backtop


Print 124 comment(s) - last by nafhan.. on Aug 27 at 4:41 PM

Want to guess which company is breaking out the champagne tonight?

The jury reached a verdict today and they found Samsung guilty on multiple counts of infringing upon Apple design and software patents. While Apple was able to hold Samsung's feet to the fire on the majority of its utility patents, Samsung received no love from the jurors on its countersuit claims.
 
The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1,051,855,000 USD ($1.05B USD) in damages. Apple owes Samsung absolutely nothing.
 

Apple CEO Tim Cook [Image Source: Paul Sakuma, Associated Press]

Not surprisingly, both Apple and Samsung have issued statements to the New York Times regarding the decision. First up, Apple:
 
We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
 
And now we have Samsung, which is clearly not pleased with the outcome of this case:
 
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
 
And even though Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with this trial (Microsoft can safely sit on the sidelines as a spectator), Bill Cox, senior director of Marketing Communications for Windows Phone, added his two cents in on the decision:
 

Considering Microsoft’s current position in the smartphone marketplace, we’re not quite sure it's “winning” in this case.


Updated 8/25/2012 @ 2:53am EST
9to5Mac has received an internal memo sent to Apple employees by Apple CEO Tim Cook. In the memo, which features similar wording to the statement issued by Apple after the ruling, Cook describes how taking Samsung to court wasn't about the "patents or money":

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.
 
Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work. For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.
 
We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than we knew.
 
The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
 
I am very proud of the work that each of you do.
 
Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.
 
Tim

Sources: The New York Times, Twitter



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What were the Jurors thinking?
By Tony Swash on 8/26/2012 5:25:18 AM , Rating: 1
In a pair of reports from Reuters and CNET, jury foreman Velvin Hogan and juror Manuel Ilagan described what went on behind closed doors as the nine-member group deliberated the landmark verdict. Their remarks make it plain that there deliberations were rational and considered but the verdict was pretty easy to reach because the evidence was so clear cut.

In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67, said Apple's arguments about the need to protect innovation were persuasive in the jury room. He also said video testimony from senior Samsung executives made it "absolutely" clear to them that the infringement was purposeful.

We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough.We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented. It was clear there was infringement."

Foreman Hogan echoed the juror's sentiment, telling Reuters that video testimony from Samsung officials made it "absolutely" clear that the company willfully infringed on Apple's trade dress. He went on to say Apple's arguments for the protection of intellectual property factored largely into the jury's decision.

We didn't want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else's intellectual property," Hogan said.

As for Samsung's claims of infringement, Ilagan said the company lost the jury when it tried to leverage two UMTS wireless patents against Apple, one of which involved the communications chip in the iPhone and iPad. Apple refuted this specific claim and pointed to a Samsung licensing deal with Intel, the maker of the iDevice chips. The agreement stated that Samsung was not allowed to sue any company to which Intel sold that particular component, a licensing safeguard known as patent exhaustion.

Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same," Ilagan said. "Like the trade dress -- once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flat screen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."

Jurors felt Samsung should pay significant damages in the landmark patent trial against Apple, even though they viewed Apple's demands as too high, according to the foreman.

"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

At one point during the second day of deliberations, jurors turned off the lights in the room to settle a debate about the potential influence screen brightness might have on Apple's graphics interface. Their verdict: Apple's designs were unique.

"All of us feel we were fair, that we can stand by our verdict and that we have a clear conscience in that we were totally not biased one way or another," Hogan said.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki