Samsung seeks mistrial as damages retrial goes to jury
Judge Lucy Koh vacated $400 million of the $1.05 billion that the jury awarded Cupertino based Apple. Now, Apple is seeking a $380 million award while Samsung believes it is only responsible for an additional $52 million to be added to the $650 million that still remains due Apple from the first trial.
Meanwhile, Samsung requested that Judge Koh call a mistrial after statements made by Apple legal representative Harold McElhinny during his 90 minute closing argument. The attorney said that U.S. television manufacturers ended up going bankrupt because they did not protect their patents. Samsung took this as a racial statement and requested the mistrial, which Judge Koh denied. "I don't think what occurred rises to the level of a mistrial, but some remedy might be appropriate to avoid further issues later on," the judge said.
Slides from Apple vs. Samsung re-trial
1. JojoGo101 (Posts: 211; Member since: 17 Dec 2012)
I see. Well we know the truth folks, it is evident that Apple went into the future and copied Samsung and is now trying to sue Samsung. Nice try Apple. I got you.
6. xperiaDROID (limited) (Posts: 5399; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Typical greedy hungry-for-money evil fruit, nothing so special about it. :)
10. darkkjedii (Posts: 10970; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
We'll they're about to get fed lotsa $$$
35. Taters (Posts: 2845; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)
Thanks to a lot of dumb asses with entitlement issues.
33. Ashoaib (Posts: 1860; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
Apple can sue on what ever until it is in US... their justice system is very biased... Apple lose every where in the world but US law and courts only favor US, one eyed monters... Apple can sue on sh*t as well, be careful samsung when going to toilet, it may resemble apple's
53. silencer271 (Posts: 161; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)
spoken like a true idiot. You dont know how R&D works do you? I am assuming not.
3. twens (Posts: 608; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
Look Samsung. Pay those losers already and focus on giving me a 64bit note 4 next yr. Those of us who have tried your phones know you are light years ahead of the competition. Money is not your problem. Innovate more and destroy your haters. Word!!!
4. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Love how the charts leave out the F700....
I await someone to chime in and say it came out after the iPhone....
And this iPad :
Let the copying debates begin!!!!!
5. Pings (Posts: 301; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Those devices were not allowed in the trail. To me it looked like a Kangaroo court for that reason.
7. vincelongman (Posts: 1133; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)
What did expect, US company + US court + US jury Vs Korea company.
Apple lost in every other country, they even had to post on their UK site that Samsung didn't copy them.
40. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
vincelongman -- DUDE, Samsung acknowledges they stole from Apple. Haven't you been following the court case?
55. Pings (Posts: 301; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
They had too. Apple also had to admit that Samsung didn't steal from them in the UK court case. This doesn't mean anything.
8. stealthd (Posts: 948; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Not sure where you going with this. . .
F700 DID come out after the iPhone, are you disputing this? iPhone was first shown off in January 2007 and sold in June, F700 was shown off in February and sold in November.
The picture frame is irrelevent, because even if Apple did copy it, they're different devices in different markets. Trade dress only applies to a device in a specific market.
And that UMPC looks pretty different from an iPad, the recessed screen pretty easy to spot vs the iPad's all flat glass front, among several other differences.
12. vincelongman (Posts: 1133; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)
Actually the F700 was shown off in 2006 and Samsung applied for a design patent in 2006, but was rejected because HTC TyTn had a similar shape and keyboard.
20. stealthd (Posts: 948; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
They filed the design patent, but according to Samsung's own press release the phone wasn't announced until 2007
49. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
16. woodshop20 (Posts: 459; Member since: 14 Sep 2013)
It's funny how Apple chooses to ignore the fact they copied the design of the LG Prada (came out in 2006) and ironically sues someone else for copying their design which was also copied.
17. stealthd (Posts: 948; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Are you blind? The prada doesn't even have the iPhones rounded corners, or buttons, or anything that would make it look like a copy.
19. woodshop20 (Posts: 459; Member since: 14 Sep 2013)
Look more closely. It obviously has rounded corners, a centre home button, and the same rectangular shape.
Here's a picture in case you looked at the wrong one:
22. stealthd (Posts: 948; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
I did look closely. Put your glasses on. The rounded corners aren't the same, the Prada has a rim going around the edge while the original iphone has a tapered rim, and the iPhone has a single round button while the Prada has 3 wide buttons. The only thing they have in common is a (relatively) large touchscreen with black bezel. Samsungs first Galaxy S phones look way more similar to the iPhone than the Prada does.
