
Jury: Samsung Owes Apple Another $290 Million - samspenc
http://allthingsd.com/20131121/jury-samsung-owes-apple-another-290-million/
======
josteink
I seriously can't believe how much money Apple has been able to troll out of
those rounded corners and that end-of-list overscroll effect.

And now, to top it off, iOS 7 is built on the holo-principles of Android. It's
almost like Apple is doing it merely to taunt its foreign competitors, saying
very, very clearly: "Sorry guys. I'm untouchable".

Utterly disgusting.

At least their attempts to outright _ban_ products have been less successful
as of late. There's some hope for a civilized world.

~~~
stevenwei
Yeah, it's not like they went screen by screen through the iPhone and said
'hey, we need to do what they're doing...'

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-
Evaluat...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-
Report-on-S1-iPhone)

~~~
rayiner
This is the stuff that gets missed in these debates. It's not like Apple's
attorneys got up in front of the jury, drew a rectangle with rounded corners,
wrote PATENTED across it, then sat down.

Rather, stuff like what you linked to is what causes juries to award $1
billion. E-mails along the lines of "let's make this look more like the
iPhone." Presentations along the lines of "why isn't this more like the
iPhone?" Surveys along the lines of "75% of people thought this looked like an
iPhone." Market data on customer confusion, etc.

This particular presentation is pure gold. Slide after slide that basically
convinces the jury that Samsung didn't "play fair" and copied someone else's
work instead of doing their own.

~~~
sreque
You know what else gets tossed out of these debates by Apple patent defenders?
The fact that Samsung is continuing to have success in invaliding the patents
they are being sued for:

[http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-
to-h...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/20/samsung-looks-to-halt-
damages-retrial-after-uspto-action-invalidates-key-apple-patent)

~~~
IBM
The patent wasn't invalidated.

>The Patent Office has been re-examining the claims of the '915 patent, and
Apple recently responded to the agency's questions. However, in the document
filed by the Patent Office on Wednesday, the group said that it "respectfully
disagrees" with Apple's claims about the technology and that Apple's arguments
"are not persuasive."

>The Patent Office comments don't invalidate the '915 patent but mean that
Apple will have to provide more information and argue for the validity of the
patent.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-
asks-j...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613191-37/samsung-asks-judge-
to-halt-apple-damages-retrial/)

Other patents have been reaffirmed on reexamination.

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-
confirme...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/us-patent-office-confirmed-
all-20.html)

------
pkill17
I can't tell if this was an out of line assessment of the jury selection, or
an actual description of what happened during deliberation...

 _The six-woman, two-man jury deliberated for part of three days before
returning its verdict. During that time, the jury requested additional paper
and pens and better lunch, as well as a copy of the sketches of them done by a
courtroom artist._

As for the lawyers in the class; if a jury starts showing signs that they're
overall uninterested in the trial (i.e.: asking for their courtroom
portraits), what can litigators do to combat this? Is the only course to
appeal for the case to be dismissed? Does it get retried if the jury is found
to be negligent?

------
Glyptodon
I feel sorry for Samsung. I don't know how anyone can buy an Apple product
without feeling ashamed anymore.

Yes, Samsung made products that looked kind of similar to Apple ones. Big
whoop. Competition over litigation, I say.

~~~
threeseed
I feel sorry for Samsung's competitors. And that includes all the other
industries Samsung executes the same "innovation by duplication" approach.

Not everyone Samsung copies is a huge multinational:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24023430](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24023430)

~~~
jlgreco
@dba7dba You are hellbanned. This means that most users cannot read your
comments.

------
WildUtah
I miss Groklaw. The site owner used to recruit volunteers from the readers to
go to the courtroom and write up accounts of the proceedings every day. It was
more up to date and informative than the supposedly professional media
outlets.

~~~
peterashford
Hells yeah - me too. Groklaw was IMO one of the biggest losses from the whole
NSA spying saga.

------
narcissus
Completely off topic, but it's days like these that I truly miss Groklaw...

