Skip to comments.After seeking $2 billion, jury awards Apple just $120 million over Samsung’s infringement
Posted on 05/03/2014 2:03:44 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple Inc., after seeking $2 billion in damages, won only $120 million from Samsung Electronics Co. in a jury trial over smartphone technology, Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. The verdict sets the stage for the iPhone maker to seek a judges order banning U.S. sales of its rivals devices that infringed its patents. The jury also found that Apple infringed one Samsung patent, awarding it $158,000 in damages.
It is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple, Brian Love, an assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, said in an e-mail. This amount is less than 10 percent of the amount Apple requested and probably doesnt surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case, Rosenblatt reports. Jurors found that Samsung infringed two of the four Apple patents it considered in a case, which revolved around whether the maker of Galaxy phones used features in Google Inc.s Android operating system that copied the iPhone makers technology. A finding that Samsung infringed the auto-correction patent was issued by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh before the trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at macdailynews.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Correct me if I’m wrong....but Apple likely expended at least a hundred million bucks in legal costs, lawyers, experts, etc....to get to this point. So of the $120 million in fines....they really make just $20 million off this effort?
Correct me if I’m wrong....but Apple likely expended at least a hundred million bucks in legal costs, lawyers, experts, etc....to get to this point. So of the $120 million in fines....they really make just $20 million off this effort?
Now maybe they can go away and realize that you can’t sue your way to a monopoly,
And maybe Android companies can team up and start litigating this patent troll too.
You're not wrong. Apple would have appreciated the full $2.2 Billion plus a finding of willfully infringing, which would have trebled the award, but face it, does Apple really need the money? What Apple wants is the verdict. . . and later an injunction. . . Pointless as that will be against antique phones and tablets no longer on the market.
LOL!...all the while Samsung supplies Apple with parts to build their stuff...like displays. Sounds like a family quarrel.
I thought you were a conservative. Isn't FreeRepublic a Conservative site? Doesn't FR uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? Yes, it does. Why not trying reading it, VanDeKoik. Specifically, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
"Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.". . . Exclusive right" IS a monopoly! VanDeKoik, and Patent law requires the patent holder to defend his patent or lose it. I guess you DON'T follow the constitution, and prefer to support a foreign company. Gotcha.
Apple gets some parts from Samsung. Displays come from multiple sources including LG, Sony, and others. The fact that Samsung supplies Apple allows them inside information for infringement. They've used that.
Very funny, creative ad.
Appeal? (pun intended)
So a company designs a system and patents it. Then someone steals that patent and gets away with it. Sounds like Mexico or China...not America.
Sounds appealing. . .
How on earth does any legal issue rack up $100 million??? 300 high-priced lawyers over several years combined with “court costs?”
You might just be the only person that doesn’t know that Apple engaged in this petty protection of frivolousness in hopes of setting a precedent so they could litigate all of their competitors out of business.
Jobs said it himself.
And as far as I’m concerned, since Apple is funneling money into the pockets of Democrats and gay marriage advocates, I couldn’t care less about protecting their “right” to slide to unlock and rounded corners. Wooooo, what a innovation worthy of over a billion dollars!
But hey I’ve said many time if you want to see what conservatives sound like when they act like leftists, then just find an Apple topic. They will go to the mat to religiously defend a company that finances the same people that are trying to destroy them. Gotcha.
As if Apple is some American as apple pie company. Unless Foxcomm is located in Indiana and I just kept misreading it as China.
Appeal? (pun intended)
They will iPpeal the verdict.
All of Free Republic does not agree with your personal assertion that a trademark system so out of control that it awards ownership of rectangles with rounded corners to iPple equates to conservatism.
Your problem here is that too many Freepers actually followed this and read the damned suit.
Maybe if iPple wanted a monopoly they should have tried making a better product at a better price than their competitors. Instead of patent trolling.
The CONCEPT of a patent is quite conservative: You divulge your technology to the world, and in return, you get the privilege of exclusive use of it for 20 years. The APPLICATION of patent law is quite liberal: You give politically connected lawyers lots of money to protect your rights. The issue to me is how lawyers and law makers have mucked up a perfectly good concept.
Looks like a “buy on mystery, sell on history” kind of development. :’)
Apple is the worst thief of all of the technology companies. Anyone familiar with VHC and the technology they patented and has been stolen and used by Apple for many years. Apple’s response, even after a jury verdict for over $300 million against them as well as a .98% running royalty rate, is to litigate and bully VHC. I use Apple products but I am switching because the company is run by criminals who steal technology and bully anyone that stands up to them.
