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 $119.6 million...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
50. superfans (Posts: 155; Member since: 30 Jul 2012)
At end jury said .. crime is good way to make money !
Copy, make billions and get a slap on you wrist.
Great message jury.
65. superfans (Posts: 155; Member since: 30 Jul 2012)
Did I only mention samsung here , I don't think so !
51. iGeek (Posts: 171; Member since: 15 Mar 2013)
The bastards deserved it and they better pay Apple the money now! So that they use it in the iWatch and iPhone 6 production :P
Sincerely, a Note 3 user that can't wait for the iPhone 6
81. iGeek (Posts: 171; Member since: 15 Mar 2013)
Yeh thank you, I'm a proud i$heep :) You know your words really emphasized my love for Apple .. I can't wait to throw this garbage that I own that's called the Note 3 :)
52. nasznjoka (Posts: 396; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)
Since both were found guilty then:
Apple -- we copy stuff better than Samsung.
Samsung -- we copy more stuff than Apple
54. mayur007 (Posts: 564; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)
auto correect .. ?
wait isnt that iphone has worst autocorrect feature
55. amasog (Posts: 341; Member since: 22 Aug 2013)
LOL! Poor Copycat Company!! Thats what u get when u dont innovate, but instead u just imitate. LOL! Pathetic samsung!
60. tedkord (Posts: 10707; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
They were both found to be copying, so I guess neither innovates.
64. jroc74 (Posts: 5996; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
And of course....you just choose to overlook that Apple was found guilty too...right.....
I dont care if Samsung had to pay 1 billion and Apple had to pay 100 dollars....just the fact that Apple was found guilty....leaves a huuuge smile on my face.
2.2 billion shrunk down to 120 million....
Now for the appeals....and to see which patents might be considered invalid
56. techperson211 (Posts: 1180; Member since: 27 Feb 2014)
I'm sure Timmy is pissed off with that amount that he'll be getting. He's expecting to buy an island but end up a condo.
61. _Bone_ (Posts: 2154; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
TOLD U SO! The billion dollar demand was always going to fail by Apple, and they played this all absolutely horribly, cause now Samsung looks to be the moral winner as they cut demands down to 5%, so Apple's lawsuit looks 95% bullsh*t.
Furthermore, this lawsuit created billions and billions of dollars of free advertisement for Samsung, at certain points all TV channels and news sites all over the world were filled with Samsung this, Galaxy that, images of their products and list of what they can do. No wonder S3 sales hit all-time high around the $1B verdict, and when last year courtroom drama was largely absent, S4 sales weren't as high. Look at this year: round 2 with Google joining the party, and the S5 is an absolute bestseller again with Samsung all over the news once more.
At some point ppl. criticized Samsung for not taking the lawsuit seriously, but I guess they always knew the Google's testimony will dismiss most of the damage claims, so they spend the past 2 years mocking Apple to the point of their lawyers crying about it in court. :D
Let this be a lesson to patent trolls that just because you claim your device is the first to combine touchscreen with icon rows doesn't mean you invented touchscreen or icon rows which of course Apple didn't, or the combination of water and glass can be patented as "a glass of water". SuperAMOLED is technology innovation, Retina Display is just the same things rearranged more tightly - by Samsung engineers. :)
66. checkmymike (Posts: 146; Member since: 28 Dec 2011)
We should blame the USPTO for giving these patents to apple.
The problem here is that apple is hell bent in asserting their patents to samsung because the latter is its fiercest competitor. But i see a win here for samsung, because they have successfully proven that apple patents, though valid, are not worth that much.
69. xfire99 (Posts: 803; Member since: 14 Mar 2012)
Hopes any Android OEMs have patents on these features and sue the hell out of the rotten Apple. Especially notfication center.
70. xondk (Posts: 1255; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
Wow, that 5,946,647 pattern, basicly describes how most computers, you know, everywhere works? how the hell can apple have a patent on that?
Unless I am misreading it, which could be. But it basicly seems apple has a patent for something all computer devices basicly do?
anyone got any place I can read more about this patent? get it explained how the heck they can have it?
71. jroc74 (Posts: 5996; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I dont know the specifics of this, but I do know back in the day Apple was probably bigger than MS in the desktop world.
Apple made PC's....MS didnt. Maybe this is something that Apple and/or IBM have a patent on? Dont really know.
75. xondk (Posts: 1255; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
I do believe it was Xerox that did the real actual invention on the gui and such, and both apple and microsoft got it from them.
At least according to wiki if you look up xerox there.
So saying apple 'made' it is a bit off.
I think apple did what it always has done, it took stuff from here and there gathered up the ingredients and mixed them up, baked, and out came their products.
But here's the thing, if someone has a recipe for something with a certain spice in it, or milk in it, or both, does that mean that others can't make a product with that?, are they copying the others? Not in my mind, though I'm sure some disagree. Almost every thing that these patent trials bring up of apple's patents seems after a bit of digging to originate from somewhere other then apple.
Does that make apple 'bad' for using those things in their products? certainly not. But is also means that others using them isn't bad either, and that's the problem, Patents that cover things that are needed to run to get a system, would be like if the people that own the patent for the arm processor that ios runs on says they can't use the arm code? no ios?, and yes I know that would mean less profit for the processor producer so they don't do that.
And should a patent really make it so there can't be competition? if a patent hurts competition then its bad in my kind, patents are there to protect unique innovations, but the thing is with the whole way our current world electronics is setup, if we did not have certain standards, nothing would work together and it means things like the internet couldn't work?
Imagine if apple wasn't allowed to use the various different internet protocols, to get on the internet they'd need to make their own protocols and get places to use theirs and the others at the same time? talk about a nightmare. Nothing would happen. And since there needs to be standards to communicate, there needs to be standards in how all electronic units work, and under that are smart phones, computers, tv's, you name it, every modern electronic product.
Apple, heck all of them, needs to stop all this patent waving and court thing and focus on simply making a better product, you know, innovate. Make a unique product, challenge others to do better, while they themselves work to make an even better product, sure people will make something that is similar, but if yours is the better, that is what people will get.
78. elitewolverine (Posts: 5125; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
Apple licensed from Xerox, they didn't steal, as well as MS. MS actually licensed the patents from Apple.
What apple was doing was not arguing the validity of the patents because MS has the papers saying they could use them.
What they do describe is a UI with the collection of elements. Saying they copied the 'feel'
The judge said, regardless of how things looked, because ms had paid the dues, Apple was out of luck.
Xerox in the middle of the case filed for a "UI Feel" lawsuit because if apple won, Xerox would be the benefactor. Apple did not win, MS won by a huge margin, and Xerox claims were thrown out of court.
79. xondk (Posts: 1255; Member since: 25 Mar 2014)
interesting, know anywhere I can read more about it? wiki is only really good to get a general feel on things.
But I would like to point out though that I never said apple stole anything, I was simply trying to point out that saying that apple 'made' the first gui and other 'apple made' claims really aren't true in most cases, and regardless of this apple is apparently winning because the court seemingly believes that apple was the first.
At best apple set a trend in my oppinion, and apple should go back to making products and setting trends rather then all this bull about who "copied" who