backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Jan 4 at 6:06 AM

Samsung says release damages it competitively; federal judge says "too bad", sides with local firm, Apple

While Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) and Apple, Inc. (AAPL) are still preparing to square off for a second major patent infringement case, both companies are also actively engrossed in battling over damages in the first case, which saw Apple found innocent of infringement and Samsung guilty of $1.05B USD in willful infringement.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Lucy Koh gave Samsung a bit of a boost in December when she rejected Apple's request to ban sales of 26 Samsung "Galaxy" products, writing that Apple failed to prove that Samsung's infringement drove the demand for Samsung products.

But she's still in the process of finalizing how much Samsung should have to pay Apple.

And this week she dealt Samsung a blow, denying a request by Samsung to seal the results of a Dec. 10 request she made to Samsung.  Judge Koh had asked Samsung last month to reveal unit sales of certain products over certain time periods.  It is unknown what models precisely were requested, but they likely included the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II smartphones -- centerpieces of Apple's first infringement case against Samsung.
 
Samsung had pleaded with Judge Koh to keep those details out of the public eye, arguing that it would damage it from a competitive perspective.  Judge Koh had little sympathy for the South Korean electronics company, though, siding with local firm Apple, who argued the information should be made public regardless of the damage to its rival.

Apple is pushing Judge Koh to triple the damages to over $3B USD, which can be done in certain cases if the infringement was deemed "willful".  Samsung, meanwhile, is urging Judge Koh to trim the settlement, pointing out that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has filed preliminary invalidation rulings regarding two of the key Apple utility patents involved in the case.

Thus at this point damages could go in any direction.  For now all that is clear is that we'll soon be learning some new information on Samsung sales and that for now no Samsung products are banned.

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Glad to see it
By MartyLK on 1/2/2013 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
A few of the things Google was ripping from Apple illegally based on patent rights.

slide/swipe-to-unlock
drag-over-icon-to-create-folder
embedded hyperlink phone numbers

Where's the patents on what you listed?


RE: Glad to see it
By ritualm on 1/3/2013 2:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
Google ripping off Apple on software gestures? LOL

Software patents are full of bullcrap. So are your posts.


RE: Glad to see it
By nafhan on 1/3/2013 10:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your examples are great illustrations of one of the current problems with IP law: they're not innovations worthy of protection. Nonsense like this is exactly why we've got companies spending more on lawyers than R&D.

You'd like to slow down innovation in order to protect a simple method for creating folders on a touchscreen. WHY?


RE: Glad to see it
By MartyLK on 1/3/2013 11:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I see the merit in protecting IP work. It's very much similar to protecting a bunch of oil paint and canvas mixed together in a specific way to produce a highly valued work of art.

At its root, a painting that gains worldwide recognition and multi-million-dollar value is nothing more than a smearing of paints on a simple canvas. But the value comes not only from the way the smearing of paint was done, but also by whom it was done.

Anyone can spear paint on a canvas. But that doesn't lead to value. Anyone can produce a swipe-lock effect, but the originator of the effect takes the crown.


RE: Glad to see it
By nafhan on 1/3/2013 4:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Part of protecting IP is creating reasonable criteria for determining which IP is valuable. I'm not discussing IP vs. no IP. I'm discussing protecting IP at a reasonable level vs. what we have now - which is skewed towards incumbents and legal posturing rather than innovation, research, and benefit for the consumer (i.e. ideas in line with the original intent of IP). If that ends up looking "anti-Apple", that may be because you care about Apple and only Apple - not the larger environment of technology and innovation.


RE: Glad to see it
By Strunf on 1/4/2013 6:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
What you fail to see is that you can make 1 million different paintings or more, the chances that 2 people come up with the same painting is virtually impossible, that's why you can put a copyright on it just so no one copies it.

On a smart-phone touch sensitive or not there are very few possibilities, if you want to unlock a phone and it's touch sensitive the very basic would be touch to unlock or touch and move to unlock, the barn at my grandmother farm has a slide to unlock door, there's really nothing new on a slide to unlock. The same with the two fingers thing to zoom, this has been around for ages on science fiction movies...

At the end of the day you use your fingers to operate a touch-sensitive device so it's perfectly normal to admit than you never really come up with a unique input method.


RE: Glad to see it
By MartyLK on 1/3/2013 11:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
I have to resort to this because of the censorship here.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/MartyLK/Pos...


RE: Glad to see it
By ritualm on 1/3/2013 5:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you really think DT is censoring you on purpose, wait until you're in North Korea.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














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