I wholeheartedly agree. Apple IS a patent troll themselves. I’ve been following a company that has patents on secure end to end encrypted communications. They won a 368 million dollar verdict against Apple on 11/6/2012. apple has used every trick in the book to fight it. They (and other big silicon valley types) helped craft the final version of the AIA. Among the provisions, they created new ways to fight ‘so-called patent trolls.’ (See IPR and PTAB). 0bama couldn’t spell patent troll without them but it became his meme du jour. They are deep into his pocket. Those new processes allow a loser in a patent suit to fire multiple shots on goal against smaller companies and their inventors by re-litigating the same patents and trying to get them declared invalid. all post jury verdict. it costs big to play this game...and the deep pocketed Apple has no qualms about doing so. Currently, the Federal Appeals court is considering an appeal from Apple against this small company to have the jury verdict overturned. We should have an answer in a few weeks. There’s a good site: ipwatchdog, that I read. I’m no lawyer, especially a patent attorney..but the new AIA (America Invents Act)and the further tweaks they are trying to add to it are making it much more difficult to protect small inventors and their intellectual property.
A monopolistic giant BLEEDS, as it exits the courtroom.
Apple, as I remember them, when I had my LC475, had the same frame of mind, as the high priest with the bells on. You, the lowly, unknowing, owner of one of their products, was treated with disdain, when asked ‘what went wrong with the machine?’
At least that was my experience with the Portland, OR Apple shop, located on the Columbia river floodplain, near to the vicinity of Leatherman Tools.
I’ve seen the abbreviated commercial on the tube...never seen the full version. Good one.
Cracks me up when Apple-haters rag on Mac products for being made in China and not in the USA.
When was the last time you bought a made in the USA computer?
As for Apple giving money to Democrats...have you checked out who Microsoft donates money to?
I know it doesn’t fit into your irrational Apple-hating viewpoint, but there isn’t, on a corporate level, a whole helluva lot of difference between Microsoft and Apple, except that Apple is much, much more profitable.
“Cracks me up when Apple-haters rag on Mac products for being made in China and not in the USA”
well when Apple “worshipers” try to play the Hate Samsung because they are Koreans card, then it is appropriate to point out how little of the so-called “American” Apple is made overseas.
“As for Apple giving money to Democrats...have you checked out who Microsoft donates money to?”
And when Gates flaps his mouth about needing immigration reform or some crap about “climate change”, I dont sit here and try to explain it away. In fact I have said that talk like that makes torrenting MS products so much easier for people. On the other hand the typical FR Apple apologist will quickly sweep that under the rug so they can get back to worshiping the fruit.
“I know it doesnt fit into your irrational Apple-hating viewpoint...”
Projection is a terrible drug.
“.. but there isnt, on a corporate level, a whole helluva lot of difference between Microsoft and Apple, except that Apple is much, much more profitable.”
Ooooooh. It like we are on a playground and you’re telling me that your dad makes more than mine. Seriously? It isnt your money. Stop trying to live vicariously through their wealth like it makes you some better person.
Go ahead, spout the propaganda repeating what Samsung spread on the PREVIOUS trial they lost to the tune of $930 million. Rectangles with rounded corners was NOT patented, contrary to the propaganda. That was part of the technical specification language, required by law, which must is a narrative that describing the design patent on the first iPhone and iPad in specifically constrained terms. Samsung's OWN design patents include the same phrase of rounded corners and rectangle, as part of each of their product descriptions. You fell for their reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy argument. . . exactly as they cynically intended.
Go ahead and ignore that Apple rightfully sued Samsung for EXACTLY duplicating the Trade Dress of the original Apple products down to the look of the chargers, changing only the color, the packing box their Galaxy Products came in, the connectors, etc. Samsung's own attorney, when pressed in the first trial, could not distinguish which phone was Apple's and which was Samsung's at a distance of just six feet, complaining, "I can't see the Samsung logo." Literally, the logo WAS the only distinguishing feature difference. The first trial revealed an internal Samsung document outlining every distinguishing iPhone feature. . . and ordering that it be included in their new Galaxy S1 132 pages of features that had to be exactly copied. Smoking gun, MrEdd. The document even detailed WHY the iPhone feature was desirable or needed. Lots of smoke and fire. Face it, Samsung is losing in every court in every Nation. They even lost in South Korea.
You are suffering from Apple Derangement Syndrome.
