Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

[chulbert]

Then what to do about it? It surely shouldn't be left the way it is now, since it goes against what they were instructed to do, or not to do in this case. How much of the sum they arrived is the "to make it painful" part? 30%? 50%?

Then, as it should be damages only, some people noticed something else, as can be read here. I think there are some valid points in that line of reasoning. If certain devices were exclusive to certain carriers, who didn't offer an iPhone at that time or before anyways, how could Apple be damaged by something they had no part in anyways?

Of course it would be interesting to know how many people buy smartphones of either brand without a contract for a carrier, i.e. pay the full price and use it in whatever network they are.

Here's the actual jury instruction:

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer

To my layman eyes, the "no punishment" clause is not a requirement so that alone wouldn't be enough to invalidate the damages. It's certainly not, "less than a reasonable royalty." It seems the only way to invalidate the damages is to demonstrate there's no way Apple could possibly be a $1 billion richer if Samsung hadn't infringed.

$1 billion in the bank is a bit shy of 4 million iPhones sold. Apple has sold 175 million iPhones to date. Is it really impossible to imagine that the entirety of Samsung's infringing product line could hurt Apple's sales by 2%? So impossible that it would invalidate damages?

 

[Christian Klippel]

... invalidate the damages ...
... invalidate the damages ...
... invalidate damages?

If you could show where i said that the awarded damages in general should be invalidated, you might have a point. But as it is, no cigar for you i'm afraid.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[chulbert]

If you could show where i said that the awarded damages in general should be invalidated, you might have a point. But as it is, no cigar for you i'm afraid.

What? There are only two possibilities: the damages remain the same or they are invalidated and a new amount assigned. I had the understanding that, "It surely shouldn't be left the way it is now..." meant you were not in favor of the former. Further, I explained how their actions were not, "...against what they were instructed to do."

Then, as it should be damages only, some people noticed something else, as can be read here. I think there are some valid points in that line of reasoning. If certain devices were exclusive to certain carriers, who didn't offer an iPhone at that time or before anyways, how could Apple be damaged by something they had no part in anyways?

Isn't it obvious? Let's say someone found switching carriers is undesirable but ultimately worth it in order to obtain an iPhone. Now throw in a Samsung device that's "close enough" but doesn't involve a carrier switch as an alternative. There's a lost iPhone sale.

 

[Christian Klippel]

See my previous post. It seems clear to me that they were stuck and skipped the issue. Then the patent-holding foreman gave them a lesson on prior art and they reached a verdict.

And a lesson given on prior art, by someone who is biased even, has what exactly to do with actually considering the presented evidence regarding prior art? As said, to me it looks like the foreman was leading them to a conclusion that he wanted, instead of arguing about the prior art presented.

Seriously. I can't imagine any human being being completely, literally without opinion until the last word of the closing argument. Do you really think jurors go from "zero to verdict" between the time they stand up and their initial vote as the first order of business?

I think, as said, that jurors should be open to everything that is presented in the case. Having an opinion initially is all fine. But explaining the quick verdict with that initial opinion, and then also stating that the foreman led them to a conclusion so that they skipped the question of prior art, even though there were first debating that issue of prior art, simply doesn't sit well with me. YMMV.

Yes, there were two errors in a 100-page verdict. That covered multiple patents multiplied by dozens of devices. Is anything less than perfection an obvious sign of object carelessness?

Uh, i think you should get some facts right. It was the jury instructions that were a bit over 100 pages.

The first verdict, as well as the amended verdict (which still contains errors) is only 20 pages.

And again, i think the errors they made are essential. This is not simply adding up numbers wrongly, as in the amended verdict. This is directly contradicting themselves in the same document. Which strongly indicates that they simply didn't apply the due diligence that i think they are required to apply.

I don't know; I'm not a legal expert. Do juries routinely award punitive damages even when instructed otherwise? How are those events handled? Do judges just work around it?

Even if other juries would do that it doesn't make it right. And yes, judges can overturn the jury's findings.

So someone disagrees where they drew the lines of infringement. The fact that they actually drew lines, determining infringement by particular devices but not others, against particular patents but not others, suggests they did consider matters thoughtfully.

