Apple-Samsung Trial

  • Posted: 28 August 2012 09:32 AM #616

    dduck - 28 August 2012 04:59 AM

    I have had many discussions with my techie friends about this. Their arguments seem to boil down to either “useful/obvious stuff should not be patentable” or “well, the system is stupid, and therefore shouldn’t be enforced”.

    As for the first argument, that’s exactly what should be patentable! Unless of course there’s plenty of prior art, which indicates that the solution was obvious all along, and not just obvious once a smart guy showed the world how it’s done. The fact that so few of the iPhone design elements were known before the iPhone, and how many of them have become “obvious” now is an excellent case study. Also, I always find it a bit amusing how my techie friends feel that stuff they understand and work with should be protected, but everything else should be available for the taking. Food for thought. Surely I do the same, and am not aware of it…

    As for the second argument, even if it’s true that the system is stupid, it’s not really within the jury’s purview to pass judgement on that: They are there to take the current law as a given, and pass a ruling that confirms to that.

    People - me included - always underestimate how their “obvious” conclusions are shaped by their environment. Once you realize how few of your precious opinions are really based on fact, you start to appreciate the need for a jury system.

    It’s human nature. Every question is “obvious” once the answer is known.

    They’ve done studies on this. Group A is given difficult questions and asked to rate their difficulty from 1 to 10. Group B is identical except that they are given the answers to the questions. Group A rates the degree of difficulty as 8 or above. Group B rates the questions degree of difficulty 3 or below.

    Once we know the answer, every question seems obvious.

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 11:17 AM #617

    moltenfire - 28 August 2012 01:59 AM
    Zeke - 28 August 2012 01:14 AM
    Grover - 27 August 2012 05:34 PM

    I mentioned the possibility of settlement following the verdict in an earlier post.  I think the linked article and analysis gets it about right.  Expect Samsung to talk publicly about an appeal and sit down behind the scenes and try to hammer out a settlement.  Probably in both parties best interests. 

    Story is on Marketwatch.com. It will not link here for some reason, sorry.

    Apple is not interested in a settlement.  Apple is interested in putting Android out of business.  Apple will ask for bans and present Android based manufacturers will either strike out on their own (unlikely due to time constraints) or gravitate to a MS OS.  Google is in big trouble.  I keep waiting for Cook to drop the other shoe and announce an Apple web search engine.

    There is no way Apple will settle after having all the claims in all the patents in suit held valid and having most of the verdict go their way.  The time to settle is before trial, or even during trial, but not after trial is done and a verdict rendered.  At this point, the uncertainties of litigation is pretty much gone, and it makes no sense for Apple to settle unless the jury or the judge (via jury directions for example) made grave errors that allows an appeals court to overturn the verdict.

    I can assure you that many cases settle post-verdict and while the appeals are being litigated.  There are several good reasons for Apple to settle rather than litigate further:

    1.  Apple has a strong hand given the jury verdict that gave them almost everything they wanted.  They have the really good cards for right now, they need to play them correctly.
    2.  The appeals process can take several years.  Apple won’t see a dime and will pay their own attorney fees until the process is completed.  Yes, Apple has plenty of money to spend on lawyers, but that doesn’t mean it’s a wise decision.
    3.  Apple has a window here to settle not only this case, but other cases with Samsung across the globe. The result of this case will have no influence on the outcome of similar cases in other countries.  We already had a judge in the UK say there was no infringement on dress code issues.  Different courts can produce a mix of results. 
    4.  The possibility now exists that Apple can get a favorable cross-license arrangement from Samsung, which would be more $ than any jury award even with treble damages. This would compel other carriers to come to terms on cross-licenses. 
    5.  We don’t know what Judge Koh will do with a ban or increasing damages, that is speculation at this point. 
    6.  Samsung is a parts supplier, does TC and company want to put them out of business? 
    7.  International public relations: Apple sells phones in SE Asia last time I checked.  This jury verdict may be seen as a US homer call.  Saw where one of our posters called the recent Korean court decision (a mixed result) a homer for Samsung. 