“ it is appropriate to point out how little of the so-called American Apple is made overseas.”
Apple “Made in the USA” Mac Pro Launched
High-end computer features all U.S.A. components
If you google american made computers you won’t find much at all, except Apple. Lenovo, the Chinese company, is starting to build here in the U.S.A. but largely with chinese components.
Yep, the old adage,
You can tell the leaders -- they're the ones with the arrows in their backs..."
...is as true now as it ever was...
And, no, he did not. He said they should develop their OWN products not steal Apple's products. He said Apple doesn't mind competition, but shouldn't have to compete against Apple's own technology. Quit making up your own facts.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”
What a drama queen!
So we find out all of the “stolen” stuff was a stupid slide to unlock feature and some other frivolous crap.
And now Apple spends their time “stealing” ideas from Android using their definition of it. Of course you will never admit to that. That would be speaking ill of Apple.
Switching to WHAT? VirnetX won a $200,000,000 settlement from Microsoft before filing suit against Apple on the same patents they asserted against Microsoft. . . patents they don't actually use. They are a "non-practicing entity." Are you aware that they sued Apple because Apple licensed the chips from Cisco that provided the networking. Apple insisted in court they DO NOT USE the technology claimed by VirnetX, using another approach to accomplish a similar result, and Apple showed what they and Cisco used, but the jury awarded the judgment anyway. The ruling is under appeal. In March of 2013, VirnetX LOST their suit against Cisco when Cisco proved their chipsthe Cisco ICs that Apple usesDID NOT USE VirnetX's patented technology at all, showing the the court and jury the same evidence and testimony used in the Apple case. Well, what do you know? Is it possible the Jury made a mistake in the Apple case?
Oh. . . GEE! burghguy, Nothing was stolen, except perhaps by some low information stupid jurors in the plaintiff friendly East Texas "Rocket Docket" Federal Court who decided to be "generous" with the "big bad rich company Goliath's money" and gave it to the "poor little business David." VirnetX's attorney couched it in terms of David versus Goliath.
To claim Apple is "the worst thief," in light of Microsoft's history and convictions, is ludicrous. . . especially when your high dudgeon is based on a case based on false claims. It's interesting the Microsoft admitted their approach did indeed use VirnetX tech and admitted they WERE indeed infringing, continuing a long term practice Microsoft has been known for. . . and agreed to pay $200 million. . . Yet you blame Apple?!?!?
That was the case VirnetX's attorney's argued in the Apple case, claiming that "If Microsoft admitted infringing our four patents, then Apple must be,as well! Make them pay us!"ignoring the fact Microsoft did it in software while Apple's was in licensed Cisco hardwarebut that argument was what the jurors heard and believed. But it wasn't true.
Nor is your claim of Apple being the "worst thief of all the technology companies" true. As a matter of indisputed fact, except perhaps by you, Apple is known in the industry for licensing every technology it uses. . . or outright buying the company and/or patents. That also is the truth. . . and they often buy them years in advance. Look at the licensing of the world-wide rights to all uses of LiquidMetal in Electronics. Think about it. The patents VirnetX asserted were acquired for under a million dollars. . . quite a bit under. If Apple needed these patents, don't you think with the amount they spend on buying and licensing patents, they could have outbid the guys setting up a non-practicing entity holding company intended to hold-up companies who ACTUALLY DO THINGS? Of course they could, and would have. Apple does not take those kind of risks. . . and you cannot truthfully show they've stolen tech. Urban legends and myths abound, but the facts don't support the propaganda when pulled out into the light of day.
When you are reduced to arguing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, it’s time to put down the Kool Aid. It’s just sad...
Spoken like a true Apple cultist. Steve Jobs was notorious for stealing technology and it continues to this day. Cisco’s attorney confused the jury and was able to get a verdict that their hardware did not infringe, but the jury also found that VHC’s patents were not invalid. And here’s something interesting - - Cisco did not appeal that part of the decision. Cisco will eventually license VHC technology, which was designed by SAIC for the government to insure secure connections. Apple’s entire operating system, and especially FaceTime and iMessage, use VHC technology, and Apple’s feeble attempts at a workaround by using relay servers caused thousand of complaints before they stopped using it. Apple said at the hearing that they could do a workaround for less than $2 million and it would take several weeks. That was a bold faced lie which reduced the damages awarded at trial. Judge Davis recognized the lie (Apple later admitted it had spent much more for Akimai servers and was not close to a viable workaround) and penalized Apple for their dishonesty by increasing the royalty significantly. The CAFC is going to affirm the trial judge and then Apple will continue its delay tactics by seeking an en banc appeal and ultimately a shot at the Supreme Court, but they will lose because THEY ARE THIEVES. By the way, VHC has licensed their technology to 6 companies, all of which were stealing it prior to being sued. Microsoft is stealing VHC technology for Skype services but will soon have to pay up. VHC is not a NPE. The have available for purchase several apps to implement their technology, but why pay for something you can steal? Steve Jobs, may he burn in hell, stole everything that crossed his path. I will give you the fact that he was able to bring things to market in a way that made people want to buy, but he was a thief nonetheless.
SueRae, you've read some things and swallowed them. . . But look behind the curtain at the facts. . .
VirnetXthe company you are referring tois what is known as a non-practicing entity. They did not invent the technology to which you are referring. An NPE buys a portfolio of fringe patents or even just one patentthese fringe patents are patents that are NOT being licensed for any use and can be purchased for low pricesnot with the intent to use the patent to make something, but to sue with it. They find an obscure claim in their newly acquired patent that is similar to something a producer IS already making, doing, and/or producing, something that can be stretched into being construed as infringing and then sue the company who is actually doing the useful work, regardless if their "patented invention" is apropos to what they are making, doing, or producing. That IS a patent Troll. That is what your VirnetX is. I've read their patents. . . pretty heavy and boring reading.
If youre not familiar with the name VirnetX, you should be. The Internet security software and technology company (also known as a patent troll) has filed a patent infringement suit against every major tech company in the business, including Apple.source
Why has this tiny, unknown company suddenly started suing everyone in sight, which YOU think is just the evil Apple? Because, they acquired a laughable set of patents that establish a virtual private network, assign domain names, securing virtual private networks, and establishing a secure VPN using an encrypted key. There are literally hundreds of methods of doing these things. . . but claims in these patents with antecedents back to 1998 lead to the claim they invented VPN. . . not just their approach. Did the people granted these patents perhaps really come up with the idea of the Virtual Private Network and assigning Domain names? Hell no! VPN obviously predates 1998 as does assigning domain names, but it's in their claims. . . so everyone involved is attempting to invalidate the idiotic patents under obviousness, prior art, and other issues. That is what you are defending.
The fact that NO ONE WAS LICENSING these patents means they were most likely worthless. No one was licensing the VirnetX VPN and DNS methods. That's why the NPE can acquire them so cheaply. No one wanted them. An NPE buys a fringe patent gambling they'll be able to find something in the claims they can use to convert it into a pile of windfall licensing money by demanding licensing from a company such as Microsoft, HP, or Apple for a happenstance claim violation. . . not because they are truly infringing the patent itself. Claims are written extremely broadly by patent attorneys to include everything imaginable AND unimaginable.
In the case you are claiming Apple is so heinously guilty about and is so evilly appealing. . . Apple demonstrated IN COURT they legally licensed the virtual connectivity technology Apple used from Cisco built into hardware ROM ICs. If so, and Cisco was licensed for the patents Cisco used, then Apple was covered under the doctrine of patent exhaustion and Apple need not be directly licensed. Cisco testified that it IS licensed for everything in their ICs and the testimony showed it was NOT VirnetX tech. In fact, the Cisco licensed tech was in NO WAY similar to VirnetX's software patents. You can't infringe something that is not there, SueRae. Yet the jury ignored the evidence and found for VirnetX in what had to have been a very expensive sympathy vote. But then this was the East Texas Plaintiff Friendly "Rocket Docket" Federal Court famous for such skewed patent awards. I guess their hearts bleed for the "poor little inventor, too." Too bad they're nowhere to be found in this little juror amorality tale.
In 2013, when VirnetX sued Cisco on the same patents, VirnetX LOST! Cisco used the same testimony and evidence that Apple had used. . . and proved they did not use the VirnetX patents, in fact using totally different approaches to accomplish a similar result. However, the jury did not, unfortunately, invalidate the VirnetX patents. Since Apple licenses the Cisco ICs for that purpose, it is impossible for Apple to have infringed VirnetX patents, as found by the first jury using to the same evidence, which the second jury found not to be infringing EVEN WITH THE PRECEDENCE of the Apple verdict! THAT is why Apple is appealing. There are two contrary judgments. So here we have the totally absurd case where the customer Apple, has been found to be infringing a patent on a product found to be not infringed by the seller, Cisco, in the same court . . . on the same product, for the same patents, with the same testimony, and evidence. Is it any wonder this is being appealed???