23. PBXtech (Posts: 973; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
"The only thing they have in common is a (relatively) large touchscreen with black bezel."
That's exactly part of the reason Apple sued Samsung.
29. MartyK (Posts: 706; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
I think you need to put yours on..
Here is a description of the lg, please page down to design, you will notice the author will mention the waiting of the iPhone..
50. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
"Here is a description of the lg, please page down to design, you will notice the author will mention the waiting of the iPhone.."
You try to bring facts into this???? How dare you!!!!
25. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 898; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Hilarious. Why do you think LG, who whined and whimpered about the iPhone being a copy, chose not to sue? I'm guessing it has something to do with the iPhone patents all pre-dating the Prada.
31. MartyK (Posts: 706; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
No, the question is why wouldn't apple sue Lg?,
Apple and ifan scream about protecting the iPhone corners, sue lg,
Slide to unlock, they sue everyone except
36. 21babydoll12 (Posts: 42; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)
1st of all when you are an well renown international company (APPLE) that holds hardware design in your own home country (USA). A foreign company (LG) would not sue you for design patent since they do not have a patent in that country (USA).
Furthermore, before the birth of the iphone. Many years of R&D was done before the release of the iphone smartphone. This is relevant because in western business methods; funding R&D attributes positive returns. All which APPLE has documented. More so then SAMSUNG or LG. Although this is only supporting evidence, their main evidence is that they PATENT 1st in USA before anyone did.
CASE STUDY NINTENDO: Filing for the trademark name GAMEBOY even before its USA/international announcements. Its what you call having a really good legal and marketing team.
With all this being said, LG can not and will not legally sue APPLE for design patent infringement in the USA since they never owned a design patent for their beloved PRADA smartphone nor did they officially announce and clear the phone through the FCC. Furthermore, PRADA design house would be the original physical design owners in conjunction with LG.
I hope this clarifies your gathered intel a bit more. CHEERS!
39. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
The android camp has always and will continue to use the Prada argument, which is simply and patently STUPID.
The aforementioned Gizmodo review clearly points out that Apple worked on its device WAY before the LG Prada nonsense. People need to be aware that Apple is secretive and thus hard to discern what it has worked on and when. Look at the date of the Gizmodo -- Apple was clearly working on a smartphone via iTune version 7.0.1.
48. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Date of that Gizmodo article
Date of the Barcelona slides that had the LG Prada and F700 on display
You do the math. Where in those lil snippits it says it was before Feb 2006?
To....have....a....working.....model....in ....Feb.....2006.....you....have .....to.....be.....working......on....it.....BEFORE.....Feb.....2006.....
15. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 898; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
I didn't know the iPhone was a fat, QWERTY slider feature phone.
Digital picture frame and a UMPC? Did Apple steal your lunch money, or something?
21. willard12 (Posts: 764; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
And yet, Apple lawyers filed a motion and argued not to let Samsung introduce the f700 as evidence. Apple's lawyers seems more concerned about it than you. Apple's issue is rectangle with rounded corners with rounded corners and screen centered.
24. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 898; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
The phone was irrelevant AND released after the iPhone. Of course they did.
32. MartyK (Posts: 706; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
By your logic, if the phone was release after, so was the galaxy s series... You make no sense.
please explain again?
46. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 898; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
The Galaxy S infringed by being a capacitive touchscreen smartphone knockoff. The F700 was a fat, resistive, QWERTY-slider, feature phone, so nothing like the iPhone.
54. willard12 (Posts: 764; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Apple sued over the design of rectangle with rounded corners. Go through the list of phones from the trial, there are several phones feature phones with keyboards, including HTC phones Apple has gone after. Since you seem to keep naming things that aren't a part of the lawsuits like "resistive touch and keyboards", and you refuse to explain why Apple's kawyers BLOCKED any mentioning of the F700, let's just say you don't know what you're talking about. Tell us why they blocked the f700, please. Then tell us something invented by Apple.
51. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Anytime Apple wanted to sue Motorola for the Xoom....for the front of it. Because everywhere else it looks nothing like an iPad.
Now tell me that the Xoom is a copy.
The front of a picture frame and that fat UMPC should be valid.
38. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You lose. Apple worked on the iPad before it worked on the iPhone. The iPhone started circa June 2005, therefore, the iPad PREDATES the Samsung product (that did not have multitouch, etc).
It would be nice if people did their homework as opposed to making wild a** guesses.
9. darkkjedii (Posts: 10970; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Looking at those pics, combined with Samsungs own admissions, they'd better get a pen with lotsa ink to write that check. Pay to the order of apple inc
$lotsa dollars and 0 cents.
