Jury: Samsung infringed on at least one Apple patent; Apple awarded $119.6 million
0. phoneArena 02 May 2014, 19:48 posted on
A jury in the second Federal patent trial between Apple and Samsung, concluded that the latter did infringe on at least one Apple patent. But unlike the verdict in the first case, which ended up with Apple awarded nearly $930 million following a second jury trial related to the damages awarded, the jury on Friday concluded that Samsung must pay Apple the much smaller figure of $119.6 million...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Sauce (unregistered)
Just in: After several hours of deliberation, the jury has finally come to an agreement and found that Samsung has infringed on Apple’s patents…
More to come
11. Sauce (unregistered)
There is 9to5google, 9to5mac, 9to5forums, 9to5toys
I said 9to5 because thats what my RSS client pushes.
25. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
You forgot Dolly Parton's 9to5, which is probably more appropriate given this travesty of justice or iNjustice!!
Samsung shouldn't pay them a penny. Apple should be grateful to Samsung because if it were not for Samsung you guys would still be on iPhone 3GSX.
39. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
And still be using outdated outdated screen and specs
iJustice is a must
72. Sauce (unregistered)
By the way (http://9to5google.com/2014/05/02/verdict-reached-in-apple-v-samsung-patent-trial-with-mixed-results-apple-awarded-119-6-million-in-damages/)
I believe it says, "..//9to5GOOGLE.com…"
Does it make a difference now? LMAO
8. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Thanks for the tip...this lil nuggest was posted at 9to5mac:
Apple was found guilty in the case of Samsung patent ’239, which deals with streaming video during FaceTime calls.
The court also ruled that Apple had infringed on some of Samsung’s property and awarded the Korean company $158,400 in damages.
So....seems Samsung can use some of the money from this to pay for what they owe...
Overall so far...Samsung found guilty on 2....mixed results on 1...not guilty on other 2..
Apple found guilty on 1, not guilty on another...
Let the fanboys wars begin!!!!
19. 14545 (Posts: 1137; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
I'm confused about how apple can "infringe" on a patent and only have to pay 160k, versus 119million. I mean FT is one of apples signature apps. So it seems like the valuation would be much higher there vs. sammy.
76. StanleyG88 (Posts: 99; Member since: 15 Mar 2012)
Because the Judge is in Apple's pocket.
Also, how can Samsung be liable for Apple's patent on the SS Gal Nexus when it is a 100% Android device. Samsung did not supply any SW for it.
57. Ashoaib (Posts: 2355; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Apple's patents are expensive 119 million and samsung only 158400.... so only apple's patents are worthy, other company's patents are not worthy... still its a small win for samsung bcoz its proved that apple copy too
58. Ashoaib (Posts: 2355; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Title of this post is missleading... it should be"Apple Also Found Infringing Samsung's Patents"
3. Alan01 (Posts: 199; Member since: 21 Mar 2012)
It's not true...verdict has yet to be released
4. brrunopt (Posts: 543; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)
let me guess; they will decide in favor of apple ...
5. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Title says Samsung infringes on at least 1 patent....
If after all this and its only for 1 patent....this was almost an absolute waste of time. And should be alot less than 2.2 billion.....
Cant wait for further details.
6. gamalielct (Posts: 2; Member since: 11 Dec 2013)
i really hope samsung finally wins... that will make apple fanboys cry :D
27. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
Samsung is not happy for that.
Even $1 paid for such a BS trial, is offending. Even if Google pay it, it's a stain on Samsung, not on Google(US).
That's what Apple want. They know that trey will lose in the tech batle, so they try to bite Samsung's honor(just to keep the iZombies united, and not to run away).
7. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Ok....title update says Apple has been awarded...119 million....
Wow...thats a wee bit less than 2.2 billion....lol. I cant wait to find out what this one patent was...
9. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Ok....read my other reply....seen more info about the ruling after posting this....
13. Sauce (unregistered)
"The first verdict read was for patent 5,946,647, Apple’s “data detectors” that transform typed text such as addresses into actionable links. Samsung was found guilty of infriging on this patent in all devices listed in the suit."
