Judge Lucy Koh ruled in a court filing (via The Verge) tonight that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents. This decision denies any additional damages to the $1.05 billion awarded to Apple last August.
As this is the sum total of Apple's arguments and evidence that Samsung's infringement was willful, the Court cannot conclude that Apple has met its burden to show willfulness by clear and convincing evidence.
Samsung argued that they had reason to believe that Apple's patents were invalid and therefore did not willfully infringe Apple patents. Judge Koh ultimately concluded that there had been no willful infringement but did not overturn the validity of Apple's patents.
Judge Koh also denied Samsung's bid for a new trial, saying that "the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied on both sides." She went on to write that "a new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice."
If Samsung had been found to be willfully infringing Apple patents their penalty might have ballooned well over $1.05 billion that they must pay Apple. In December, Judge Koh had denied another Samsung retrial request based on juror misconduct. The decision is yet another milestone in the long saga that is Samsung v. Apple.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)...
... yeah.
But as the other poster says -- Samsung IS built on ripping off other products. They don't play 'fair'. They take calculated risks and pour their resources into it. They got lucky with the battery industry -- one of the first markets that they flooded their 'crap' into. The quality of their products however, is something to consider. They don't make absolute crap stuff (like a lot of Chinese companies do when they flood markets) but then again they don't make the absolute best stuff either, unless you're talking about the components industry (where they seem to produce some of the best components because of the research and development they put into it).
They gamble. A lot. For the past few years, they've been lucky at it too -- after batteries came lighting. From their lighting industry they started building TVs. They have enough money to play dirty and take huge risks where other companies can't afford to.
In the cellphone industry they designed their phones after EVERY popular phone that was trending at the time. They copied the RazR, the BB and of course, the iPhone because a lot of people don't know better.
Are they evil? Depends on how you perceive 'fair' in the giant corporate space. Because they actually put a enough (just enough) quality in their products, consumers can't say they're evil.
To corporations however, they're a NECESSARY evil because of their research and technology. Just ask Apple and everyone else who relies on them.
Oh well..... Legal BS( not because Apple lost, but because I don't understand it).
No I do not know that because I don't understand it. I am not saying change the ruling. I do not care that Samsung won or complaining that Apple lost because Apple is the best and Samsung is evil.....This discussion makes no sense, and you know that. We do not change the verdict, which in this case, is a good thing.
It's the fact Samsung's defense was they infringed on the patents because they believed they were invalid. Is that really a good excuse to use to show that you didn't willfully infringed on a persons patent? Hence why I am asking for an explanation which you aren't doing.
Then you know more than the Judge. iLOL
It's not what I am getting in this situation which no one is explaining. Samsung's defense was that they didn't believe Apple's patents are valid so they ignored them and infringed them( which I think is a BS excuse to infringe on patents. It's like I don't believe a law is valid so I am going to ignore it). That shows that they willfully infringed on those patents since they were valid upon infringement and then backed up by her ruling.....If Samsung believed Apple's patents were invalid, then they should have challenged them without infringing them( maybe Samsung was the anonymous challenge with the patent office....)