Apple's thermonuclear legal strategy scores a big win
Samsung didn't win on any of its utility patents, and as a result will not receive any compensation. In contrast to Google's emphasis on prior art and making defense against Oracle about patent validity, Samsung reduced the time spent on invalidity to devote more time to non-infringement arguments and counter claims. Given the vast difference in outcomes between Apple v. Samsung and Oracle v. Google that strategy will probably be questioned. In fact Samsung's entire legal team will probably face some uncomfortable questions in the coming hours, as their lawyers often appeared less prepared than Apple's legal team (and Google's before them); during closing arguments for example the Samsung team ended up having to skip huge swaths of their defense, despite knowing for weeks how much time they would be allotted. Skipping some of your main points generally doesn't help you win cases.
Obviously all of this will be appealed, but the current ruling has immediate repercussions. The inability of Samsung’s lawyers to invalidate Apple’s utility patents means that they will be branded a "copycat" even though Apple's trade dress claims were much more split. Ultimately either another Android OEM will have to try to invalidate them in a court of law (Googerola perhaps?), or many other Android OEMs will have to start coughing up some big licensing agreements. For current devices Google will have to come up with some interesting new ways to zoom other than double tapping and pinching in the mean time - presumably Google and Android OEMs have been preparing for a worst case scenario and have workarounds for the software patents, but what that would be remains to be seen.
2 January Samsung will have to reveal sales data in Apple patent lawsuit
7 December Judge Koh pleas for 'global peace' between Apple and Samsung for the sake of consumers, incites laughter
6 December Samsung and Apple meet with Judge Lucy Koh for post-trial hearing
6 December Apple and Samsung return to court for hearing in front of Judge Koh
5 December Google's Eric Schmidt on the relationship with Apple: the adults are talking now
15. Ohrules (Posts: 314; Member since: 11 Jun 2012)
is it just me or is the beam-balance pic tilted in apple's direction?
I'm supporting samsung so don't thumb me down! just asking :)
18. -box- (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
It is, but it depends on what's being measured. You want the scales to be even to prove equality. Apple being lower shows it's heavier; interpret as you will
22. Ohrules (Posts: 314; Member since: 11 Jun 2012)
turns out i was right
195. SuperMaoriBro (Posts: 292; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)
What I want to know is what impact will this have on my future experience when using Android devices? I miss the end of scroll bounce that I had with Gingerbread, if I lose things like pinch-to-zoom or double tap that is really going to suck.
217. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I am pleased with the outcome so far although some of the rulings that didnt pass i think should have passed
253. Sniggly (Posts: 6946; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Then why the lack of support for any lawsuit against Apple?
254. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Because it's Google contradicting themselves and Apple is simply protecting their business.
255. Sniggly (Posts: 6946; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Nice to know that you never bother modifying your viewpoint even when it's explained thoroughly why you're completely wrong.
256. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Didn't you hear? 3 out of the 4 Googlerola patents were tossed out in the case. Guess I wasn't so wrong.
257. Sniggly (Posts: 6946; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Yeah, but one of them wasn't. And Googorola has seven more pending which aren't FRAND or standards essential, so you can't claim victory there.
Furthermore, you're wrong over the moral positions of the companies involved. You act like Google didn't put any effort into designing Android and therefore has no right to try to protect it against Apple.
258. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
So you're saying it's ok for Google to sue Apple but Apple can't sue Motorola or Samsung?
259. Sniggly (Posts: 6946; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Not at all. I'm saying that if it's A-okay for Apple to sue the other companies, then it's especially A-okay for Google to sue them right back, especially in a defensive context, which the lawsuit CLEARLY EXISTS IN.
I really wish neither company would have sued the other, but going back in history, Motorola's initial lawsuit was because Apple refused to pay them a single red cent for any of the patents Apple clearly used for the iPhone which Motorola owns. For years.
All Motorola wanted was some compensation for decades worth of R and D. However, Apple decided to not only sue them right back, but then sue HTC and Samsung as well, because if you're going to display massive hypocrisy, you might as well go for broke.
So basically, what's good enough for Apple should be good enough for the rest of the wireless industry. Samsung and HTC happily pay royalties to Microsoft, so it's not a general disregard for patents that's the problem. The problem is that Apple thinks they can get away with not paying anyone else for their work while demanding extortionist amounts of money from everyone else.
21. -box- (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
32. Ohrules (Posts: 314; Member since: 11 Jun 2012)
"1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars" in damage!
35. Orbitman (Posts: 110; Member since: 09 Oct 2011)
yeah! and it looks like sammy aint gettin sh*t!
41. Ohrules (Posts: 314; Member since: 11 Jun 2012)
Damages from Samsung to Apple: zero.
50. Orbitman (Posts: 110; Member since: 09 Oct 2011)
in the words of Flavor Flav: "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!"
i see a flame war of biblical proportions coming in the near future
55. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
The flame war to end all flame wars....Oh well. I'm patiently awaiting the RAZR HD...big Motorola fan.
All I will say is good luck Google in this fight against Apple...I got a feeling they will be coming after Google for stock Android real soon.
57. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Google is taking it directly to Apple through Moto. They just started that one up. For once, Apple is going to be on the defense in a big case. Time to punish the bully.
239. rf1975 (Posts: 243; Member since: 01 Aug 2011)
Moto, HTC, Sony never made any copycat product like Shamsung did. These companies product are better than shamsung crapy plactic copycat. Dude, there are lot of different between Stock Android and iOS. So any lawsuite against Android will not bring any good outcome to Apple. I like to see Moto, HTC or Sony becoming a leading Andoid player than Shamsung. Because Shamsung is the one who made this mess making counterfeit crap. Now they are crying customers will lose. Why customers will lose? If customers need iOS experience then they will buy Apple. You do not need to make copycat for people. Now stop crying, bring something inovative like Moto, HTC ot Sony etc.
154. techaman (unregistered)
that should be apple paying for damages to samsung for stopping sales in other country's.
47. -box- (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
...Why would there be a thums down for posting a useful link for watching the events unfold live? Sheesh
49. Ohrules (Posts: 314; Member since: 11 Jun 2012)
it's probably one guy, as all the comments got thumbed down at once!
warning: Troll Aboard. (not necessarily the username TROLL)
54. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yea, but it more than likely starts with a T or a G
166. MartyK (Posts: 711; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
this one is better:
"As Samsung's attorneys peruse the verdict form, I see one of those bubbles over their heads that reads: "We'll see what the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has to say about this"
Live blog__ http://www.siliconvalley.com/a
27. -box- (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Well, we can bet that Samsung's legal team will be working over the weekend on appeals...
192. smartphone (Posts: 160; Member since: 21 Oct 2011)
Their legal team should be fired. They are playing defensive from starting not in counter argument mode.
yes, the galaxy series had some iPhone influence in design and app drawer but who on earth had bought them thinking its an iPhone.
1 billion $ is huge literally Apple was asking for almost all the profit from the galaxy series.
Apple was preparing the evidences for almost one year too bad Samsung ignored it and payed in the courtroom.
Samsung should fire their design team also they are useless and appeal fresh in court to lower down the fine.
39. -box- (Posts: 3784; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Wow, either Koh's attitudes towards samsung influenced the jurors, or something is amiss. Darn near everything is going against Samsung. None of us rationally expected such a one-sided verdict. Looking forward to appeals
44. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yea there is no frikkin way. no patents invalidated by all that obvious prior art and tech, 95% one sided verdict. An itrolls dream.
Watch the itrolling for the next few days.. woow its gonna be sad.
77. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
remixfa, when you were making ongoing racists comments about mainland chinese workers and factories on PA, I had the courage to stand up to you and demand you stop. As a result, you are now more careful when you post about about mainland chinese workers, factories, etc.
If there was anyone that was a bully on PA, it IS you. For some reason, you just won't stock bullying.
86. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
ardent, what the hell are you talking about.
Please link me to any "racist comments I made about Chinese workers" or take your false claims and go away. That is complete slander. I'm glad you had "courage" on the internet.. doesnt everyone? too bad you have no idea what your talking about.
114. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5729; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Net-net, it seems Sammy's attorneys biffed on invalidity. The next bite of the Apple comes from Google-Motorola. Google-Motorola know how to play the invalidity game (been there, done that with Oracle).
Now lets see if Sammy changes its legal team on the appeal.
65. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
I stated in another thread that Apple would probably get 1.7 billion in damages. Apple's lawyer's are excellent at their jobs and Samsung clearly wasn't prepared and it showed.
69. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
its 1.05 billion as an award, so you were 650 million off. :)
Still less than half of their asking price, even though the award is completely idiotic as it is.
75. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
I think it was fair, that's why I said I thought 1.7 billion. Samsung copied and it's been proven. As I stated they have done a decent job recently of moving away from the blatant copying but bottom line is they are obsessed with Apple and we're willing to do anything to compete. Great day for Apple! Don't hate me, I don't care because my pockets didn't get any bigger from this.
82. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
were all entitled to our opinions.. no matter how wrong. :)
Yes, for apple it was a good day.. but no, it wasnt a great day. A great day for them (which would have been BAD for everyone else) would have been having their generic ipad and other design patents held up. Having those validated would have given them armor piercing ammo against every tablet and like 90% of all phones out these days. That was the only part I was worried about. Thankfully it didnt happen.
If samsung copied the bounce effect, then they got justifiably slapped. they didnt spend much time at all defending it, so they probably knew it was a copy and they were gonna get busted. However, Samsung not winning on ANY of their patents is a problem, especially in light of winning on those same patents in korea just a little while ago. Also, they should have won an end to some of apple's patents based on very obvious prior art/tech. That is a shocker.
89. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
Samsung didn't deserve anything imo! Not bad for me at all bro, I buy my devices outright, so I could care less what they charge. Samsung makes great products so I really didn't see the point of copying!
116. PAPINYC (Posts: 2273; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
This is not over, iCan't wait for Googorola to iAnnihilate Apple.
Meanwhile, I will still be buying my G-Note 2 in a few months.
I'm glad Apple spent billions in legal fees to stop NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH!
122. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
You think they spent billions? BTW, maybe you haven't noticed but no company can or will annihilate Apple, they have some of, if not the deepest pockets! Money talks!
126. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
dont mistake 1 win for invincibility. You forget, they got smeared on this exact same case in Korea.. so a lot of it is a flip of the coin.
Google wouldnt be stepping in the ring directly if it didnt feel it had very strong evidence. Unlike Apple, Google is rarely the aggressor. Dont just think Apple is gonna win because they are "Apple".
Actually, their court record is not overly favorable of winning.. it seems near 50/50 at this point.This however was a pretty decent victory for them money wise, but not much else since the infringing products are so old.
133. Tre-Nitty (Posts: 460; Member since: 16 Nov 2010)
It's not invincibility. It's letting people know that you won't just go for people stealing your stuff and not paying. All i'm saying is, Apple has extremely deep pockets and they seem to have their stuff together.
143. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
yes, they definitely have lots o cash and a plan. that much is true. We will just have to disagree on the absolute hypocrisy of your first statement. Apple is a master thief and makes no bones about it.
183. willard12 (Posts: 775; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Quick question....what did Apple invent? I understand what they have patented. But when you say "stealing'" you have to acknowledge that apple has stolen everything it has. Any comments on stealing without acknowledging the Apple motto of "great artists steal" are useless. Saying there is no toleration for stealing when their CEO says on camera that they have been shameless about "stealing" can be confusing.
134. PAPINYC (Posts: 2273; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Just two corrections Remixfa:
It's not so much 'a flip of the coin' as it is of Judge Lucy Deucy Ho.
Not only are their infringed 'products so old' but, their new uninfringed products are also old washed-up has beens.
140. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the SGS3 and SGS2 are washed up has-beens? mmmmkay.
214. mandkeee (Posts: 78; Member since: 27 Feb 2009)
im telling ya~~~
samsung = copycat,...
no matter what any happen....that is 100% true
219. lukasound (Posts: 152; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
This would be very different if it took place on a Korean court.
17. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Then there's the appeal process. My advice is: Don't hold your breathe.
3. master0fursinz (Posts: 104; Member since: 26 Apr 2010)
Great Judge Koh, hurry up and get it over with! you shortend the process for samsung to build a case might as well finish it off already.
4. roscuthiii (Posts: 1789; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Nah... now we get to enter the appeals process, which I fully expect to sound like, "Nuh uh!" (except that it's going to be about 4,000 words long).
5. Supermanz28 (Posts: 17; Member since: 23 Aug 2012)
Hury up i want to know if apple gets to stick it to another person just bc they have money to blow on pointless crap, its what happens when rich people get there feeling hurt bc they feel they were wronged
6. roscuthiii (Posts: 1789; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
C'mon, no whammies, no whammies, no whammies!