"The next patent in question was number 8,074,172, which deals with how autocorrect suggests words. Here the jury found Samsung guilty of infringing Apple’s intellectual property."
"In the case of patent 8,046,721, a gesture-based unlock screen (“slide to unlock”), the jury returned mixed results. Samsung was found to infringe on some of its devices, but not all of them."
"The court also ruled that Apple had infringed on some of Samsung’s property and awarded the Korean company $158,400 in damages."
28. androiphone20 (Posts: 1503; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)
ReCode says the amount can be increased from $120m since n thee infringement was 'wilful'
67. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I hope thats the same case for what Apple owes too.
Face Time feature vs every patent Apple was suing over....The amounts really should be reversed.
10. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
With the '721 patent, some Samsung devices, like the Samsung GALAXY Nexus were found to have infringed on it.
Ok.....that was stock Android.......
Which reminds me....I wonder if this is one of the patents Google will cover the loss on.
68. deathgod (Posts: 122; Member since: 23 Nov 2011)
As a current Galaxy Nexus owner this is Total BS!! Did any of the jurors even use this phone to come to that conclusion!?
12. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6668; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
FCK YOU APPLE. FCK YOU JUDGE KOH/JURIES.
14. jellmoo (Posts: 698; Member since: 31 Oct 2011)
Um... Is that really necessary? A jury reached a decision after weighing the evidence, and the monetary award is *way* less than Apple was seeking.
I can't for the life of me understand your reaction.
18. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
What "evidence"? BS patents that can be patented only in US and only by Apple. And existing in the stock Android?(Google is US company- so no problem there)
What Samsung is to be blamed, or punished? Oooh wait...I get it...they smash Apple litle by little.
23. jellmoo (Posts: 698; Member since: 31 Oct 2011)
Again, there is a lot of opinion being flung around about what is or is not a valid patent. I happen to agree that the patent system in the US is ridiculously broken.
But the jury is limited by patent law. They made their decision based on it to the best of their abilities. Whether you or I agree with the decision is moot. Insulting the jury for having done their job, and odds are one they never wanted is completely unnecessary.
30. networkdood (Posts: 6298; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
I highly doubt they could find enough intelligent people to sit on a jury, nowadays..lol
36. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6668; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
FYI Apple doesn't like COMPETION when it comes to mobile industry. All they want to do is CRUSH Samsung the only company that can compete against Apple but they hate to loose. Apple have BS patents like SLIDE TO UNLOCKED which is a irrelevant patent.
44. fzacek (Posts: 2063; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)
Dude, I bet you that 9/10 people in the jury have iPhones. The trial is obviously biased towards Apple...
48. jellmoo (Posts: 698; Member since: 31 Oct 2011)
If that's the case it falls on the Samsung lawyers for having utterly failed to help select an unbiased jury.
77. elitewolverine (Posts: 1902; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
Doesn't the defense select a majority of the jury'ss?
16. darkkjedii (Posts: 12333; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Dude, you're stupid. If this bothers you this much...you need a life.
34. networkdood (Posts: 6298; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
lol, hey man, any word on when they will release a NOTE 4? September you think?
38. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6668; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
And another thing to you. Everyone have a right to opinion. it's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
43. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
Which he does nt believe in cause apple users hate democracy, but love dictatorship.
42. Arte-8800 (banned) (Posts: 4562; Member since: 13 Mar 2014)
More like you need one, not him
The bad fruit doesn't learn. Last time apple was saved by a president or else apple would've been in the dustbin where it belonged
And you what does it matter to you? Even if they do bad in your eyes the bad is good, cause its your beloved fruit company
73. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6668; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Thanks for pointing that out to him. Everyone I say FCK U Apple he says get a life. I have a life, you don't have to tell me what i can't say on any blog site.
15. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3601; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
Regardless of the seemingly endless Apple-Samsung conflict, these sorts of jury awards are a great example of how the patent system has made life very difficult for small tech businesses.
Small businesses simply cannot afford millions of dollars in legal fees, much less the hundreds of millions in potential damages.
