Clearly Samsung implemented bounce back, clearly the jury found the Samsung mechanism was closely enough to Apple's to violate the patents. How does this not get upheld?

Look and feel issues like home button, rounded corners, tapered edges... that is making a product that appears to similar to another competing product. That sort of thing gets enforced all the time. Fake watches, fake coats, fake purses, There is nothing unusual there.

etc...

No. You are free to copy the *exact* design for a coat except for a trademarked logo. If you want to compare fashion to this case, it would mean that Samsung would be allowed to copy everything about the i* design except the Apple Logo. Watch this video for details on how the fashion industry has no copyright protection at all: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html [ted.com]

Re:A pretty good job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327409)

This isn't a pair of fake nikes

This is more like a pair of sketchers being infringement because they both have treads

Re:A pretty good job (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327677)

That was Samsung's case. It was tried in multiple courts and found to be false.

Re:A pretty good job (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327493)

The software patent on bounce-back was ruled invalid in other courts. It will likely fail in any appeals.

The design patents were argued down by the judge in her commentary regarding the non-specific language describing the patent.

Re:A pretty good job (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327753)

I'm not sure I agree. Your argument is that the jury ruled wrongly. If the judge had felt that there Apple had failed to make their case she shouldn't have let it go to the jury. This strikes me as a rather subjective matter of fact, exactly what an appeals court is likely to defer to the jury. But I guess we shall see.

Will it really be $1bn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326357)

I'm not sure about the US legal system in this regard, but is the $1.05bn figure (arrived at by the Jury) now a fixed "fine" or is it just a figure used by the judge to decide what penalty to impose?
Kinda like the jury gives the Judge a guideline, but she is the one that finally decides what the judgement and amount will be.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42326749)

I love it when businesses use taxpayer money to increase a CEO's profits at no benefit to the consumer or employees whatsoever.

Jury in a civil case? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42326947)

Why do the US even have a jury in civil cases?

Re:Jury in a civil case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42327837)

It's a right guaranteed in our Constitution.

Largely it's a form of legal sniff test: "Can you present your case well enough that 12 random people off the street think the defendant is guilty? If not, no conviction."

In low profile cases (traffic violations, small claims civil matters, etc.) the right is often waived because the defendant doesn't want to bother with the extra hassle, but it is still something the defendant can demand if they so choose.

TED talk wowed audience before Apple patent? (1)

jeffbuhrt (2797789) | about a year and a half ago | (#42327613)

Did Jeff Han's 2006 TED talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ [youtube.com] inspire the patents? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20073461-264/apples-new-multitouch-patent-faq/ [cnet.com] implies the TED talk was shown in court, but then ignored.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>