The jury's verdict came in at 2:30 p.m. local time Friday. Judge Lucy H. Koh
had the verdict form consisting of 33 multi-part questions read into the
record at about 4 p.m. local time. Both sides then reviewed the
verdict for any possible errors.
Jurors had to answer each charge
of infringement for each accused device. In the case of accusations
against Samsung, charges were brought against both the parent company in
Korea and two U.S. subsidiaries.
In the majority of cases, the
jury found most of the alleged Samsung phones violated Apple's two
design and three utility patents. They also found in most cases
inducement to infringe and willfulness.
The strength of the
jury's decision for Apple and against Samsung could weigh heavily on any
decision to set punitive damages based on the findings of willfulness, a
determination the judge will make later.
After reviewing the complex decision. Judge
Koh found two errors. The jury awarded about $219,000 in damages for
infringement involving the Galaxy Tab LTE even though it found that the
device did not infringe Apple's patents. In addition, it found the
Samsung Intercept handset did not infringe but cited it in inducement, a
Judge Koh pointed out the errors to the
jury and instructed them to continue deliberations to resolve the $2.5 million
question. After a short deliberation, the jury determined neither device infringed and eliminated the associated damages.
The legal confusion speaks to the complexity of the
case covering more than a dozen products, four corporate entities and
ten patents. See excerpts from the jury verdict form here.
I don't believe the SIII was on trial in this case (it wasn't available when the charges were filed).
This may change with future lawsuits, of course. For now the worst thing for Samsung is that consumers might get the idea that their phones are nothing but ripoffs. Nevermind the fact that the only patents they were found guilty of infringing are trivial UI elements; that's not easily understood by the average consumer. Simply the idea that something is a "copy" automatically conveys the idea of inferiority.
Anyways, I hope the next headline isn't "Enraged Samsung employee starts fire at 32nm fab".
At this point I think it is moot.
Samsung has been able to gain some traction with larger screens and a faster move to LTE. So the Korean company is now actually leading in key areas where the iPhone 5 needs to play catch up.
I am surprised by the amount! I wonder what the long term effect of this will be on cellphone and smartphone designs? 33 multi-part questions, that must have been a nightmare for the jury, I hope that they got paid well..
Rick, have you taken a good look at a Samsung Galaxy S phone? If you have, you may notice that the rounded corners at the top have a smaller radius than the corners at the bottom. This is important for trade dress copying arguments. Did this come up at all? To my knowledge, Apple's iPhone rounded corners are the same top and bottom?
That or withhold or increase the costs to them of key display technology. Don't know how their flexible displays will work out or if they hold key patents to those but if they do it's conceivable Apple could soon be the only phone without a lower power/ thinner/ flexible display. That could really hurt. :(
This shows complete lack of understanding what it takes to manufacture and qualify a chip like the A5. First and foremost, leading edge capacity in the amount t that sole needs it simply does not exist unless TSMC pisses off their entire customer base or Intel pr GF signs on to be an Apple foundry. Second, the A5 is far from being particularly unique, it is basically and ARM core with some Apple elements. I would not be surprised if it uses substantial physical IP from Samsung. It would take upwards of an year for Apple to secure a second source in the quantities they need. The really interesting question is what their foundry contract with Samsung says. Because I am sure that at least some within Samsung are considering whether the cost of pulling the plug on Apple manufacturing is worth it. Given Apple's aggressiveness in the trial I suspect that they have a firm contract for supply a year out and are hard at work on a transition thereafter. The really interesting piece is that there are probably only two companies that they can go to, Intel and GF. In the past Intel has walked away from non profitable Apple business, and given that Intel wants to push their own mobile chip line I suspect that GF will end up with the business.
you spelled it out correctly. It is a fundamental assumption that Apple is smart enough to get a binding supply contract from samsung on price/quantity/term before starting the process. Any comments without making that assumption is non sense.
Maybe someday when x86 is as competitive on power as the ARM-based A5.
Meanwhile, you can bet that Apple didn't blindly and aggressively pursue this litigation without considering possible effects on A5 supply. Whether Plan B is TSMC, GF, UMC or some combination of foundries, I strongly suspect that Plan B is more fully developed than anyone realizes.
Amazing how every court that apple tried this in around the world except the US was a loss for Apple. I guess this kind of result doesn't surprise me. Gotta support the home team. But clearly the jury weren't very intelligent if they found that the tab didn't infringe but then awarded damages against it. If I were Samsung I'd just skip the US market and focus on the rest of the world. Whats 350mil ppl comapred to what another 5.5 billion?
Maybe that kind of tactic would get better results when the American consumer is outraged at having to buy a Samsung product on overseas holidays.
apalling: apple deserves what it earns though its dedication to user experience, including cosmetic design. but it deserves no more. in particular, it does not deserve to stake out the whole universe of possible smartphone designs, excepting triangular and difficult-to-use ones. apple is an abusive monopolist of the worst order. I can only hope that IP reform will happen before samsung's appeals end.
Well, the good thing is this is over and it's my impression that it was a fast process.
Now let's see what people with samsung phones think and do.
Will they opt for the iPhone instead?
And from all this... what does the industry learn? To make a big effort to not copy the top player?
Isn't this something that happens often in the industry? I mean... come on, a mobile phone is a mobile phone and there's not much form factor difference you can put in the design. Would there have been another reason behind which got these competitors in to the fight?
And isn't it funny how they are competitors in one field and vendor and client in another? Qualcomm tried to do this some years ago and couldn't. Part of the argument was that Qualcomm was competing against his clients.
"a mobile phone is a mobile phone and there's not much form factor difference you can put in the design."
Seriously? That may have been true prior to 2007, but the original iPhone changed everything. A good argument can be made that if not for the iPhone, there would be no Android phones either.
What is the possibility that the jury's decision will be overruled by higher court? I do not have a good knowledge of the jury system. It sounds like 9 randomly picked people, who have no expertise in electronics or law have decided on who is guilty.
It's amazing what a jury of 9 random people in Silicon Valley looks like. Any suggestion that this jury was somehow inadequate or ill-equipped to hear this case is, I think, not going to fly.
The foreman was a retired EE who worked for 35 years in the hard disk drive industry and has a patent of his own related to video compression.
Another juror was a mechanical engineer, another "an aspiring software engineer", yet another had worked at National Semiconductor and yet another had worked at various IT startups as a benefits administrator.
One prospective juror that Apple lawyers successfully excluded from the jury was a Google engineer who had worked on, among other things, the Android OS.
This info came from the following article:
I don't know the ins & outs of why different IP litigation cases are filed in different districts, except that there is often a strong preference for filing in Tyler, Texas -- where IP litigation is a local cottage industry. There you might be able to get a jury consisting of a farmer, a housewife, a truck driver and any number of people completely unrelated to and lacking knowledge of the electronics industry. I mean no offense to the good people of Tyler, I'm just pointing out that there is no significant local electronics industry there.
I don't quite understand the strategy of filing there. Do lawyers think a less technically sophisticated jury will be more easily influenced? That sword can cut both ways, and seems risky to me, whether you're the plaintiff or the defendant.
For a case like this one, I would think either side would prefer a Silicon Valley jury containing several members with experience in our industry.
Frank, absolutely, you are dead on. I have heard so many times that high tech companies do prefer to file IP litigation in Texas, rather than in Silicon Valley, precisely for the reason you mentioned. They want to confuse the juror and they want their results their way. (I was told)
But in this Apple vs Samsung case, my god, the jurors they assembled are amazing. I think it's a significant decision (and foresight) on the part of Apple to do this in the court in San Jose.