Shared publicly  - 
 
Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

 This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

 Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
231
102
Carl Draper's profile photoRyan Mills's profile photoNick Austin's profile photoMohamed kamel's profile photo
110 comments
 
Anything short of Apple getting granted the right to have all of Samsung's employees forced into slavery to give footrubs and carry trays of snacks around 1 Infinite Loop would be certain to disappoint Scoble.
 
A win for attorneys and a loss for consumers.
 
My excuses if you got two email notifications from this post. I made an error and had to delete the first post. With the second round I was still unsure how these notifications really work. 
Just plus this post if you don´t want to receive future notifications.
 
I question if this jury was knowledgeable for this type of trial or whether they were given enough time to become educated enough to make this type of decision. This just went to jury trial and in no time at all, a verdict was delivered. We're not talking a couple decisions that they had to make. We're talking dozens of technical decisions.
 
If I was Samsung I would appeal and question whether the jury was fully qualified.
 
Intriguing. but i offer a simpler explanation. US economy is going down, jobs are lost.
Comes a trial of a US company vs foreign company.
US wins. Hollywood's good guy saves the day and we can go our merry ways. 
 
You could also argue that it shows that Apple had a slam-dunk case.
 
+Alexander Becker hadn´t seen +Robert Scoble´s post as I was busy typing but I disagree with But on the other hand Apple won the PR as the innovator and Samsung will always be seen as the copier.
 
My excuses if you got two email notifications from this post. I made an error and had to delete the first post. With the second round I was still unsure how these notifications really work.

FYI +Max Huijgen you may always notify me.
 
+Yuval Ararat Apple is a foreign manufacturer when it comes to the iPhone and iPad. The ITC just looked at a case of Google’s Motorola Mobility unit vs Apple.
http://goo.gl/iMuNN
 
+Chad Haney designed in california + A5 texas made. assembled in chin, Apple is building a huge facility in Cali... + most of the added services are american based like cloud so i think that the small cheap portion of the iOS is going overseas... most of it stays US bound.
 
"Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. "

That alone tells you the system is broken.  If the public cant tell if something is infringing, and the experts cant tell easily either, then it was too ambiguous to start with.
 
In the end this case was: a american company against a foreign company, with an american jury, and the real losers are the consumers. How many small and medium companies won't take the risk of going to USA now?

The biggest winner? Windows phone. They'll be the main alternative to Apple in the near future... (in USA)  
 
Nah, this wasn't against Android, just one of the device manufacturers.  And Samsung will keep on keeping on, and I'll keep buying from them.
 
+Ezequiel Gallo Are you sure? it seems windows is kinda missing the point with the 3 different win8 versions. but if businesses that are windows based embrace this win8 thing you might be right.
 
+Jeffrey Hamby i hope you wont need me to go to a shop and ship it to you so you could have your Samsung ;)
 
Heh, good point.  But now that you've said it, I accept your (non) offer :D

My guess is Samsung will go into their GS4 with guns a blazin' and come out with something that will make Apple wish they hadn't poked the bear.
 
+Max Huijgen I applaud you for such a thorough analysis. People here rarely ever provide an analysis of anything over 2 paragraphs long. So that alone is noteworthy. 
(( What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. ))
Yes, and people have been grumbling for the past 20 years in the USA that the Patent Office is completely untrained and unsuited to be granting hi-tech patents to begin with, and that they are the cause of the problem. Others have been the exploiters of their clumsiness and lack of knowledge. ... A bunch of years ago when Amazon first sued to patent the 1-click checkout transaction system, people in tech felt, overall "they must be crazy! They can't patent that" .. but sure enough Amazon prevailed and won that patent case.

Your analysis goes on to spotlight how unprepared and how unsuited normal everyday people (consumers) on a jury are to be making such incredibly consequential decisions. You write about when they got dreary-eyed with expert after boring expert, and when they perked up.