Tell me you are kidding now. Thoughtfully? By awarding damages for devices that are far away from the design in question, while awarding none to device that are very close to the design in question? Really? Since when is "Having it completely backwards" considered "thoughtful"?

I can only repeat myself. Considering all those "little errors" and awkward, backwards findings, plus the statements made to the media by members of the jury simply does not paint a pretty picture of the jury for me.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: From the jury instructions, page 13:

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits that were received into evidence.

... only so that they went ahead and considered the foremans personal experience with his patent, so they can skip the issue of prior art ...

 

[Christian Klippel]

What? There are only two possibilities: the damages remain the same or they are invalidated and a new amount assigned. I had the understanding that, "It surely shouldn't be left the way it is now..." meant you were not in favor of the former. Further, I explained how their actions were not, "...against what they were instructed to do."

You probably misunderstood what i was trying to say. What they came up with is damages plus punishment. That punishment part should go, leaving only the damages part.

And then, why have the passage about damages but not punishment in the instructions in the first place, if it isn't meant to instruct them to only decide on damages and not any punitive amount?

Isn't it obvious? Let's say someone found switching carriers is undesirable but ultimately worth it in order to obtain an iPhone. Now throw in a Samsung device that's "close enough" but doesn't involve a carrier switch as an alternative. There's a lost iPhone sale.

I think there are some good arguments in that article, not that i fully agree with everything in that. And, if someone wants an iPhone i can't see why that person would settle for anything else if he really wants that. If he just want any smartphone that may be different.

How close is "close enough" anyways? Round corners and a bunch of icons on the screen?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[chulbert]

And a lesson given on prior art, by someone who is biased even, has what exactly to do with actually considering the presented evidence regarding prior art? As said, to me it looks like the foreman was leading them to a conclusion that he wanted, instead of arguing about the prior art presented.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? They could not reach a consensus on prior art so they looked to the individual on the jury who had first-hand experience in that area. On his counsel they were able to reach a verdict.

Does the biologist on the murder trial jury have a "bias" toward the way DNA evidence works?

Do not confuse experience with bias. I mean, both sides vetted these jurors.

I think, as said, that jurors should be open to everything that is presented in the case. Having an opinion initially is all fine. But explaining the quick verdict with that initial opinion, and then also stating that the foreman led them to a conclusion so that they skipped the question of prior art, even though there were first debating that issue of prior art, simply doesn't sit well with me. YMMV.

So there isn't really any issue here. Just because they weren't persuaded away from their initial opinions doesn't mean they weren't open-minded. Apple just presented some very damning evidence - in their eyes - early in the trial and Samsung wasn't able to overcome it.

I'm sorry but I feel like a lot of what you're saying is essentially, "I can't imagine arriving at the same conclusions so there MUST be something fishy."

Uh, i think you should get some facts right. It was the jury instructions that were a bit over 100 pages.

The first verdict, as well as the amended verdict (which still contains errors) is only 20 pages.

Fair enough; my mistake.

And again, i think the errors they made are essential. This is not simply adding up numbers wrongly, as in the amended verdict. This is directly contradicting themselves in the same document. Which strongly indicates that they simply didn't apply the due diligence that i think they are required to apply.

Read the following analysis of what exactly the jurors had to fill out:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/3260463/apple-samsung-jury-verdict-form-nightmare

"Instead, the 20-page verdict form presents around 700 extremely specific questions, divided into 33 groups."

Do you still feel so strongly that out of SEVEN HUNDRED questions there were a few boxes filled incorrectly? This was really freaking complicated.

Tell me you are kidding now. Thoughtfully? By awarding damages for devices that are far away from the design in question, while awarding none to device that are very close to the design in question? Really? Since when is "Having it completely backwards" considered "thoughtful"?

I can only repeat myself. Considering all those "little errors" and awkward, backwards findings, plus the statements made to the media by members of the jury simply does not paint a pretty picture of the jury for me.

Can you give me a specific example of a device "far away" from the patent the jury found infringed?

Your "Initial Thoughts..." link is simply wrong. The Epic 4G was NOT found to infringe any hardware design patents. The Epic 4G Touch was found to infringe the "front face" design patent.

 

[chulbert]

You probably misunderstood what i was trying to say. What they came up with is damages plus punishment. That punishment part should go, leaving only the damages part.

