Samsung yesterday confirmed it will challenge the $119.6 million verdict in the second Apple versus Samsung patent infringement trial, claiming the decision was “unsupported by evidence." According to Bloomberg, Samsung will ask Judge Lucy Koh to reduce the damages to zero and will follow with an appeal if this initial request is denied.
/article-new/2013/10/apple_samsung_logos.jpg?lossy)
After several days of deliberations and weeks of testimony, the jury found that Samsung willfully infringed on three of the five Apple patents involved in the lawsuit and ordered the company to pay $119.6 million, a figure well below Apple's requested $2 billion. Speaking after the verdict, jury foreman Thomas Dunham said the compensation was "fair and just" based on the evidence presented at the trial (via Re/code).
“The damages were based on the fact that both sides presented their view of what a reasonable amount of, I guess, compensation would be,” he said. “We didn’t really feel either one was what we felt was a fair and just compensation.”
Dunham, who is familiar with the patent system from his work at IBM, hinted that Apple should pursue Google because the Android operating system is the real target in this case, an argument that Samsung's lawyers used during the trial (via The Wall Street Journal).
"If you really feel that Google is the cause behind this, as I think everybody has observed, then don't beat around the bush," said Mr. Dunham, whose job at IBM was to oversee developers expected to file patents. "Let the courts decide. But a more direct approach may be something to think about."
Though Samsung was the defendant, Google played a role in the case as it was part of a larger "holy war" against Android instigated by Steve Jobs following Android's debut Google also sent VP of engineering Hiroshi Lockheimer to testify on behalf of Samsung and agreed to offer partial legal protection to Samsung in case of an Apple win.
While Dunham suggests that Google should be Apple's real target in the ongoing litigation, jurors claim that Google’s part in the trial was not a factor when they were deciding on the merit of the infringement claims. It also did not influence the amount of damages ultimately awarded to Apple.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Steal an idea. Delay. Delay. Delay. Delay. Countersue. Delay. Delay. Delay.
Again, I can only pledge that I will never purchase a Samsung branded product for the rest of my life! I can't avoid products with internal samsung parts, but I can avoid all outer branded products.
So, if someone disagrees with you, they are automatically a "hanger-on". Thanks so much for your contribution. :rolleyes:
Ooh, the rolleyes emotes. THINGS JUST GOT REAL!Where did I say that? Hell, where did I even imply that? What I'm saying is that people who don't have an emotional investment in the case don't see it as being all that important. The patents are vague, little things that can't even rightly be considered inventions or even improvements, and are hardly worth the price demanded in the trial. It's a lot of hulabaloo over nothing much at all, and it's only here that we're acting like it's a life or death situation.
----------
LOL, seriously. The jury found Apple's infringement was worth $158K. Apparently you missed the significance of that. :rolleyes:
Ooh, there's that rolleyes again! OH THE DISDAIN AT THE IGNORANT!Apple got 5% of their asking price, Samsung got 3%. The biggest message of this whole trial was basically "both of you, shut up".