I have no idea what it will take for the U.S. Patent office to be ramped up to the modern era. i think we are past that, given that the US Justice dept doesn't prosecute most major crimes anymore (for example Wall street crimes). The U.S. seems to be losing its world credibility in these areas.

cont'd)
 
Great post, +Max Huijgen . I think you are spot on. Patent cases are way too complicated to be decided by juries, and in a case so valuable an appeal is guaranteed no matter which way the jury decides. Just a colossal waste of resources.
 
Shouldn't this jack up the value of Samsung products on the secondary market as Apple inevitably tries to get sales of Samsung handsets blocked again?
 
+Max Huijgen , cont'd You said:
(( The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone. … .When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion? ))  You really think so? I don't. Apple's brand is so strong they could put out their iphone 5 with just improved Siri and they would sale tons of them. Apple's customers are loyal beyond rationale.

I understand you are speaking of buyers who would be considering a Samsung tablet or phone, and now find that option is completely unavailable to them, thanks to Apple - and their sleazy way of competing against other mobile product makers.

I just don't know yet. I have no idea yet what consumers will be ABLE to do re buying through web from other countries..or whether they turn to HTC... But those people are already NOT buying an iphone or ipad, so their added disgust level at Apple's competitive practices aren't really going to have an effect against Apple, will it?
 
Probably +Justin Fazekas .  It also means companies will come out of the woodwork with even more patent trolling as the precedent has been set.
 
Apple celebrants are going to have a serious hangover when they realize what it means to answer to a technical monopoly. Apple has no reason to innovate now, and no reason to care much how the guy on the street feels about it. They're going to make money no matter who that guy buys from (royalties).

Further, there were 3G implications here, too. What they are, I'm not sure yet. But this will definitely impact the Google/Moto v Apple suit, and in the end kill real competition--most notably because, with the inevitable royalties everyone will be paying to Apple, Apple becomes the owner of just about every cellphone and tablet out there, no matter who makes it.

One of the competitive advantages to new entrants was price. Apple, simply put, is expensive (if not elitist). Now they are nuking that competitive advantage--Apple isn't going to use those profits to lower the prices of its products, its merely going to pad it profits. And it's going to do so, at least for the near term, on the backs of everyone else.

This was just the detonation of the nuclear blast. Next comes the radiation fall-out, and I'm pretty sure that's where the real carnage is going to happen...

Just a musing from the sidewalk on my part, though, FWIW.
 
+Yuval Ararat I completely disagree with this: (( but i offer a simpler explanation. US economy is going down, jobs are lost.  Comes a trial of a US company vs foreign company.  US wins. Hollywood's good guy saves the day and we can go our merry ways. ))

I don't know if those Americans in the jury room are quite that stupid. I'll bet that over half of them have Samsung huge TV's in their living room, or monitors at their computers. Samsung became a worldwide brand in the US, in my opinion equal to that of Sony.  At the same time, stories of Apple's outsourcing to China have been big news in Northern California for quite a while. These aren't the "flyover states"...
 
For those of you who are well versed in these patent cases it´s remarkable that the jurors found that the wireless patent was judged as ´patent exhaustion´ while you can only establish this if Apple infringed on these utility patents of Samsung in the first place. 
Judge Koh made a huge error there when accepting the error in the jury verdict and let it pass.
 
This is Apple´s comment. Still banking on a sentiment I guess no longer exists in 2012:
We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values.  At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy.  We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
 
+Max Huijgen , I also agree with you in DISAGREEING with Scoble re (( But on the other hand Apple won the PR as the innovator and Samsung will always be seen as the copier. ...Samsung's events never get the "Apple buzz" and this verdict won't help Samsung move up in the world's eyes as an innovator. ))
This just goes to show how narcissistic Scoble is. Consumers are very different from tech industry bloggers. It's the scoble and TechCrunch crowd who go oooh and ahhhh at all things Apple. Pretty much any person in any role in the tech industry can never deny Apple's amazing inventiveness. Anyone who does is a fool. In some ways, absolutely, Apple innovates best. We shall see going forward. Google's voice recognition and command tech at this stage is beyond Apple's, and no, they did not invent voice recognition. But I disagree with scoble for trying to extend what techie convention goers and sample product testers feel towards Apple rippling into American consumer homes.