18. PBXtech (Posts: 973; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
And then Apple will give it all back for Samsung's highly sought after components. Crazy world we live in.
13. arulexp (Posts: 1; Member since: 19 Nov 2013)
apple please patent every possible way to zoom on touch device as non SEPs(ex.. touch and hold, using transparent zoom bar on screen, using volume rocker to zoom, adding zoom option on menu,drag to zoom) and extended your monopoly and ask insane price to license these patent(for ex 30$/phone,40$/tablets) and use their SEPs at negligible prices
26. ojdidit84 (Posts: 293; Member since: 16 Jul 2011)
I can't for the life of me stand Apple's business practices but I really think that Samsung needs to just go ahead and write that check and get these court hearings over with. It's been pretty obvious that Samsung copied the iPhone with the SGS1. I didn't want any Samsung products after seeing that.
Now that SJ is gone, I don't see apple with many innovative products like they had. I'd love to see them do well and not regress into obscurity and near bankruptcy like they did before SJ came back to Apple. At this point, it's pretty clear that they're playing catch up with everyone else.
Competition is always good. I'd just like to see them compete with innovative products instead of lawsuits.
27. Aplusk (Posts: 93; Member since: 10 Nov 2013)
that samsung windows phone looks cool from 1st pic,
what about above it 3 phones, which os it has ?
28. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 2586; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
Greedy Apple. Now-a-days most of the phones' designs are same.
30. zennacko (Posts: 233; Member since: 16 Jun 2013)
Pointless Waste of Time. If it didn't mean the potential loss of billions over the time, if I was Samsung's CEO I would just "pull out" of the US market and leave their clearly biased judges and Apple happy with the market (and they are biased because it is absolutely ridiculous that all of this mess started because of a stupid shape)
34. MartyK (Posts: 706; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
I agree, but then I wouldn't have a phone.
The problem is people in the USA, feels (not think) that we deserve to be known for everything, in the past we were, but the reality is, the world has caught up and some case, has past us because we refuse to see how unfair, unjust, petty and self delusion we are.
One day we will learn to be critical thinkers (not feelers/emotional Idiots) again.
43. JakeLee (Posts: 959; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You can then stop using the pinch-to-zoom feature on your Android phone until Apple's patent expires.
Can you imagine how inconvenient it would be without this feature? Be honest.
If you have doubts in patentability of this feature, you can file an appeal.
Apparently Samsung already did and lost, for very good reasons.
Patented is patented. period.
37. wando77 (Posts: 282; Member since: 23 Aug 2012)
Iphones before Samsung and Nokia etc released phones = 0.
Iphones after Samsung and Nokia etc release phones = several.
If a product is successful then other people copy. Deal with it apple
41. neurobiologist (Posts: 70; Member since: 07 Nov 2012)
fckapple does not own or created ergonomic, laws of geometry or anything what so ever.
Rows of icons is the basic idea from a lot of devices from the past with black and white screen. Shape is simple math, not belongs to anyone. And this one, even well known from the past.
Power increasing every year is even a law, if any stupid head still thinks pukeapple innovating in processors or somewhere else.
americans are so disgusting...
42. JC557 (Posts: 1033; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)
What's with the info graphics? The before and after iPad is a blatant lie as there were plenty of examples of tablets before the ipad that look like modern tablets or were at least the precursors to modern tablets, aka evolution of tech.
Same goes for the smartphone arena. Some MP3 players also had an iPhone like look before the iPhone came out. Lastly: LG Prada.
44. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Since I have to respond to more than 1 person claiming Apple created the world:
Please look at the date on the slides......slides that came from Apple. Every phone there was on display. The iPhone was mysteriously absent....
Feb 2006...LG Prada and F700....on display
Please read the beginning lil blurb before the slides ...Apple said that.
As for the picture frame and that Samsung media player.....just look at both from the front. How in the world the Galaxy Tab cannot be seen as an evolution of those designs... Apple worked on X products for years....yet other companies release actual hardware before Apple's.
But Everyone's Copying Apple.....fanboyism is a disease...seriously.
45. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 1264; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
Where is the Samsung F700 "BEFORE iPhone"?
52. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Whats also wild is Meizu phones were on display in Feb 2006.
Now....those phones are clear copies of the iPhone. For some reason Apple mysteriously doesnt give them alot of attention. They even tried to sue them...and flat out lost.
Apple feels threatened by Samsung? Seems that way to me.