This is one more reason to not buy anything from Apple. They were one of the backers of changing the US patent laws from "first to invent" to "first to file". The former protects individual inventors and small businesses, the latter favors giant corporations and provides an incentive for IP theft.
17. GoBears (Posts: 374; Member since: 27 Apr 2012)
Who even cares anymore. I hope Leapfrog sues Apple next for stealing their UI design used in iOS 7.
20. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)
120 million out of the 2.2 billion apple were asking for.. Am sure Samsungs happy about that.
24. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
Samsung is not happy for that.
Even $1 paid for such a BS trial, is offending. Even if Google pay it, it's a stain on Samsung.
29. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)
If you were being sued for £1000 and end up paying only £1 am sure you would be happy. I don't think this will effect samsung image at all, I think a study was done after the original trial and the study showed that samsung was actually getting more popular due to the trials. Also let's not forget apple were found to have infringed too. Also agree these trials are bs
32. networkdood (Posts: 6298; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
In a way, Samsung won...I am sure they are not sweating this..and I am sure we will see APPLE sue them again, because, hey, APPLE is losing world marketshare, and they believe suing is the only way to make up for that...
35. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3601; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
One more stain on Samsung is hardly noticeable. Samsung will just pay the fee and keep on copying. It costs them less to copy than to invent.
21. The-Sailor-Man (banned) (Posts: 1095; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
Google will pay it. And then will statrt to hunt the ALUMINUM HAIRDRESSERS,
22. pitchenatent (Posts: 15; Member since: 09 Aug 2013)
Good job apple on you win now you have enough money to keep up with Samsung, lg, sony, HTC and moto but will you put the money in your greed a$$es technology nope probably not u suk apple
49. willard12 (Posts: 859; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
"This amount is less than 10% of the amount Apple requested and probably doesn't surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case.''
After about 5 years of appeals, Samsung may end up paying the cost of Apple's legal fees to put on the case. Haha, take that Apple:)
31. networkdood (Posts: 6298; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
""(We are) grateful to the jury and court for their service...today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers."-Apple"
Yeah, because APPLE never willfully steals ideas from other, right? RIGHT!!?
37. 0xFFFF (Posts: 3601; Member since: 16 Apr 2014)
All large corporations steal. The US patent law even provides incentives to steal as it is "first to file" not "first to invent" as it was for hundreds of years.
With the meaningless penalities for stealing, there is really no reason not to.
63. jroc74 (Posts: 5171; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Its kinda comical Apple releases that statement...while they were also found guilty ...
And Apple....technically Samsung is only on the hook for 1 and 1/2 of one patent....The one for the Galaxy Nexus....thats Google and Google alone since its stock Android.
And Apple....the courts found they willfully stole your idea....or should say1 and 1/2 ideas...not copied your products.
33. networkdood (Posts: 6298; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
The BIG winners of the frivolous lawsuits are........PATENT LAWYERS!!! Yippppppeeee
I hear you can now go to HEALD COLLEGE or ITT to become a PATENT LAWYER....
41. willard12 (Posts: 859; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
This is a victory for lovers of the iphone. Samsung spends $100 million on half a week of commercials, not to mention Google is paying it, not to mention that after appeals, it will be 3-5 years before Apple sees a dime (if an appeals judge like Posner doesn't throw it out altogether). In the process, Apple is getting it's patents slapped down and being found guilty of copying themselves. Apple is going to recognize that this whole thing wasn't worth it and will be forced to compete by creating better products with more features. In a few months, we'll see if Apple has learned it's lesson or if we hear about Apple suing for infringement by the Note 3 and GS 4.
45. fzacek (Posts: 2063; Member since: 26 Jan 2014)
I bet that 9 out of10 people in the jury have iPhones. This obviously makes the trial biased towards Apple...
46. Killua (Posts: 270; Member since: 25 Nov 2013)
It has Apple & Koh in it, what do you really expect?
47. techloverNYC (Posts: 420; Member since: 20 Nov 2012)
Next time Apple gon sue Samsung for copying its Ads.