Not everyone has a magic spell allegiance to Apple or the iphone or ipad. Some people get done with their 2 year contract with Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile and then shop for the next phone offered by their carrier at a subsidized price... They go into those retail stores and get wowed by what they see on display, because that's what they're choosing between. ... I just don't know why these tech bloggers need to have these all or nothing statements. It makes them look ridiculous ... or bought.
 
One of these interesting things +Richard Hoefer is that the collected tech press was completely flabbergasted by the ´awesome´ SIRI. 
When consumers got hold of it and the novelty wore out, no word was uttered about this ´revolution´ and yet it was the only claim to innovation claim Apple really made with the 4S
 
+Max Huijgen Add to that the fact that Google Voice Search came out before Siri and you really have to wonder where the innovation is.
 
Well to be fair, Siri's innovation is in answering back and providing information. That;s huge.
 
+Max Huijgen I really appreciate your take on the PR-implications of this.  Not sure that many have taken that aspect into consideration.  Barring an injunction that affects the S3 and Tab I have a hard time seeing this as anything but a win for Samsung.  $1B isn't even 2 weeks of free cash flow for Apple.  Seems like a massive bargain for doing business, IMHO.

Kudos to Koh for recognizing (as you clearly pointed out) that this was nothing more than business between two companies that should have settled all of this in the boardroom.  So Samsung gets labeled a cheat...  So what.  Kind of goes with the territory for Asian companies these days.  Apple on the other hand definitely has more of that Evil Empire vibe around it, and as you point out, THAT is going to be tough to shake regardless of the marketing dollars spent.
 
But yes, +Max Huijgen , I agree, consumers have not at all been super-evangelists about the iphone 4s ... There is massive distortion that comes out of silicon valley, and it's often heralded by tech Blog writers. While there isn't pay to play that I know of, isn't it wonderful that all these people get showered with review copies of practically everything under the sun. I don't feel that these particular people have their interests aligned with consumers. Their allegiance is the the industry, and then various players within the industry. ... How would Silicon Valley - to - San Francisco host so many variations of Tech Conferences and conventions were it not for panelists at the ready to speak and help build heat for new products they've seen, creating quotable story sources, that then they can all write about.
 
+Craig Froehle , aw come on man, I was talking execution.  On the voice recognition side, "innovator" Apple was about 4 years after my WindowsMobile touchscreen phones which could dial numbers by voice, and 3 or 4 other functions. Granted, on the UI side they had terrible 6pt type that required that stylus, and reading glasses... and Apple's huge innovation was a total rethink of the UI with finger based tap, slide, twist which changed the industry... Apple for sure transformed the whole industry. But they can't claim first for everything...
 
+Richard Hoefer Nope, not really. There is relatively little in the first version of iOS that is fundamentally new. Heck, lots of the UI came straight off of Palm OS, which was very finger-friendly, but the screens were a little small because screen tech wasn't as advanced. I had a Palm TX in 2005 that was a LOT like the first iPhone, actually...just didn't make phone calls.
 
Hey thank you +Craig Froehle , I have some homework to do this weekend.  I had a blind spot in that I was focused on touchscreen phones, and I hadn't considered where Palm had gotten by then. So dare I ask: Did Apple violate any Palm patents on their touchscreen interface system? Or did Palm just never patent them? 
 
For reference, touch screens were developed in the 60s.
 
Palm patented some things, but it was so small that I doubt it took the same approach Apple has, which is the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" strategy. HP got the patents when it acquired Palm in 2010, but I doubt it wants to get itself involved in these wars at all right now.
 
