Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Judge slashes Apple's Samsung damages by $450m

Judge slashes Apple's Samsung damages by $450m

Mon 04 Mar 2013 9:50am GMT / 4:50am EST / 1:50am PST
Mobile

New trial may be necessary to assess initial $1 billion dollar award

The $1.05 billion awarded to Apple in its patent dispute with Samsung has been slashed by $450 million.

According to a report on AllThingsD, Judge Lucy Koh has ordered a new trial due to the initial award being based on an "impermissible legal theory."

In her ruling, Koh said that the court, "cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury, [so] the Court hereby orders a new trial on damages for the following products: Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform."

The damages awarded for those products amounted to $450 million, and unless Apple and Samsung can settle the matter out of court, a new trial will be held later this year.

"Samsung intends to seek further review as to the remaining award," a spokesman for Samsung said. "We are also pleased that the court earlier found that Samsung had not acted wilfully, denied Apple's request for a permanent injunction, and denied Apple's motion for increased damages."

25 Comments

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
Popular Comment
A small win for common sense.

Posted:A year ago

#1

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
A small win for common sense.
Where the common sense in this? The Galaxy S and the Tab clearly 'inspired' by the original iPhone & iPad.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 4th March 2013 12:28pm

Posted:A year ago

#2

Andreia Quinta
Creative & People Photographer

215 549 2.6
Popular Comment
Where the common sense in this? The Galaxy S and the Tab clearly 'inspired' by the original iPhone & iPad.
Yes, God forbid Apple [finally] having some real competition in what was once their monopoly...

Come to think of it, Henry Ford should have patented Fordism, when he opened shop in 1903, so that other car manufacturers would be prevented (or fined if found breaking the patent) from large-scale manufacturing of their own cars. Would have been a lot better for the automotive industry...

Posted:A year ago

#3

Nicholas Pantazis
Senior Editor

1,020 1,467 1.4
@ Tom and the iPad mini is clearly "inspired" by the galaxy tab 7.0. Iteration and evolution = competition and progress. This sort of restrictive patent power only hurts consumers.

Posted:A year ago

#4

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
large-scale manufacturing of their own cars.
Large scale manufacturing does not involve copying the look and feel. If Microsoft could have come up an alternative design, Samsung could have done the same. It has almost identical colours (black with a silver metal rim), and more than superficial similarity on the actual screen..
Or could you say that all cars made in the early 20th century look almost identical to the Ford T model on the basis that they have 4 wheels ? There is a difference between exact copy of the style (including packaging) and being similar ....

Posted:A year ago

#5

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
This sort of restrictive patent power only hurts consumers.
I doubt that you could confuse a mini with the galaxy tab.
As far as patents are considered, what sort of dysfunctional copyright laws required those patents in the first place? To stop your competitors from copying the look of your device should be settled in the court, not in the patent office. Even TV manufactures try to give their devices unique look, and that the functionality dictates very similar features.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 4th March 2013 4:55pm

Posted:A year ago

#6

Nicholas Pantazis
Senior Editor

1,020 1,467 1.4
Popular Comment
@ Tom I think you've been drinking too much of that Apple cool aid. The similarities are purely superficial. They aren't even the same aspect ratio, and Samsung's logo is plastered all over their products. Add in their advertising and it's clear Samsung was never trying to convince people they were Apple, only that they were better than Apple.

And design patents for rectangular devices with touch screens are insanely broad and never should have been granted in the first place, especially with a number of prior art examples of various real and fictional tablets.

And when you go below superficial the differences between iOS and Android are now massive. No one could mistake a Galaxy S3 for an iPhone on feature or design levels.

Posted:A year ago

#7

Andy Samson
QA Supervisor

235 179 0.8
"Large scale manufacturing does not involve copying the look and feel"

So it's a process then, much like the ford assembly line was. I hope you can come up with a better way to line people up. Zigzagging perhaps?

Posted:A year ago

#8

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
Where the common sense in this? The Galaxy S and the Tab clearly 'inspired' by the original iPhone & iPad.
Simply put that there was no way this law suit made sense so the reduction in amount owed by Samsung was a small win, the other point is Ipod and Iphone weren't the original users of there current designs they took that from earlier phones so saying they can patent stuff like that is ridiculous.

Posted:A year ago

#9

Andreia Quinta
Creative & People Photographer

215 549 2.6
@Tom
Large scale manufacturing does not involve copying the look and feel
True, it has nothing to do with look and feel, but patents aren't limited to looks. The components/machines in the factory required to said mass production could still be patented, since patents as far as I know are not limited to how something looks but also can be applied into how something is produced.
An Apple knock-off product - like some fake iphone 4's I've seen in the street selling for cheap - would be patent infringing since it's trying to pose as something it's not. Galaxy Tab's on the other hand are not trying to be Apple but improve/compete with it.

I'm not absolutely sure how far the rabbit hole goes regarding in what designs & functions are being disputed in court, some are probably legitimate, but to engage in a lawsuit due to 'user interface and style' when it's something that it's not blatantly equal or a rip-off, while claiming - among others - that it's due to "unfair competition" just so they could hold their monopoly is corporate greed.