    Again, this is a list off the top of my head.  Apple I am sure will be sorting through all this.  I am not persuaded by the rhetoric coming from Samsung that they lack interest in a settlement.  They do not want to lose the US market.  They have much more motivation to settle than does Apple. Sammy is saying things for public consumption, but they are scrambling to sort out their options. 

    Not only do I think settlement is possible; I believe it is more likely than not the outcome.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 28 August 2012 11:36 AM #618

    Grover - 28 August 2012 02:17 PM
    moltenfire - 28 August 2012 01:59 AM
    Zeke - 28 August 2012 01:14 AM
    Grover - 27 August 2012 05:34 PM

    I mentioned the possibility of settlement following the verdict in an earlier post.  I think the linked article and analysis gets it about right.  Expect Samsung to talk publicly about an appeal and sit down behind the scenes and try to hammer out a settlement.  Probably in both parties best interests. 

    Story is on Marketwatch.com. It will not link here for some reason, sorry.

    Apple is not interested in a settlement.  Apple is interested in putting Android out of business.  Apple will ask for bans and present Android based manufacturers will either strike out on their own (unlikely due to time constraints) or gravitate to a MS OS.  Google is in big trouble.  I keep waiting for Cook to drop the other shoe and announce an Apple web search engine.

    There is no way Apple will settle after having all the claims in all the patents in suit held valid and having most of the verdict go their way.  The time to settle is before trial, or even during trial, but not after trial is done and a verdict rendered.  At this point, the uncertainties of litigation is pretty much gone, and it makes no sense for Apple to settle unless the jury or the judge (via jury directions for example) made grave errors that allows an appeals court to overturn the verdict.

    I can assure you that many cases settle post-verdict and while the appeals are being litigated.  There are several good reasons for Apple to settle rather than litigate further:

    1.  Apple has a strong hand given the jury verdict that gave them almost everything they wanted.  They have the really good cards for right now, they need to play them correctly.
    2.  The appeals process can take several years.  Apple won’t see a dime and will pay their own attorney fees until the process is completed.  Yes, Apple has plenty of money to spend on lawyers, but that doesn’t mean it’s a wise decision.
    3.  Apple has a window here to settle not only this case, but other cases with Samsung across the globe. The result of this case will have no influence on the outcome of similar cases in other countries.  We already had a judge in the UK say there was no infringement on dress code issues.  Different courts can produce a mix of results. 
    4.  The possibility now exists that Apple can get a favorable cross-license arrangement from Samsung, which would be more $ than any jury award even with treble damages. This would compel other carriers to come to terms on cross-licenses. 
    5.  We don’t know what Judge Koh will do with a ban or increasing damages, that is speculation at this point. 
    6.  Samsung is a parts supplier, does TC and company want to put them out of business? 
    7.  International public relations: Apple sells phones in SE Asia last time I checked.  This jury verdict may be seen as a US homer call.  Saw where one of our posters called the recent Korean court decision (a mixed result) a homer for Samsung. 

    Again, this is a list off the top of my head.  Apple I am sure will be sorting through all this.  I am not persuaded by the rhetoric coming from Samsung that they lack interest in a settlement.  They do not want to lose the US market.  They have much more motivation to settle than does Apple. Sammy is saying things for public consumption, but they are scrambling to sort out their options. 

    Not only do I think settlement is possible; I believe it is more likely than not the outcome.

    After talking to DT and Gregg and reading your reasons Grover, I am starting to agree that settlement at this point would be wise.

    it may not happen right away, but I am sure Apple is seriously considering.

    Samsung is too important right now to Apple.  I just hope they (Samsung) have the brains to settle.

    On a side note I bought more LEAPS today.wink

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 12:03 PM #619

    omacvi - 28 August 2012 02:36 PM
    Grover - 28 August 2012 02:17 PM
    moltenfire - 28 August 2012 01:59 AM
    Zeke - 28 August 2012 01:14 AM
    Grover - 27 August 2012 05:34 PM

    I mentioned the possibility of settlement following the verdict in an earlier post.  I think the linked article and analysis gets it about right.  Expect Samsung to talk publicly about an appeal and sit down behind the scenes and try to hammer out a settlement.  Probably in both parties best interests. 

    Story is on Marketwatch.com. It will not link here for some reason, sorry.

    Apple is not interested in a settlement.  Apple is interested in putting Android out of business.  Apple will ask for bans and present Android based manufacturers will either strike out on their own (unlikely due to time constraints) or gravitate to a MS OS.  Google is in big trouble.  I keep waiting for Cook to drop the other shoe and announce an Apple web search engine.

    There is no way Apple will settle after having all the claims in all the patents in suit held valid and having most of the verdict go their way.  The time to settle is before trial, or even during trial, but not after trial is done and a verdict rendered.  At this point, the uncertainties of litigation is pretty much gone, and it makes no sense for Apple to settle unless the jury or the judge (via jury directions for example) made grave errors that allows an appeals court to overturn the verdict.

    I can assure you that many cases settle post-verdict and while the appeals are being litigated.  There are several good reasons for Apple to settle rather than litigate further:

    1.  Apple has a strong hand given the jury verdict that gave them almost everything they wanted.  They have the really good cards for right now, they need to play them correctly.
    2.  The appeals process can take several years.  Apple won’t see a dime and will pay their own attorney fees until the process is completed.  Yes, Apple has plenty of money to spend on lawyers, but that doesn’t mean it’s a wise decision.
    3.  Apple has a window here to settle not only this case, but other cases with Samsung across the globe. The result of this case will have no influence on the outcome of similar cases in other countries.  We already had a judge in the UK say there was no infringement on dress code issues.  Different courts can produce a mix of results. 
    4.  The possibility now exists that Apple can get a favorable cross-license arrangement from Samsung, which would be more $ than any jury award even with treble damages. This would compel other carriers to come to terms on cross-licenses. 
    5.  We don’t know what Judge Koh will do with a ban or increasing damages, that is speculation at this point. 
    6.  Samsung is a parts supplier, does TC and company want to put them out of business? 
    7.  International public relations: Apple sells phones in SE Asia last time I checked.  This jury verdict may be seen as a US homer call.  Saw where one of our posters called the recent Korean court decision (a mixed result) a homer for Samsung. 

    Again, this is a list off the top of my head.  Apple I am sure will be sorting through all this.  I am not persuaded by the rhetoric coming from Samsung that they lack interest in a settlement.  They do not want to lose the US market.  They have much more motivation to settle than does Apple. Sammy is saying things for public consumption, but they are scrambling to sort out their options. 

    Not only do I think settlement is possible; I believe it is more likely than not the outcome.

    After talking to DT and Gregg and reading your reasons Grover, I am starting to agree that settlement at this point would be wise.

    it may not happen right away, but I am sure Apple is seriously considering.

    Samsung is too important right now to Apple.  I just hope they (Samsung) have the brains to settle.

    On a side note I bought more LEAPS today.wink

    I don’t see that Samsung needs to settle. They will work around these patents, solutions are fairly trivial and phone models are old. I wish they would, and I wish that AAPL becomes monopoly in mobile OS like MSFT was in desktop, but I don’t think it will happen. Once free, hard to put cat back in the bag.

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 12:10 PM #620

    EXTREMELY interesting.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-win-whacks-android-resale-prices-2012-08-28?siteid=yhoof2

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 12:17 PM #621

    A reason for Apple to settle quickly is that for two weeks, only Apple knows the direction iPhone 5 will take. So Apple has a window of opportunity to make settlements that better protect iPhone 5.

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 01:23 PM #622

    adamthompson32 - 28 August 2012 03:10 PM

    EXTREMELY interesting.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-win-whacks-android-resale-prices-2012-08-28?siteid=yhoof2

    It is interesting and worth keeping an eye on, but I’m guessing that it’s a temporary effect.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 28 August 2012 02:18 PM #623

    Grover - 28 August 2012 02:17 PM
    moltenfire - 28 August 2012 01:59 AM

    There is no way Apple will settle after having all the claims in all the patents in suit held valid and having most of the verdict go their way.  The time to settle is before trial, or even during trial, but not after trial is done and a verdict rendered.  At this point, the uncertainties of litigation is pretty much gone, and it makes no sense for Apple to settle unless the jury or the judge (via jury directions for example) made grave errors that allows an appeals court to overturn the verdict.

    I can assure you that many cases settle post-verdict and while the appeals are being litigated.  There are several good reasons for Apple to settle rather than litigate further:

    1.  Apple has a strong hand given the jury verdict that gave them almost everything they wanted.  They have the really good cards for right now, they need to play them correctly.
    2.  The appeals process can take several years.  Apple won’t see a dime and will pay their own attorney fees until the process is completed.  Yes, Apple has plenty of money to spend on lawyers, but that doesn’t mean it’s a wise decision.
    3.  Apple has a window here to settle not only this case, but other cases with Samsung across the globe. The result of this case will have no influence on the outcome of similar cases in other countries.  We already had a judge in the UK say there was no infringement on dress code issues.  Different courts can produce a mix of results. 
    4.  The possibility now exists that Apple can get a favorable cross-license arrangement from Samsung, which would be more $ than any jury award even with treble damages. This would compel other carriers to come to terms on cross-licenses. 
    5.  We don’t know what Judge Koh will do with a ban or increasing damages, that is speculation at this point. 
    6.  Samsung is a parts supplier, does TC and company want to put them out of business? 
    7.  International public relations: Apple sells phones in SE Asia last time I checked.  This jury verdict may be seen as a US homer call.  Saw where one of our posters called the recent Korean court decision (a mixed result) a homer for Samsung. 

    Again, this is a list off the top of my head.  Apple I am sure will be sorting through all this.  I am not persuaded by the rhetoric coming from Samsung that they lack interest in a settlement.  They do not want to lose the US market.  They have much more motivation to settle than does Apple. Sammy is saying things for public consumption, but they are scrambling to sort out their options. 

    Not only do I think settlement is possible; I believe it is more likely than not the outcome.

    Thanks for the insight, Grover.  In the context of international litigation, you’ve convinced me.

    Signature

    My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.
    —Jack Layton

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 03:07 PM #624

    As TC has asserted, this litigation is about values. As we have seen, values vary around the globe and from person to person. But it really only matters to win in the US which currently represents 1/5 of the smartphone market.

    Remember Android and iOS are platforms. People seem to think it is trivial to work around the patents but remember the Android platform has to drag a whole development community over to new user interaction models. Older versions will not have the new interaction models. This will further fragment the platform. Having different versions for various countries is out of the question. Android is already battling fragmentation. This situation will significantly exacerbate that issue.

    Also, I understand Apple is only willing to cross license some of the trivial patents, not the fundamental multi-touch patents. This will make it even more difficult for developers to support applications which span both platforms. It will be very difficult to support 2 different interaction models. They will be reduced to supporting the lowest common denominator. The best apps will gravitate to iOS. The economics of migrating to Android will not be very attractive.

    Signature

    To the moon, Alice!

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 28 August 2012 04:15 PM #625

    PED article at Fortune quoting HD

    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/28/why-apple-sued-samsung/?source=yahoo_quote

    In a nutshell, to stop the worst copyists now mad to protect the product pipeline.

    Signature

    Striving to exceed the needs of the future.

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 05:21 PM #626

    Trainspotter - 28 August 2012 05:15 AM
    JDSoCal - 27 August 2012 05:24 AM
    Mav - 27 August 2012 01:50 AM
    Red Shirted Ensign - 27 August 2012 01:47 AM

    I think she won’t increase the damages.

    There is a cultural difference at work here.  For decades Asia has built industries on copying good designs. Sometimes they made them better, sometimes it was just mimicking…but it was culturally acceptable in the business communities.

    Now, it is wrong and the jury has made it clear that the law will not tolerate it. Cultural tolerance will need to be readjusted. This won’t be easy but it can certainly be done. 

    So, no need to rub salt in this humiliating wound.  The line in the sand is clear…but the judge can grant some face here by quietly acknowledging that willful might be seen differently in different cultures….....

    This time….only.

    Bonus damages are totally unnecessary (though I’d love it if she hurled that thunderbolt).  The message has been sent, and Apple’s point has been made.

    I’m going to dissent from you and Red and concur with Justice Falkirk on this one.

    First off, what’s the point of Congress creating a separate remedy, and the judge giving a separate instruction for the jury to ponder, if it is just going to be ignored?

    The whole purpose of treble damages is to deter through punishment. Punish a willfully infringing defendant, and deter him - and other future like-minded thieving bastard defendants (my emphasis) - from considering such behavior.

    Specifically, the purpose is to deter an infringer from thinking, “oh well, worst case is, we will have to pay compensatory damages that would amount to reasonable royalties (i.e., what we would have licensed the patent(s) for), so we have nothing to lose by infringing now, and forcing the patent owner into litigation.” No!

    This is why the fact that Apple offered licensing terms in 2010 is relevant to treble damages, IMO. Samsung said, “fuck that, we’ll take our chances.”

    In other words, the intended message of Congress - that an infringer cannot believe that he has nothing to lose by rolling the dice in court, since he’ll just pay what he would have had he licensed - has not been sent if she does not treble the damages. This would discourage licensing of patents, and lead to more litigation, not less.

    Final thought: Willful infringement isn’t required by the trebling statute. Even reckless infringement could warrant trebling.

    I agree.  I think the damages will be doubled or trebled.  Judge Koh has laid down a trial record on which everyone can say that she was was the fairest in all the land.  Now it’s JMOL and damages time and the gloves come off.  I suspect she thinks that if she doesn’t give Apple JMOL on the Galaxy Tab issue and that if she doesn’t double or treble damages, it’s highly unlikely Apple will get her reversed on appeal because an appellate court would defer to her discretionary judgment.  But if she goes wild, grants JMOL, and grants trebled damages to send a message to Samesung, the appeals court can always lightly trim her down or break out its eraser on her completely.  This is the ideal time for Koh to say recidivist e-mail destroyers and unrepentant copyists will find no quarter in her courtroom. 

    I really really hope she understands that damages are hard to prove in these types of cases (especially since Apple appears so phenomenally successful).  The foreman made it clear that the jury had doubts about whether Apple would have made the sales Samesung did if Samesung hadn’t infringed because Apple was maxing out production capacity.  That seems like a very valid concern.  If damages are going to be hard to prove, then a litigant that is able to secure a finding of willfulness should fully reap what the statute allows. 

    IIRC Judge Koh is presiding over Apple’s other case against Samesung’s Galaxy S III, which goes to trial in 2014.  If she wants to prod the parties to settle all the way around, she should use this opportunity to send a loud message to Samesung: “You’ll get a fair trial in my courtroom but if the jury says you need a beatdown, I’m going to finish the job.  And if you don’t like it, you can settle, but no matter what you are going to have to stop acting like the ends justify the means and that the penalties are just a cost of doing business.”

    Very nicely done Trainspotter:

    I’m guessing Judge Koh will use her discretionary authority to increase the damages and issue bans on products as a sword to prod Samesung and Apple to settle up.  Samesung doing a lot of public posturing post verdict, but I have to believe they have a lot of smart people working at their company who are interested in protecting market share and brand. Seems to me they have so much at stake here in an industry where market leaders can change fairly quickly.  See RIM. 

    SoCal’s point is also well made.  The law allows actual damages, and then a trebling for the purpose of deterring infringement.  These are separate tools.  I think the Judge will consider proportionality here and not treble, but increase maybe double, damages. If the jury award were smaller a judge may want to treble, but you don’t always use the ultimate option you have as a jurist.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 28 August 2012 06:36 PM #627

    Grover - 28 August 2012 02:17 PM

    I can assure you that many cases settle post-verdict and while the appeals are being litigated.  There are several good reasons for Apple to settle rather than litigate further:

    I’d just point out that it takes two to Tango. Apple just can’t “settle” unilaterally. Apple was the party that wanted to license in the first place. The ball is in Samsung’s court to a large degree, and I’ll I’ve heard post-verdict from them is bluster and vows to appeal.

    I’d also mention that Apple, in its typical fashion, only litigated a few of its USPTO claims against Samsung in this trial, and kept several more in reserve, in case things went badly. So when we say settle, keep in mind there might be more litigation and appeals before any deals down the road. Remember that Harry Truman had to drop two bombs, not just one.

    If I were Apple, I’d like to see a lot more than just words and promises from Samsung. I’d want to see their upcoming phones now in the pipeline before I gave away the store.

    I’d also hope Apple gradually moves away from Samsung as a parts supplier, as they seem to be doing in Brazil, just to put everyone else on notice:

    “Don’t ever go against the family, Fredo.”

    Looking forward to Tim Cook going on a fishing trip soon with Lee Kun-hee.

    Signature

    We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them. — Steve Jobs, 2007

         
  • Posted: 28 August 2012 06:38 PM #628

    JDSoCal - 28 August 2012 09:36 PM
    Grover - 28 August 2012 02:17 PM

    I can assure you that many cases settle post-verdict and while the appeals are being litigated.  There are several good reasons for Apple to settle rather than litigate further:

    I’d just point out that it takes two to Tango. Apple just can’t “settle” unilaterally. Apple was the party that wanted to license in the first place. The ball is in Samsung’s court to a large degree, and I’ll I’ve heard post-verdict from them is bluster and vows to appeal.

    I’d also mention that Apple, in its typical fashion, only litigated a few of its USPTO claims against Samsung in this trial, and kept several more in reserve, in case things went badly. So when we say settle, keep in mind there might be more litigation and appeals before any deals down the road. Remember that Harry Truman had to drop two bombs, not just one.

    If I were Apple, I’d like to see a lot more than just words and promises from Samsung. I’d want to see their upcoming phones now in the pipeline before I gave away the store.

    I’d also hope Apple gradually moves away from Samsung as a parts supplier, as they seem to be doing in Brazil, just to put everyone else on notice:

    “Don’t ever go against the family, Fredo.”

    Looking forward to Tim Cook going on a fishing trip soon with Lee Kun-hee.

    And don’t forget that a bullet was put in Fredo “after our mother dies”....SJ has long passed…it’s ok to shoot.

    Signature

    Keep Calm and Carry On

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 28 August 2012 07:27 PM #629

    Thank you, Judge Grover!!! :D

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 28 August 2012 07:55 PM #630

    Samsung won’t settle. I wish they would, but the business case for them not to settle is far too strong.

    The Jury verdict only really applies to the US market, which while large is only a fraction of the global market. Samsung will simply design around the infringing patents in the USA (and lose some sales), but for the other 95% of the global population it will continue shipping phones as they are now.

    Samsung ships 50 million smartphones a quarter (supposedly) - why would it want to pay apple a royalty for the 40 million+ smartphones it ships outside of the USA that have yet to be found as infringing in their respective markets?

    Tne glacial speed of judicial systems, combined with the sheer number of countries that samsung ships too that apple would have to proceed court actions in, means Samsung will simply continue business as normal, willfully ripping off Apple at its leisure.

    Signature

    Full Disclosure:

    - Long Apple
    - Pro: Apple HDTV, iPhone Air, Stock split, Consumer robotics