+Jeffrey Hamby I'm not a fountain of knowledge and sourcing for touchscreen devices and don't pretend to be. But I have very keen usability recognition between various products, down to pixel sizes.  I was pretty impressed by my WindowsMobile phones (I had 2 different ones in 4 years), but usability was overall poor, til I joined XDA-developers, where amazing modifications began.  Not withstanding what Craig said about iOS not originating a finger based icon navigation system, when the iphone hit, XDA-devs had various knockoff ROMS within a day or two.. though I was a newbie to mods and scared then to flash rom my phone.

At the same time HTC ruled in touchscreen phone devices, and their TouchFlo UI was grafted on to WindowsMobile OS, transforming it to be "iphone like". At that time and for the next year before I bailed and switched to Android, I had a best of breed phone. All the capacity of an iphone, but far advanced not only with multitasking, but photos, text messaging, all the stuff Apple couldn't get done for their premiere release.

But the thing I liked most? The resistive screen... because I could use my finger or the stylus, either.. but with the stylus I could draw, and write freehand notes.. and MS even had handwriting recognition that turned that into text. The thing I lost with a capacitive screen was no real drawing, no notes.

I'm just trying to illustrate a consumer path dealing with what was in the marketplace, vs what technology had been present in some other devices 30 to 40 years before... And just trying to compare the whole enchilada of what was in my hand and what I could do with it. ... I have nothing but respect and awe for inventors of breakthrough tech, such as the touchscreen interface. ... I guess I was trying to be fair and give Apple their due in terms of what got packaged together and shipped into consumer's hands, vs capability unrealized. On the whole I cannot stand how Apple does business since the iphone, and this verdict deeply disgusts me. In order to not be viewed as partisan, I give credit where credit is due... But yes, huge distinctions between "we brought this combination of technologies to life" and "we invented it all". .. Sorry for wordiness...
 
No need to apologize. I also get that Apple took existing technologies and meshed them in a way consumers found desirable. I stopped buying at the iPhone 3g due to the walled garden they tout and the almost unusable iTunes.

Now I won't buy because I see them as the SCO of the 2010s.
 
What Samsung should really consider is to forget the US market altogether.  

The other 6.6 billion people are going to need great products at prices lower than Apple is willing to offer and many of Samsung's products fill that bill.

If Apple & the US want to be protectionist through a shady patent system, let them.  It's a big planet.
 
Noooooooooo, I really like their devices :)
 
Sadly, jury nullification applies to civil court too, but juries aren't reminded of it.
 
This post/article is complete garbage. To actually be enough of a moron to say that this case will make Apple uncool is joke! 
 
Well written. Although no one can deny that it would be best if Samsung had won the case, you suggest that Apple could not win no matter the outcome.

Let's wait and see if that stands true.
 
Well-written article.  To have that kind of settlement given by 9 ordinary citizens is just mind-boggling; especially when a lot of it comes down to the validity of patents (and potential "copying" of them) as stated here.
 
my lenovo keyboard is just like apple's. why isn't lenovo getting sued?
 
+Yuval Ararat, irrelevant. It's well known that Apple produces exactly NOTHING in the US. Apple isn't bringing the US any jobs and they have repeatedly said so, are proud of it even. NYTIMES did a piece on that a while ago.
 
funny, isn't it, how none of the pro-Apple threads appear in the common plus strea?
 
Somebody! Anybody! Please Finish off eating the damn Apple!
 
Get me in that jury and I would of had Apple to its knees. :@
 
It's not the end of the world by any means...In fact it may just be the beginning of it... wait and see.
 
Another wonderful case of protectionism-maybe the jurors should have been given an iPhone and a GS3 to play with. The difference is obvious and clearly the latter is by far the better one. Well, yes. There are square icons with rounded corners.....
 
This is a clean win people need to accept it and stop speculating.
 
In an earlier comment I have posted Apple´s reaction, now Samsungs´:
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.
 
Groklaw made similar observations about a jury being incapable and quotes this devastating remark by the jury:
_The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions. _ 
125 pages, tens of millions poured into this case and the jury didn´t even need the instruction! 
 
"Above the Law" states: The jury took just two three days — or 21 hours, to be more precise. They’ve been asked to answer more than 700 questions, but they’ve deliberated for just three days! Bored much?
 
And for those like +Robert Scoble who doubted it, after I wrote the post above, the judge and both parties settled on a date (20 september) to decide on injunctions, meaning a ban on Samsung devices.
 
At which point +Max Huijgen, where bans are in place, it's a completely different story. Remains interesting (and absurd).
 
It's not a Pyrrhic victory, I'm afraid. Apple walks home with a cool billion, an enemy with a copy-cat image problem, and a law-enforced righteousness that will be paraded around the world.

Most consumers won't read this post, couldn't care less about who's right or wrong, they just know that Apple is "beautiful" and Samsung is a "copy-cat". Plus, they'll have a hard time actually finding Samsung products if Apple has its way (again).

A sad state of affairs, really.
 
Life gets better? Or consumer at the losing end?
 
A win for Apple shareholders and lawyers, a real loss for everyone else including the Apple fans who are currently short-sightedly celebrating this as some sort of self-validation.
 
What do you mean +Alexander Becker? Bans have always been the heart of this court case. The monetary claim was just a needed aside to be able to ask for injunctions. Apple wasn´t interested in the money, they want to restore their smart phone monopoly.
The Apple lawyers asked judge Koh immediately after the jury verdict was delivered for a hearing on the injunction. It was settled for the 20th of September and Apple will have to file before the 29th of August.
 
Ah, +Colin Lucas-Mudd take note: posts with difficult words can reach 100 shares so there is hope for G+
one more such victory would utterly undo him signed Pyrrhus
 
As far as I have heard, the success of an injunction is far from guaranteed +Max Huijgen. That's my hope.
 
I haven't read all the comments here, but as to the jury who heard this case, CNET has profiled them nicely here: http://goo.gl/nHyc2.
 
Its always the people that are over 40 who side with apple lmao.
 
Thanks +Max Huijgen and/or your alter ego. Agreed and indeed. I believe that was my underlying point on the earlier post to which you refer. Of course, context and relevance help. Good post—thanks.
 
The only reason apples iPhone is what it is is because of the simplicity. (A monkey could learn how to use it) and it seems like the majority of people would use a product that is cut and dry. No real effort to use. I mean that's what a lot of the world is built on today. They don't want the consumer knowing anything more than what they want us to know.
 
Good story, but ´I couldn´t make it up´ ain´t true +Brian Titus Would be very easy to make up this nice anecdote about the last Starbucks in LA where everyone reads the newspaper aloud.
 
Every tower will fall. Its only a matter of time
 
One of the jurors had quite some experience in the court room. I wonder if he influenced this case more than we know. An inventor 
one juror seems to have more experience in key areas than the others. This juror has been on three previous juries, including at least two that involved civil litigation. He also has experience with patent registration and litigation.

Only one other member has served on a jury before and no other member had any previous involvement with patents.

This juror with the patent and jury experience told the court that he owned a startup during the previous decade. The company filed for and was eventually issued a patent concerning video-compression software. CNET found records that showed the man's company also worked on optical lens technology to improve the viewing quality of television monitors. The man said the company eventually "went belly up." 
 
So what I already suspected: key role for the foreman / frustrated inventor +Alexander Becker One man, decides over a country wide ban as judge Koh so far hasn´t had any reservations.
Legally the quality of the jury process is irrelevant; they found Samsung guilty of infringement and all she has to do is consider banning devices on secondary arguments. 
 
the first stage is shock, followed by depression, followed by "bargaining"  Trying to blame the $100 a day jury foreman is just felony stupid.  Samsung could have settled this at the outset for $30 a handset, and no blatant copying.  They chose another course.
 