I would consider that invalidating the damages determined by the jury.

And then, why have the passage about damages but not punishment in the instructions in the first place, if it isn't meant to instruct them to only decide on damages and not any punitive amount?

I don't know. I could ask the inverse: if it were so important that punitive damages be excluded why didn't they use much stronger, straightforward language? Something like, "The jury MUST NOT include punitive damages in their calculations. Such damages will be determined at a later time."

I think there are some good arguments in that article, not that i fully agree with everything in that. And, if someone wants an iPhone i can't see why that person would settle for anything else if he really wants that. If he just want any smartphone that may be different.

How close is "close enough" anyways? Round corners and a bunch of icons on the screen?

I don't have an answer for how close is close enough. Presumably it was "close enough" for some non-zero number of people. These are very fuzzy areas and I think it would be one of the most difficult things to decide as a juror. I was only saying, in principle, it's pretty straightforward for phones on other networks to compete with an iPhone.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Are you deliberately being obtuse? They could not reach a consensus on prior art so they looked to the individual on the jury who had first-hand experience in that area. On his counsel they were able to reach a verdict.

Well, that's your interpretation of the statements made. Mine is different. In the end we will see what judge Koh will say about it, and what will come out in the appeals process.

I'm sorry but I feel like a lot of what you're saying is essentially, "I can't imagine arriving at the same conclusions so there MUST be something fishy."

Then you probably have some problems with reading _and_ understanding what i said.

Do you still feel so strongly that out of SEVEN HUNDRED questions there were a few boxes filled incorrectly? This was really freaking complicated.

Yea, it was _so_ complicated for them that they could reach a verdict in just 21 hours, quick enough to have it done before the weekend starts. Each question in under 2 minutes. And that's without subtracting the time they used up for discussing prior art up until they were led to a conclusion by the foreman and decided to skip that issue. And really, skipping it means skipping it. To me it doesn't mean to postpone it until a later time.

And yes, given such a high profile case i damn sure expect that they _at_least_ go over the stuff they just filled out to see if they made any obvious mistakes. Which they obviously didn't. And in case they have, but still failed to see those mistakes, i'd say they were not that good at following and remembering stuff. You know, like what was presented in the trial, for example.

Can you give me a specific example of a device "far away" from the patent the jury found infringed?

Can you read the stuff i linked to?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[chulbert]

Yea, it was _so_ complicated for them that they could reach a verdict in just 21 hours, quick enough to have it done before the weekend starts. Each question in under 2 minutes. And that's without subtracting the time they used up for discussing prior art up until they were led to a conclusion by the foreman and decided to skip that issue. And really, skipping it means skipping it. To me it doesn't mean to postpone it until a later time.

So it's your position that they tossed a coin or something?

And yes, given such a high profile case i damn sure expect that they _at_least_ go over the stuff they just filled out to see if they made any obvious mistakes. Which they obviously didn't. And in case they have, but still failed to see those mistakes, i'd say they were not that good at following and remembering stuff. You know, like what was presented in the trial, for example.

So any mistakes are irrefutable proof they "obviously" didn't "go over the stuff"? There's no room for any legitimate mistakes. Perfection or nothing?

I can easily imagine looking at a bunch of devices sitting on the table and quickly grouping the ones that infringe the bounce patent in 15 minutes. Easy. Then having my eyes glaze over when I turn to corresponding page in the arcane verdict form.

Can you read the stuff i linked to?

I did and stated it is verifiably wrong.

 

[This is The End]

Google's response:

“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players–including newcomers–are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.” – Google

http://www.slashgear.com/googles-statement-speaks-volumes-on-apple-vs-samsung-27244062/

 

[BenBurch]

No appeal is going to reverse this. I'd bet a nickel on it.

This was (you can hate me if you like) a good decision.

Otherwise, we might as well not have any patents at all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Personally, I think some of Judge Koh's decisions may be susceptable to reverse and remand.

And I have no real opinion as to whether this is a "good" or "bad" decision. For me, that will depend on what comes out in appeal.

 

[WildCat]

No appeal is going to reverse this. I'd bet a nickel on it.

This was (you can hate me if you like) a good decision.

