Print 45 comment(s) - last by iEatApples.. on Nov 24 at 12:06 PM

Got to ban them all

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's San Jose courtroom Judge Paul S. Grewal has ordered that warring smartphone makers Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) and Apple, Inc. (AAPL) be allowed to dramatically expand their lawsuits by including nearly all of each others current product.

I. Round Two Set, With iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III Ban Requests Added

Round one of the battle in California U.S. District Court when resoundingly to Apple.  Initially, Judge Lucy Koh moved to dismiss the case, but in a somewhat unusual outcome a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered [PDF] Judge Koh to reconsider tossing the case.  Judge Koh subsequently allowed Apple to take Samsung to trial, and in a stunning outcome the jury -- some of whose family members were Apple shareholders -- found Samsung guilty of $1.05B USD in damages.  Apple was found innocent of Samsung's infringement claims.

In the wake of that stinging ruling Apple looked to capitalizing, looking to triple the damages to $3B USD on the grounds that the jury found the infringement to be "willful" and non unintentional.

The Samsung Galaxy S III

But that round of the battle, which is still ongoing, only deals with last generation devices.  A second, newer case was filed by Apple in February target the Galaxy Nexus (which at the time was one of Samsung's flagship designs).  Apple alleged that the Nexus infringed on eight of its patents.  Samsung, as with the previous suit, filed a counter-claim, alleging the iPad infringed on eight of its own patents.

In recent weeks both companies have looked to pile on new claims to that second suit, asking Judge Grewal to refresh it to contain their rival's current products.

The iPhone 5

Samsung asked to add the iPhone 5 to the case and have the jury rule on new infringement claims.  Apple sought a far bigger expansion, adding a general claim covering all devices running Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Jelly Bean operating system (which in turn covers 17 stylus based products) and the Samsung Galaxy S III, Samsung flagship phone.  Samsung balked at Apple's request arguing that it covered far many products.

Ultimately Judge Grewal largely sided with Apple's claim that it was valid to tack on a broad range of devices, despite the time involved, although he did offer Samsung a bit of good news by approving its iPhone 5 addition to the counterclaim.

II. Smartphone War Has Mostly Been a Stalemate

So far the smartphone between Apple and Android smartphone makers has been largely a stalemate, thus far.  Apple did dent HTC Corp.'s (TPE:2498) sales with a month long seizure of shipments, but it ultimately settled up with Android phonemaker into a long-term IP licensing deal after failing to secure more bans.

Technically, Google-owned Android phonemaker subsidiary Motorola Mobility and Apple are still at war, but their case has gone nowhere.  The pair's suits/countersuits have been dismissed with prejudice not once, not twicebut three times from different federal courts.

As for Samsung v. Apple, despite the big jury loss, virtually no Samsung products have been banned from sale.  Judge Koh recently struck down the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (the precursor to the Note 10.1), as the jury found it did not infringe on U.S. Design Patent D504,889, a design patent which depicted a bulkier button-less early iteration of the iPad, nicknamed by some the "fat iPad".

Return of the Banned
Many Android smartphones have escaped Apple's ban hopes.

While Judge Koh did acknowledge that the Tab 10.1 was found to infringe on Apple user interface patents, she argued that was insufficient to ban the handsets.  

Judge Koh had put in place a preliminary injunction on the Galaxy Nexus, pending the outcome of the second trial back in June.  But in early October the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit tossed that ban as well, arguing that Apple's arguments regarding Samsung's supposed infringements were flawed and demonstrated a lack of understanding about the workings of Android.

While the $1B USD jury verdict was a blow for Samsung, considering the company is pulling in a cool profit of $7.4B USD per quarter, the impact shouldn't be too big, even if it holds up on appeal.

III. Samsung May be Forced to Pay More, But Bans are Unlikely

The Apple versus Samsung conflict, the last of the major lawsuit battles to appear to have some life left, also happens to be the most pivotal for both Android and Apple.  Samsung is by far the biggest smartphone maker, and is ahead of Apple in unit sales.  It is also the only smartphone maker to common anywhere close to Apple's gawdy margins (though it still makes much less profit).

The most wild outcome, with the additions would be for the nation's two best-selling phonemakers to have all their current product banned from sale.  (An outcome that would surely please some like HTC and Nokia Oyj. (HEX:NOK1V)).

More likely there will be few if any bans, based on past cases.  But the time-consuming case may lead to another billion dollar verdict.  

Apple money
In the last some jurors had family members who were Apple shareholders.
[Image Source: SomanyMP3s]

Apple has a distinct advantage in that the case is being tried in a local court, with jurors selected from a relatively affluent region, where many people are either Apple shareholders or have family members who hold Apple stock.  Judge Koh in the previous case said it would be fine for jurors to have family members with large amounts of Apple stock, as she did not see that as an unacceptable bias.

Amidst that outcome, the most likely outcome may be that Samsung is forced to pay another "licensing fee" sort of sorts -- a billion dollard dent -- but is unlikely to see substantial product bans, given Apple's unwillingness to license Samsung patents covering relatively trivial and ubiquitous software features (some of which are in the early stages of invalidation) or design features (like the rectangle).

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: What?
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2012 7:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Actually its more of crap like this that could result

Succession is the single most unamerican thing you could possibly do.

The British probably felt the same way.