~~~
josephlord
It was never as good with the patent issues especially when Google were
involved it never felt balanced (with SCO there really wasn't any need for
balance or bias as SCO were so far out there you could report it straight and
still have clear bad guys).

~~~
WildUtah
It was fine for Oracle v. Google as reporting that one straight provided an
obvious bad guy, too.

And Samsung v. Apple I also provides many obvious bad guys if you follow the
case and understand the industry and read the patents. Apple's claims are
garbage but Samsung had so much contempt for the process that they let their
lawyers utterly fail to make the case. The judge lost control of the case and
ended up with vague and useless jury instructions and a self-contradictory
verdict (parts had to be retried recently). The jury foreman admitted to bias
and misconduct in public interviews. The PTO keeps gyrating back and forth in
'final' decisions about the validity and meaning of claims to patents at
issue. I never saw coverage anywhere else but Groklaw about most of the
pathetic failures in the case.

Let's hope the Apple ][ and Apple /// cases are handled better.

The Motorola v. Microsoft case, on the other hand, revealed bizarre bias on
the part of Groklaw. Even when Microsoft was obviously right, Groklaw
manufactured sympathy for Googlerola on every issue.

But that's not really the question. The essential thing about Groklaw was that
they would recruit volunteer reporters to go to court and make extensive and
informative reports about what really happened they very same day. Nobody
else's reporting ever came close.

~~~
josephlord
I'm not even sure about that one. Oracle are a bad guy (always) but I'm not
sure Google weren't one too in that particular case. If you replay the
situation in your head imagining MS in the Google role and Sun in the Oracle
role would you have felt the same way?

I think the conclusion that API's are not copyrightable is pretty much
preposterous from my understanding of copyright law. A decision that there was
a 'fair use' right to copy API's for compatibility purposes would have been an
interesting and probably valuable development although I'm not sure Dalvik
would have applied here.

Groklaw's example API to explain what API's (adding numbers I think) was also
applied when considering whether there was creativity in expression and
correctly the conclusion was that there isn't in the case of adding but then
Groklaw inappropriately extrapolated this view to all API's.

The court reporting could be useful though you are right. Florian Mueller
([http://www.fosspatents.com/](http://www.fosspatents.com/)) attends some of
the German ones and I find his reporting on the patent cases very good.
Groklaw seemed to have taken the view that you couldn't believe a word he said
but I never quite understood why (although it might have been the Oracle v.
Google case as he didn't see it the Groklaw way and had at some point
consulted for Oracle).

------
aroch
So a ~$930mm final judgement. Now for another 5years of appeals

~~~
IBM
I think the original amount was cut to $600 million so the total would be $890
million. I don't think Apple is too concerned about the size of the judgement
either way.

EDIT: I stand corrected!

~~~
aroch
The first judgement was cut to $639mm [1]

Q: How much money is this retrial about? A: It's about a replacement amount
for a $410 million portion of the August 2012 $1.049 billion verdict. The
replacement amount could be more or less than the original one. Apple will be
awarded (subject to an appeal) $639 million plus the replacement amount.

__

1: [http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/the-truth-is-neither-
cour...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/the-truth-is-neither-court-nor-
parties.html)

~~~
WildUtah
FOSSpatents is not a legitimate source of news on patent cases. The writer was
revealed to be a paid shill available to the highest bidder during the Google
v. Oracle trial when the judge forced Oracle to admit supporting his site as a
false front.

~~~
aroch
FOSS is a a good if not great source for mobile patent litigation. Yes, he
accepted money from Oracle because he's a goddamn consultant and does the blog
to promote both his work and general knowledge. Florian's opinions have turned
out to be correct most of the times; he has his finger firmly on the pulse of
mobile patent litigation and covers it better than any other person.

------
bigjoecumbo
It's unbelievable how much money Apple is extorting from other companies for a
simple UI technique. Disgusting.

~~~
emn13
But let's be honest, the value of bouncy scroll - as in the cost for an
independent invention to come up with something equally good would have been
hundreds of millions, so at least it's reasonable, even if it's unethical.

------
shinratdr
Wow, this is one of the worst threads I've seen on HN. Pretty much just
/r/technology.

------
wnevets
If apple doesn't acknowledge loses from foreign courts, why should Samsung?

~~~
threeseed
Are you saying that Apple isn't complying with international court orders ?

Care to provide some evidence of this.

------
rfnslyr
Apple can get fucked until they come out with a bigger sized screen. Then I
hope Samsung pillages them with lawsuits.

------
alexeisadeski3
Apple go awayyyyy

