Apple v Samsung Aftermath; Google Statement; Juror Speaks Out & More

[dgstorm]

The biggest patent trial of the decade (maybe ever) just wrapped up on Friday, and Samsung lost to Apple to the tune of $1 Billion. Of course there will be appeals filed and other lawsuits from other companies still to follow, but at least this particular daily-news headache is waning. We will soon be able to focus on less frustrating topics in the mobile tech world. Before we can move on, there are a few "aftermath" stories to share. Here's a breakdown below:

First, we have a couple of interesting statements to share from some of the players in this game. One is an internal memo from Samsung that was designed to reassure its employees, and the other is a statement that Google issued in regards to the trial outcome. It is designed to reassure the consumer regarding Android. Here they are below (sourced from AndroidCentral),

We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit, and we have had little choice but to counter-sue, so that we can protect our company. Certainly, we are very disappointed by the verdict at the US District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), and it is regrettable that the verdict has caused concern amongst our employees, as well as our loyal customers. However, the judge’s final ruling remains, along with a number of other procedures. We will continue to do our utmost until our arguments have been accepted. The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents. History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation. We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt. ~ Samsung Internal Memo

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 US 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

Second, Samsung released a separate statement to the public that directly addresses the ridiculous damages claim from the court case. It is a bold statement that will likely be a big part of their appeal. They make a great argument that the damages were poorly calculated, which could easily go in their favor in an appellate court. Speaking to that argument, we found an analysis of Apple's damages claim over at Phandroid. It eloquently breaks down why many of the supposed infringing devices should not have been calculated in the damages because they were on carriers that never (or later) carried the iPhone. Here's Samsung's statement followed by a quote from the article with the breakdown (in the breakdown, the bolded items could not really have taken any business away from Apple),

“Apple’s arguments boiled down to an assertion that everyone who bought a Samsung device would have bought the equivalent product from Apple had the Samsung product not been on the market. But that reasoning ignores any brand loyalty customers might have had to Samsung, or they might be customers of carriers that at the time didn’t offer Apple products. I would say there are quite a few problems with the way Apple calculated damages.” ~ Samsung

Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162

Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117

Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869

Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894

Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820

Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179

Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383

Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668

Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356

Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558

Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146

Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691

Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076

Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0

Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585

Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184

Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974

Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612

Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297

Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256

Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060

Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957

TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540

Total, removing the damages for the above devices……………..$251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages.

Here's a quote from the jury instructions that makes this more clear,

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.

Third, a man named Manuel Ilagan came forward to share hist thoughts on the verdict. The reason why his perspective is worth paying attention to is because he was one of the jurors. Here are a couple of his statements, (you can read more of his perspective at CNET),

"We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented," Ilagan said. "It was clear there was infringement."

"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, [Apple] showed the pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help their cause."

Of course we will keep you guys updated of any breaking news regarding these and other patent wars, but it will be nice to focus on more tech-friendly stuff for a while!

 

[johnomaz]

It is total BS they are tryign to get money from phones where the iPHone wasnt' even available on. I hate Apple more and more these days.

 

[cobravnm13]

It is total BS they are tryign to get money from phones where the iPHone wasnt' even available on. I hate Apple more and more these days.

+1

Sent from my 3rd reincarnation of the ever-so-lovable Droid

 

[liftedplane]

I think that prospective jurors should have to pass an IQ test before being allowed to decide on cases

 

[LoudRam]

I would love to know what cell phones these jurors use. I'm sure that was part of the pre-trial jury questioning. But I'm curious.

Sent from my HTC Rezound using Droid Forums

 

[kodiak799]

That quote from the juror is very telling and interesting. Remember, Samsung was not allowed to present its photo presentation of their history, which clearly showed similar designs (even to the IPhone) before the IPhone was ever launched. The judge did not allow this exhibit because it was proposed after discovery (or some sort of timing issue they failed to meet). I'm guessing the exhibit the juror is talking about is one Gizmodo constantly puts up, which is very slanted toward Apple's favor (obviously, Apple created it).

That leads me to believe the somewhat questionable ruling of the judge to prevent Samsung from entering their exhibit was a key factor in the outcome.

 

[WestOkid]

It only gets worse. looks like they will be looking to take several phones off the shelf.

Apple targets 8 Samsung phones for sales ban | Apple - CNET News

 

[kodiak799]

Most of those are already old phones nearing obsolescence, anyway, right?

 

[cush2push]

“Apple’s arguments boiled down to an assertion that everyone who bought a Samsung device would have bought the equivalent product from Apple had the Samsung product not been on the market"

This is apples argument? And they won?
If that's the case them Google can sue stating that people who bought the iphone because of the notification center would of bought a android product if Apple didn't blatantly infringe on Googles patent further more google should try to get a ban on all IOS 5 and up software because we the consumers may get confused by it i know when i am holding a iphone and a Nexus next to each other i cant tell the difference between them

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[tjk629]

Was talking about the Samsung and Apple lawsuit, and everyone was talking about how Apple "invents" all this stuff and people copy it. Then someone said Apple invented the smart phone.

I died a little bit inside.

 

[WestOkid]

“Apple’s arguments boiled down to an assertion that everyone who bought a Samsung device would have bought the equivalent product from Apple had the Samsung product not been on the market"

This is apples argument? And they won?
If that's the case them Google can sue stating that people who bought the iphone because of the notification center would of bought a android product if Apple didn't blatantly infringe on Googles patent further more google should try to get a ban on all IOS 5 and up software because we the consumers may get confused by it i know when i am holding a iphone and a Nexus next to each other i cant tell the difference between them

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Unfortunately, that can't happen. Android is open source. Google can't make software for everyone to use except Apple. That's why Google bought Motorola figuring they could get leverage from the hardware patents. The goal was to force Apple to be reasonable.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[cush2push]

Unfortunately, that can't happen. Android is open source. Google can't make software for everyone to use except Apple. That's why Google bought Motorola figuring they could get leverage from the hardware patents. The goal was to force Apple to be reasonable.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

That nifty notification center is patented open source or not it is patented technology

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[MissionImprobable]

Apple/Samsung Jurors Admit They Finished Quickly By Ignoring Prior Art & Other Key Factors | Techdirt

You guys did see this right? The juror stated that they completely ignored the prior art portion when considering which way to vote. A patent is not valid if prior art existed, the jurors saw almost no possibility that prior art didn't exist, but then put that aside on the advice of the foreman who admitted that he saw this as a way to punish Samsung as though they had violated a patent that he held. There is pretty much zero chance that this verdict stands up on appeal. The jury cast aside important instructions and was clearly swayed by one member whom they saw as an expert though he was never determined to be so.

 

[MissionImprobable]

That nifty notification center is patented open source or not it is patented technology

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Google has a patent pending on notifications.

 

[WestOkid]

It doesn't matter Google has a patent. You can't call something open source and not share it with people because they don't share with you.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2