And I'm not calling for succession. I do plan to help organize. That doesn't mean I think everything is great and we'll just get over this in 4 years once Obama is gone. It has nothing to do with the fact that he has a 'D' appear in front of his name on the ballot card. It has to do with the fact that he doesn't believe in the America that the founders created.

Yes he was not the start of the problem nor will he be the end of it. But this election showed that we as a nation have fallen to where the color of a man's skin and what he'll give to us are more important than the rule of law and what the man actually believes in and has done when considering who should lead us.

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 11/16/2012 7:43:15 PM , Rating: 4
Chipping in as a Brit who is regularly disappointed at the US political systems inability to deliver effective government (a disappointment founded on my deep affection for the USA) I recommend this article.

It makes an interesting case for viewing the current US constitution as being structured as a the frozen version of the constitutional arrangements current in Britain at the time of the Revolution.

An excerpt:

And that explains an unremarked but curious fact. While the American founding fathers were in conscious reaction against England, they unconsciously echoed its political culture. With the constitution cementing that in place, it means that American politics today is closer to British politics at the time the Americans rebelled than British politics today, and Obama resembles George III more than David Cameron (politically rather than personally, that is). He is both head of state and chief executive, and does not need, or indeed now have, a congressional majority. Like the king, he has to barter with the legislature, using cajolery, bribery or appeals to loyalty (the last not much use with the present house).

The resemblance goes even further. Congress is more like parliament under George III than under George VI. The House of Lords may be absurd, but it is not more absurd than the Senate. Wyoming, with its 570,000 inhabitants, sends two senators to this bizarre body, and so does California, with 40 million. Even worse, since the 17th amendment of 1913, senators have been elected by popular vote. Until then, they had been chosen by state legislatures, as is still true elsewhere.

I am convinced that the US needs deep constitutional reform but I fear it is unlikely to come about. Whatever happens I do wish the country all the best and always feel thankful that the century I was born in the middle of was one dominated by the US as all the possible alternatives as world hegemon are too awful to contemplate.

RE: What?
By retrospooty on 11/17/2012 7:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
"I am convinced that the US needs deep constitutional reform but I fear it is unlikely to come about. Whatever happens I do wish the country all the best and always feel thankful that the century I was born in the middle of was one dominated by the US as all the possible alternatives as world hegemon are too awful to contemplate."

Totally agreed. When your head isnt up in the iCloud you arent so narrow minded ;)

RE: What?
By Cluebat on 11/20/2012 1:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Our constitution does not need reform. It needs to be made relevent again.

It has completely lost it's purpose as a limiting device and because of that we have lost federalism.

D.C. is only supposed to be allowed to exercise powers specifically granted in the constitution. All other powers belong to each state- such as the "right" to vote.

If you want a more enlightened government, then you should also expect a more enlightened electorate.

The only way to do that would be to have minimum requirements to prove a person is knowledgable and responsible enough to cast a ballot.

RE: What?
By retrospooty on 11/16/2012 9:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with you at all. To me the problem is there was no alternative. It's not like Romney was going to fix anything, or McCain, gore, Kerry, or any other recent candidate. But we will survive. We have been through much worse than this.

RE: What?
By GotThumbs on 11/19/2012 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
I strongly disagree, but I'm not surprised by your lack of faith/optimism. You obviously have no idea the amount of hidden taxes coming down the pipeline that will affect everyone. Your starting to see the consequences of the pathetic "Healthcare" law. It is the perfect example of stupidity when lawyers are running the show.

The simple fact that America chooses a lawyer to run the county rather than an undeniably successful self-made millionaire speaks volumes.....At least to me. Success in American is now deemed to be shameful since others who are not as successful are envious and feel the successful should be held responsible for those who are not as committed to working hard for their own success. America was built on the foundation of working hard for what one has. Today, most of U.S. society is lazy and wants others to do things for them. Yet look at the millions of dollars given to sports athletes in this country and the millions given to actors. No one seems to mind about the fact that those careers were once considered recreational and require very little intelligence. I'm saying all athletes and actors are dumb, but I'm sure most are less intelligent than many of you. Think of scum like Michael Vick who multiple killed dogs himself and yet He's back to making millions running a football down the field. You have Pete Rose whose been banned for life from baseball for betting on sports games. Forget the color of their skin...Now think which is worse....a man killing multiple fighting dogs in a heinous and torturous manner using electricity OR a man betting on a sports games? America has extremely lowered its ethical standards/morels and its logic and reasoning is backasswards.

I'm not a business owner, but I've worked hard for what I have and do not feel I need to feel embarrassed or ashamed of it. I'm not wealth, but life a comfortable life and I choose to donate my time and money, but on my own terms.

Many people today are weak minded and lazy when it comes to educating themselves on what the news media is telling them and how that media outlet whats to sway public opinion. If you don't think the media has motives in swaying public opinion, then your naive twit and won't amount to anything in live. Ignorant people will always be controllable by others.

It's simply disgusting the direction things are heading for this country. Sad and disgusting.

But it can be turned around if people wake up and realize nothing is free and independence can be achieved through hard work and determination. Don't think what happened to Greece can't happen to us. Only a fool thinks He's immune to the realities of the world. We just have too many lazy kids coming up and Obama knew the college students were ripe for the picking. Most of them are used to mom and dad taking care of everything and have no concept of earning a wage and paying.

Rant over,

Best wishes for everyone

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki