On To The Appeal... As Judge Basically Keeps Everything As Is In Apple/Samsung Patent Dispute

from the get-this-show-on-the-road dept

This probably isn't a huge surprise, but Judge Lucy Koh has basically decided not to do anything at all about the various attempts by both Samsung and Apple to change the overall impact of the initial jury ruling. That is, she rejected Samsung's call for a new trial or to overturn the jury's findings. She also rejected Samsung's attempt to invalidate some of the patents. On Apple's side, she rejected Apple's request to pump up the award amount for "willful" infringement, claiming that there's no evidence that Samsung's actions were willful, since it showed evidence of why it really believed that there was prior art invalidating Apple's key patents. Oh yeah, and then there's this lovely sentence:
Given that Apple has not clearly shown how it has in fact been undercompensated for the losses it has suffered due to Samsung’s dilution of its trade dress, this Court, in its discretion, does not find a damages enhancement to be appropriate.
To paraphrase: "the jury basically handed you a billion dollars, and you're still complaining?!?" All of this, of course, was just the appetizer. Now we move on to the appeals process, meaning we've probably got a few more years of this to deal with, unless the two sides decide to shut up and settle.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    artp (profile), Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:19pm

    You're outa here!

    More detail, including all the documents from Judge Koh, at Groklaw - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013013000132643

    PJ addresses the part where Koh didn't really mention the strange theories that Messr. Hogan introduced as jury foreman.

    I think Koh REALLY, really wanted to get this out of her courtroom. At this point, nothing she did could have turned out right anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 8:26pm

    it's the business mode and not the patents, silly

    I have never even briefly considered an iPhone. It had nothing to do with how it worked, looked, or felt. It was because of Apple's locked-in business model for ebooks. Quite right too, given what's been happening with the DoJ and the publisher settlements regarding ebook pricing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:44pm

      Re: it's the business mode and not the patents, silly

      Apple is a sore winner. They've been on top for a while and they figure the only way to stay there isn't to innovate, but to litigate. That's when you know you've jumped the shark.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:24pm

    It's amazing that our IP system has turned into such a mess that it's practically a circus. The ridiculousness of all this is worse than a parody and to think that this is real.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 3:01am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 9:24pm

      A comedian could update the classic aristocrats joke and rename it the patent attorneys. Maybe, it would be similar to what they're doing to our ip system.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 2:57am

    no chance of them settling early. Apple want to continue pissing everyone off for as long as possible with their attitude of 'what's yours is mine, what's mine is only mine'! they still haven't learnt anything from the lost sales either. people are fed up with the total restrictions imposed. they have a damn good product. they should let people enjoy it how they want once bought. as for this ridiculous removal of the 'unlocking' option now, making people hackers and punishable with years in prison and millions of dollars in fines, who the fuck came up with ludicrous law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 2:59am

    Apple can go die in flames. I hope this billion dollar earned costs them one thousand times the value in the future.

    The iPhone was the vanguard. Now it's just a plain common phone with all the disadvantages of a locked environment. Apple lives on the insanity and ignorance of their fanboys and the fact that they did build a huge 3rd-party market of accessories to their gadgets. Nothing more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josef Anvil (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 3:57am

      Re:

      Actually you made a very fair point Ninja. The iPhone was really cool when it arrived. Now its just another smartphone, that doesn't really do anything much different from the rest. Ooooh rounded corners!!!

      If mobile phones were Apple's core market then I would say they are in trouble, but that's not their core market at all.

      Personally, I like OSX more than Windows, which is the only reason I'm still an Apple fan, but I'm not interested in the iPad or iPhone at all. As you pointed out, they do everything the others do, except escape the walled garden.

      The other tablet makers are pushing out tablets with full OS now, not just Android and iOS, which should make things very interesting. Unless iPads start coming with OSX, they will quickly lose relevance.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ninja (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 4:55am

        Re: Re:

        This got me wondering. I'd love to run Windows 7 on my tablet and make it virtually a computer when I need (you know, dual boot because Android is that good for daily amenities but I'd love to have Windows or even Linux (how I wish everything could be easily ported and run on Linux)...

        My tablet is a quad-core from Asus. After I bought an S3 from Samsung it quickly lost relevance (I still use it but much less).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 5:45am

    Judge should have said "you're right Apple, this is an unreasonable amount of compensation for the services provided. I change the judgement from $1 billion dollars to $1, seeing as you never shared any code or anything with Samsung, and Samsung designed everything without your help".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 7:39am

    Eh?

    She also rejected Samsung's attempt to invalidate some of the patents. On Apple's side, she rejected Apple's request to pump up the award amount for "willful" infringement, claiming that there's no evidence that Samsung's actions were willful, since it showed evidence of why it really believed that there was prior art invalidating Apple's key patents.
    Perhaps this is some legalese nuance that I'm not aware of but to me that reads;
    "Yeah Samsung made a good stab at showing the patents may well be invalid, but I'm going to ignore that and not explore it any further, because then I might have to do some work here"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2013 @ 11:23am

    Trade Dress

    What exactly does Apple's trade dress cover that Samsung violated? Anybody else think trade dress is one of the most fucked up concepts in intellectual property law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    totalz (profile), Jan 31st, 2013 @ 7:41pm

    Apple makes u dump!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 4th, 2013 @ 5:30am

    vscf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This