Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Jury Rules Samsung Must Pay Apple $290 Million in Damages Retrial

The jury has reached a verdict in the damages retrial between Samsung and Apple that began last week. The trial was to determine the amount of money Samsung must pay for copying key iPhone features and design elements after Samsung was found guilty in a jury trial last year.

The jury found Samsung liable for $290 million in damages, according to IDG News reporter Martyn Williams. During its opening statements, Apple asked for $379 million in damages, while Samsung said it only owed $52 million.

apple_samsung_logos
Last year, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple a total of $1.05 billion after a jury found the South Korean company guilty of willfully violating multiple Apple patents. Back in March, Judge Lucy Koh struck $450 million from the $1 billion awarded to Samsung after deciding the jury may have miscalculated the damages due to a misunderstanding of patent issues.

The remaining approximately $600 million in damages was left intact by Judge Koh, and Samsung will have to pay a total of $890 million.

During the retrial, Apple brought Phil Schiller, senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing to the stand where he explained how Apple's marketing strategy worked and how Samsung's infringement caused consumers to "question our design skills in a way they never used to."

Update: Apple issued this statement to AllThingsD following the verdict:
"For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money," Apple said in a statement to AllThingsD. "It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love. While it’s impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost."

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

10 months ago
They won't change. Shamsung will continue to make profits from ill-gotten gains and pay the fines and still make money.
Rating: 19 Votes
10 months ago
Awaits Samsung appeal and a retrail of the retrail of the trial.
Rating: 19 Votes
10 months ago
Eat that, uninspired Korean copycats.
Rating: 19 Votes
10 months ago
Now Apple can use that $890 million to fund the other Apple vs Samsung trial coming next year
Rating: 14 Votes
10 months ago

Needs to be WAY more than that considering Samsung got where they are basically by ripping off everything from Apple.

Make it BILLION and then we'll talk.


Not sure how much Samsung is ripping off since my Note 3 has a TON more features than the iPhone will ever have.
Rating: 11 Votes
10 months ago
I want to see the breakdown award per patent.

Remember, this trial was only over 21 million Samsung phones and a few hundred thousand original tablets.

And the utility patents were about minor software features that Samsung hasn't infringed on in well over a year now.

What a strange world where software fluff... unnecessary to make a phone... is supposedly worth a large award per device, while essential radio patents with real R&D investment behind them are claimed to be worth only pennies.

Judge Posner was right. Untrained judges and juries should not decide technical patent matters, and software patents need to either disappear or be highly time limited.
Rating: 9 Votes
10 months ago
Samsung probably budgeted for Apple lawsuits in their Cost-Benefit analysis. They found a working formula and will continue to exploit it for short-term gains. Shamelessly.
Rating: 9 Votes
10 months ago
Needs to be WAY more than that considering Samsung got where they are basically by ripping off everything from Apple.

Make it BILLION and then we'll talk.
Rating: 8 Votes
10 months ago

I don't understand Schiller's comment that Samsung's infringement caused people to "question our design skills". How so? How would copycat phones make people think less of Apple's design? If anything, wouldn't copying be a form of flattery?

Does he mean that people thought Apple was copying Samsung instead of vice versa? That doesn't make sense. Or that they started questioning the screen size of the iPhone? That's true, but it has nothing to do with Samsung's infringement. I really can't make sense of his remark.

Aside from being confusing, Schiller's comment makes Apple look weak. I know he is trying to establish that Samsung harmed their business in order to run up the damages, but saying that Samsung made people lose faith in Apple's design skills sounds as though Apple themselves lacks confidence. As an Apple fan, the whole comment rubs me the wrong way.


He was probably upset that the consumer dare think:

1. Hey..., somebody can make a decent touch phone that works with App's cheaper [cheaper and multiple options] than Apple say they can.
2. Hey..., it uses an OS which is not controlled and restricted at times like something out of 1984.
3. Hey ..., it also has other features that Apple does not believe in and so want me to also dismiss, even if I think they are good ideas.
4. Hey..., I get a choice of handset sizes which do the same things, Apple don't do that (yet...)
5. And so on....

Apple appear to fear too much choice and competition.

They have been in control since the iPod and iTunes launched and seem to have forgot what competition looked like.

They are starting to sound like IBM and Microsoft when the pressure was on.

Samsung Troll Disclaimer: I have owned iPhones since 2007 and never owned a Samsung phone. However, I am not so far up Apples backside to know Samsung make good phones for whom who's requirements it meets.
Rating: 8 Votes
10 months ago

Samsung will probably just copy the Nickel (5¢) and try to pay Apple with a truckload of those. :rolleyes:


If Samsung copied the nickel, it come in three different size (the size of a quarter, the size of a half-dollar, and the size of a silver dollar), cost 4¢ retail, be constantly on sale somewhere for 3¢, made of plastic, require a compainion coin in order to spend fully, and banks would refuse to exchange it for newer samsung nickels a week later.
Rating: 7 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]