Otherwise, we might as well not have any patents at all.

According to an AP article I read 20% of patent infringement decisions get overturned on appeal, there was no breakdown on jury vs. judge verdicts but I suspect jury verdicts get overturned more often.

It also said that the average jury award is 10 times greater than the average judge award, which is why the overwhelming majority of cases are brought before juries these days. Pre-2000 only a small minority were jury trials. Apparently juries are easier to dazzle with BS than judges are.

Sorry, can't find the story at the moment.

eta: ah, here it is: http://www.wral.com/business/story/11471395/

 

[This is The End]

In articles today I have been seeing statement like this:

Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., said it reserves the rights to pursue permanent injunctions banning the sale of all 28 devices that the jury on Friday found to violate Apple's intellectual property.

<snip>

While the devices aren't Samsung's latest products, many are still available through wireless carriers and online retailers such as Amazon.com Inc.

Samsung officials have already begun to talk to wireless carriers about removing or modifying infringing features to keep products on the market if the injunctions are granted, according to a person familiar with the matter. One of the most important devices in the scenario planning is the Galaxy S II smartphone, which was found to infringe patents related to the design of the phone and some involving software features.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444506004577615624272456812.html

But the articles never say what design and what features. I suppose that would be too much research for the reporter these days...

So, if someone very familiar with the jury's actual findings, and very familiar with the Galaxy S II, could clear that up it would be great.

IOW, if I find someone with a Galaxy S II, what exactly am I looking at in the design and in the features that violated Apples patents? Specifics and layman's terms would be nice.

 

[tyr_13]

I've been selling cell phones for Sam's Club for over a year now. When going through the list of devices that were found to infringe I got to the Galaxy Epic before giving up trying to figure out the exact reasoning and literally yelling, "the hell?".

Anyone find where this slider phone with a full QWERTY keyboard infringed? It was on the 'look and feel' list.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In articles today I have been seeing statement like this:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444506004577615624272456812.html

But the articles never say what design and what features. I suppose that would be too much research for the reporter these days...

So, if someone very familiar with the jury's actual findings, and very familiar with the Galaxy S II, could clear that up it would be great.

IOW, if I find someone with a Galaxy S II, what exactly am I looking at in the design and in the features that violated Apples patents? Specifics and layman's terms would be nice.

Check out the Interactive Graphics tab of this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html
It breaks it down for you by phone and by patent.

 

[carlvs]

I've been selling cell phones for Sam's Club for over a year now. When going through the list of devices that were found to infringe I got to the Galaxy Epic before giving up trying to figure out the exact reasoning and literally yelling, "the hell?".

Anyone find where this slider phone with a full QWERTY keyboard infringed? It was on the 'look and feel' list.

If a person bought that phone, that's one less iPhone that would have been sold - at least that is the excuse reason given by those that support the verdict...

 

[This is The End]

Check out the Interactive Graphics tab of this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html
It breaks it down for you by phone and by patent.

How can you think that answers my question with a straight face? Are those column headers seriously what was patented? I hope those are just horrible summaries....

"Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures"

"Enlarging documents by tapping the screen"

"Rounded square icons on interface"

"Distinguishes between single-touch and multi-touch gestures"

Anyone who thinks things like that should be patentable is out of their mind. I seriously hope those are just inaccurate summaries.

OK so back to my specific question:

So, if someone very familiar with the jury's actual findings, and very familiar with the Galaxy S II, could clear that up it would be great.

IOW, if I find someone with a Galaxy S II, what exactly am I looking at in the design and in the features that violated Apples patents? Specifics and layman's terms would be nice.

 

[Christian Klippel]

We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.

I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this

Funny that, both quotes from the same person.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Horatius]

How can you think that answers my question with a straight face? Are those column headers seriously what was patented? I hope those are just horrible summaries....

As we've said before, yes, those are just horrible summaries. If you want to know what was actually patented, you need to look at the actual patents.


7,469,381

7864163


7,844,915


The others are design patents, which are different.

D604,305

D593,087

D618,677

D504,889



Design patents are more like trademarks on the shape of a product, so as to visually distinguish your wares from other similar wares on the market. If you want to complain about those, then you'd better complain about the Coke Bottle too.