+John Willkie do the math first. Samsung shipped  worldwide more than 50 million smart phones in the second quarter only. That would have been $1,5 billion in license costs just for one quarter!!! 6 billion this year, last year maybe 4, next year 10? Paying this small fine is a much better deal.
Nope, its all about banning Samsung. Forget the money.
 
+Max Huijgen I'm sorry, but I do math all day long.  They have now created uncertainty in their markets. They will lose market share in the U.S. and most other countries, at least for a while. They will have to stop importing phones into the U.S. no earlier than September 20, pending a redesign.  How long will that take?  Have they started contingency planning yet? The jury ruled that the infringement -- no doubt there -- was wilful.  That means the judge could rule that the amount is 3x1.05 BB.  Then, there are the eight patents that Apple removed from this case, and the other pending case with 4 more patents.  And, the judge is more likely than not to grant Apple's request for special, exemplary (making an example of Samsung) and punitive damages.  I'm sorry if you thought that the amount is fixed.  It's even conceivable (but unprobable) that the judge will reduce the award.
 
I know the rules for cases like this +John Willkie and I agree it´s all about the banned devices. I just countered the math of the license costs. Even at 3x which will never survive an appeal it would still be cheaper not to pay. 
 
Contingency planning is hardly needed +John Willkie The current money makers are no part of this court case so Samsung can keep selling them. 
 
The current money makers are part of the 8 patents that Apple removed from this case (without prejudice) and the 4 patents in the case they filed in January.  I am reading articles that they did contingency planning, but Apple appears to want to put those 12 other patents on the fast-track.  Indeed, it can probably largely be done with "summary judgement" since, clearly, Samsung has failed to offer a defense.  I hate writing that: I have all sorts of friends in the highest level at Samsung (but in a different domain.)  They are an underdog in the domain I deal with; LG is the big kahuna.
 
+Max Huijgen , am I reading this correctly:  (( This juror with the patent and jury experience told the court that he owned a startup during the previous decade. The company filed for and was eventually issued a patent concerning video-compression software.  ))  Are you saying that during jury selection, this juror disclosed all that, and neither side's lawyer sought to dismiss him? ... That's incredibly odd. ... EDIT: Okay I read the CNET story about the jurors. That's their language. Why wouldn't lawyers want to dismiss that potential juror? Am I missing something?
 
+Max Huijgen A friendly wager on whether the judgement will be increased, and on whether it survives on appeal? 

What I read in this case -- and I'm generally not pre-disposed to favor Apple and I decided more than 30 years ago to not do business with the company -- is that Apple was eminently reasonable with Samsung, and did everything I would have done and more ahead of time to point Samsung in a non-infringing direction.  All that stuff is in the record, in stunning detail, and offered up front with a Federal Rules of Evidence 408 restriction.  All written in neutral language; they even offered to give credit for what appear to now be worthless (already licensed) Samsung patents.

Apple was speaking softly and carrying a big stick.  Samsung percieved, one assumes, weakness. 
 
I´m all for a friendly wager +John Willkie Koh has so far not shown a reasonable presidency over this case and seems to be on a collision course so a raise of the penalty for willfulness could happen. 
However it won´t survive appeal. Now we have to sort out the terms of the wager. What´s at stake and how do we define appeal? First or last?
 
+Max Huijgen The award could go up and it could go down.  How about us focusing on the findings of fact by the jury; that the devices in this case infringed on one or more Apple patents.  That isolates you from the judge,and it just about isolates me from losing, since findings of fact basically can't be overturned absent error on the part of the jury or judge.  However, that doesn't address the possible 'corner cases." 
 
Yes this may all be true +Max Huijgen, especially this part :

Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument

So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

But you left out the part where they were then shown the phones, side by side. I think this is what sealed the deal.
Add a comment...