And THATbecause of this case and othersis why Congress, not Obama, are considering changing the rules regarding the ability of NPEs to sue. Congress is considering that patents must be exercised, licensed by and/or used by their owner/holder before infringement suits can be brought.
You said you weren't a lawyer. May I suggest you dig deeper into facts before you label Apple a patent Troll. Apple uses the patents they develop, own, or assert. . . or intends to one day. They do not meet the definition of a troll. These people you think you are protecting are NOT the inventors. Far from it. . .
You ARE an idiot. Here YOU are the one playing the insult card. . . The call Apple users "worshippers" and "bigot" card. Find an American made computer, VanDeKoik. . . Guess what? It's the Apple MacPro, manufactured in Austin, Texas.
VanDeKoik, you are the one in here throwing spite balls, we are merely responding to YOUR bile. You are the one who invades every Apple thread to post negative comments.
I see. . . have you READ the VHC patents? I have. They are nothing special. You maintain that EVERY company in tech was stealing this technology. BULLsh!T. These were and are common concepts. . . with multiple methods of accomplishing them. That was testified in court. Cisco’s method did not infringe. You claim Cisco’s attorney “confused” the jury. . . More BS.
Cisco has no NEED to appeal a decision they won! Nor why should they ever license VHC’s technology. They are not infringing. You can’t have it both ways.
If SAIC developed these “oh so technical, and important” inventions, tell me. . . How did this itty, bitty company acquire them??? If, as you say, they were developed for the Government, then the GOVERNMENT OWNS THEM. . . that’s the way government contracts work. How did that work????
Please provide your unambiguous non-myth PROOF of Steve Jobs stealing “everything that crossed his path.” I assure you your proof had better be damned solid. I’ve been shooting down trolls for fifteen years on this tripe with documented facts. I haven’t lost yet. You won’t come up with anything new.
And did you find ANY thing in there about "putting them out of business"? Is "Android" a "business"? You might also want to research the origination of those ideas you claim are "stolen" from Android. . . and find out what company is attributed with their invention. Hint: it ain't Google, Xerox, or Microsoft. . .
Actually, the inventors of those patents DO work for the company...as they did for SAIC. And they did/do have other licensees. Avaya, Siemens and one or two others. we’ll see how far Cisco gets trying to bid for FirstNet and other programs without those licenses. If those patents are worth nothing, why is Apple continuing the fight? Why did Apple profess to have an easy to implement workaround at trial, only to have it completely disrupt Facetime and iMessage when they attempted to implement it? But if you’re a die-hard Apple fan, go with it. Stay tuned.
And did you find ANY thing in there about “putting them out of business”?
” Im going to destroy Android”
“Uh, I dont see anything”
” Is “Android” a “business”? “
I’m seriously not going to entertain your attempt at splitting hairs. you know what I’m talking about.
” You might also want to research the origination of those ideas you claim are “stolen” from Android. . . and find out what company is attributed with their invention. Hint: it ain’t Google, Xerox, or Microsoft. . .”
Yeah, we know. Apple invented everything. Even the stuff they haven’t invented that other people have done first. I read enough deranged nonsense from iUsers to know how badly you twist time and space to attribute virtually everything on Earth to Apple.
Either Apple invented everything and everyone else stole it or Apple has to “keep up with market trends, and thus it is ok for them to take other people’s ideas because they will make them better”. It is usually a combo of both of those.
“You ARE an idiot. Here YOU are the one playing the insult card. . . The call Apple users “worshippers” and “bigot” card. Find an American made computer, VanDeKoik. . . Guess what? It’s the Apple MacPro, manufactured in Austin, Texas.”
Ooooooh wow! I’m glad you pointed out Apple’s most popular and highest selling device as your go-to example. Apple certainly took a gamble moving the bulk of their product line from China here. /s Maybe you will bra about how all of Apple’s print ads are made in the U.S. too?
The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. But Apple tosses you a PR crumb and you roll with it.
“The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. But Apple tosses you a PR crumb and you roll with it.”
I was thinking the same. Why now, after proclaiming for years the superiority of Chinese factories, would Apple build a factory in Texas? Why just a few years ago Saint Steve said it was impossible.
Visit an Apple factory in China? No need, we have one here. Just drop in at the Austin plant anytime, the Chinese plants are identical, just bigger. And, ya know, Chinese. And covered in suicide nets. But the suicide nets were designed right here in the USA!