It doesn't help the fact that Apple's evidence submitted in 2011 to the United States (California) District Court, containing side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the similarities in packaging and app icons, were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the features and dimensions seem more similar. That just reeks of desperation to hold on to something they are afraid to loose, market share.

I'll leave it at that and just agree to disagree.

Posted:A year ago

#10

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
That just reeks of desperation to hold on to something they are afraid to loose, market share.
Apple's primary motivation is protecting their design. That is their selling point, therefore their value which they want to keep. I am sure you remember that the original Tab is not banned because Apple could not prove that the 150K units it moved actually hurt the then 60 million ipad sales. Samsung then changed the design to the one actually went on sale in Europe. What you are calling corporate greed is protecting their intellectual property.
The EU is currently investigating Samsung for patent abuse.

Decide it yourself.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 4th March 2013 9:42pm

Posted:A year ago

#11

Peter Dwyer
Games Designer/Developer

481 290 0.6
Popular Comment
@Tom

Apple patented the page turn and rounded rectangles for frak sake. Any argument you had for trying to defend apples nonsense idea of what should and shouldn't be patented went out of the window when they started doing things like that. Even the patent office has now started re-evaluating many of Apples patent claims and finding then utterly nonsensical and invalid.

At this stage you seem to be defending Apple for the sake of defending them and nothing more.

Posted:A year ago

#12

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
@Tom
Apple's primary motivation is protecting their design. That is their selling point, therefore their value which they want to keep. I am sure you remember that the original Tab is not banned because Apple could not prove that the 150K units it moved actually hurt the then 60 million ipad sales. Samsung then changed the design to the one actually went on sale in Europe. What you are calling corporate greed is protecting their intellectual property.
The EU is currently investigating Samsung for patent abuse.
The problem with your argument is it wasn't apples design to begin with so they are defending something they stole first.

Posted:A year ago

#13

Nuttachai Tipprasert
Programmer

79 60 0.8
Apple's primary motivation is protecting their design. That is their selling point, therefore their value which they want to keep.
Samsung already proved that they have their own devices with 'similar' to the Galaxy S before iPhone was even announced. I'm still skeptical about their design decision for Galaxy S, though, I believe that Apple have no right to claim what people already invented before them.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nuttachai Tipprasert on 5th March 2013 12:58am

Posted:A year ago

#14

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
The problem with your argument is it wasn't apples design to begin with so they are defending something they stole first.
That is debatable. F700 was announced first, but apart from the look it has very little in common with the iPhone, unlike the Galaxy S. This lawsuit clearly displays how flawed the patent and legal system is - a big company has to resort to use 'design patents' to stop another one from making knock-off copies. Apple demonstrated in the court that their patents don't prohibit others from creating similar but different products (using Microsoft Surface and Sony Tablet S). Samsung's prior art was the Knight Ridder tablet and Space Odissey.
In this industry, everybody copies. And improves. But blatant knock-off copying is normally frowned upon. Strange that the Samsung Blackjack case was forgotten so quickly...

Posted:A year ago

#15

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
Samsung already proved that they have their own devices with 'similar' to the Galaxy S before iPhone was even announced.
By showing sketches from internal presentations.... That hardly qualifies as prior art.

Posted:A year ago

#16

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
@Tom Keresztes HP and Fidler had rectangler tablets before Apple did, its no different with phones.

Posted:A year ago

#17

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
HP and Fidler had rectangler tablets before Apple did, its no different with phones.
Microsoft had one, too. But i think you still ignoring the fact that Apple is trying to block copycat designs not stop competition. Just take a look at the Samsung packaging, and compare it the Apple... Maybe its more than just a passing similarity. But those prior tablets are nothing like the ipad. Microsoft's tablet PC did not have a touch screen.
Black rectangles with glass surfaces are not the only look a tablet can have... So others should be a bit more creative. Like Microsoft did with the Surface. Or Sony with the Tablet S.

This case is the best example why software and design patents should be abolished. Just imagine what would happen if Apple would be a small company against Samsung. With limited financial capabilities, they will either go bankrupt or sell out.

Posted:A year ago

#18

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
You call it copy cat design, but wasn't apple also copying those that came before? so what right do they have to patten something they copied to begin with?

Posted:A year ago

#19

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
so what right do they have to patten something they copied to begin with?
Who created and marketed a touch screen tablet before them ? There were some devices that had elements of what the iPad/iPhone experience is, but not with all the ingredients. Closest thing is the Samsung F700, but it only started selling in November 2007, which was months after the general availability of the iPhone. It was more similar to a typical Nokia/Motorola phone of the era than to the iPhone.

F700 review

Posted:A year ago

#20

Doug Paras

117 61 0.5
The Law suit is over the shape of Apples and Samsungs phones and tablets, not the experiance, and I know for a fact apple has been stealing apps from Googles android os for some time now. The HP tablet was the first Rectangular tablet long before the Ipad and Sony had a rectangular Phone in 2002 5 years before the Iphone. So where, and how can Apple patent a design somebody used years before they did? that is after all what this is about.

Posted:A year ago

#21

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

655 270 0.4
So where, and how can Apple patent a design somebody used years before they did?
Did you actually check the patent ? Its so narrow that a potential infringer has to work really hard to make an iPad lookalike...
Here is the actual patent

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 7th March 2013 9:06am

Posted:A year ago

#22

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now