SAN JOSE, Calif. — Jurors here awarded Apple a fraction of the patent infringement damages it sought from Samsung, failing to hurt the Korean company or slow down the Android juggernaut, analysts said.
The verdict in the second Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case here gives both sides reason to claim victory publicly and feel defeat privately.
Apple can claim it won by far the most damages ($119.6 million) and proved the most instances of infringement. However, it reaped little more than 5% of the $2.191 billion in the damages it sought -- far less than the $1.05 billion awarded in its first case here 18 months ago -- and the jury found no infringement on two of its five patents in the case.
Samsung was awarded damages for Apple infringing on one of its patents, but it got an even smaller fraction ($158,400) of the total ($6 million) it sought, and a fraction of the amount awarded to Apple. It was the first decision in the two cases of Apple infringing on a Samsung patent.
A few shoes have yet to fall in the case. Judge Lucy H. Koh will be asked to grant an injunction against Samsung selling infringing mobile devices in the US. That's not widely expected, and in any case, Samsung's latest models (such as the Galaxy S5) were not at issue in the trial.
Jurors found Samsung guilty of willful infringement on the '721 patent, on which it awarded just $750,648 in damages. The decision gives Judge Koh the option of increasing those damages up to threefold.
On Monday, jurors will be dismissed and will get an opportunity to talk publicly about their thinking behind the verdict. It's anyone's guess what the four men and four women on the jury will do.
Before they are let go, they will be asked why they assessed no damages for one Samsung smartphone they decided had infringed -- an apparent mistake caught by Apple's attorneys.
The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing on three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing on one of its patents. The full verdict form is below.
I did not expect this case to end this way, expected jury to be hard on the side of Samsung. But after reading this article I think the jury was fair. But generally those who have achieved and gained a lot in this case are the lawyers from both sides; this is why I am suggesting that these patent cases should be handled by engineer lawyers since they will understand them in the engineering perspective.
If I were to fantasize, we should have a technology arbitration tribunal for cases like these with binding arbitration. Composed solely of engineers with impeccable repuation. Guys like Bob Pease (miss that guy's writing, RIP ), Ken Thompson and so on. At least both sides would get a fair hearing and obvious patents would get knocked out with a withering comment of " You actually think that is original ?" ! Fundamentally this is one engineer being accused of ripping of another engineer's work, so why let non-techies into the action !
Considering that the jury was from the heart of America's Silicon Valley, I must say I was surprised the jury didn't consider it their patriotic duty to severely punish Korean Samsung. The chances are most of them owned Android phones. I guess the Samsung lawyers learned from the previous trial not to select hard core Silicon Valley employees, one of whom who turned out to be jury foreman at the last trial.
It never ceases to amaze me how blind justice actually is. We technical people can readily see the blind lawyers leading the blind judges in interpreting what these blind people actually believe is "expert testimony", usually coming from an ivory tower acedemic who has published the most papers. Non-PhDs need not apply.
@fmotta one of my friends decided to stop being an excellent engineer for a living
About 30 years ago I worked with a young guy new-hire who admitted the only reason he got an engineering degree was so that he could then take law and get rich suing large corporations over engineering patents.
After 6 months of producing absolutely nothing he got canned - no loss. But he probably made a 'fine' lawyer.
I'm not at all surprised that the slide-to-unlock feature has been used before. What astounds me is that it is patentable - it seems farily obvious. The real innovation I see in "slide-to-unlock" is it's use as an economic weapon.
With all these suits going on for mega billion dollars one of my friends decided to stop being an excellent engineer for a living and reap the rewards of others greed and stupidity and now works in a well placed firm making money from the greed of the patent suit train. He called this the "dotCom" of this century. There are times I feel I should have gone that way and just argue others' opinion for a living rather than be productive.
I too would expect that Judges become more liberal/centrist as they age. Happens in India too (pro govt. judges become independent once appointed much to the cahgrin of the govt.) but lately this does not seem to be happening in the US supreme court. the centrist caucus is thinning. That is what puzzles me and I have been following the US supreme court for a couple of decades now.
But the bigger concern (as far as this thread is concerned) is with respect to patent law and technology law in general. Here the court seems to be a little at sea. At the risk of sounding ageist can a 70 year old really appreciate in his or her gut how facebook or twitter changes the nature of social discourse and the norms of privacy ? I am pushing 50 and I myself am able to discern a tech disconnect with teenagers in the use of technology. If a hard core techie like me feels the disconnect and cannot fully relate to the younger generation, how on earth can a 70 + non-techie be reasonably expected to have a Solomon like wisdom in these matters ?
I am the project lead so I can give you all the details you want !
1. The Android layer per se is not touched. The goal is to create an extra secure OS layer under Android to allow creation of high security phone/tablets. We will add secure Android apps. Want to stick to the stock android user experience.
2. We have created a tablet reference platform using the Freescale i.MX6 and this will soon be open sourced.
3. The platform was chosen since it supports tamper detect, high assurance boot and ARM trustzone support the most transparently (docs, support etc). But our changes can be applied to any Trustzone enabled platform with HAB, including the new AMD parts.
4. Currently we have tamper detect and high assurance boot running. We have a genode secure micro-kernel being ported right now and when that is complete, Android will run as a virtualized OS on top of Genode. Genode will also leverage the TrustZone API to provide high assurance services. Both Genode and Android can use the screen and secure applications can run either on Genode or use Android APIs to genode services. Direct use of gemode is preferable for screens like authenticated pinpads. This would be useful for any commerce/banking applications since it ensures no MIM type attacks or phishing attacks are possible.
5. I am also trying to port the Android VM (the new version, not Dalvik) directly on to Genode so that the underlying Linux layer can be eliminated. This will make native app development difficult but allows the system to reach max security levels.
Pretty much any vendor can take our source and build an extremely high security phone/tablet. All of it is in open source. I want to make sure that an ultra secure phone like the one Boeing sells, should only be USD 20-30 extra compared to a normal phone. Plan to see if the Cyanogen folks can adopt our stuff.
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.