Samsung asks for new trial in patent dispute with Apple

“Samsung has filed for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as an alternative, and questioned jury decisions in a number of areas in its patent dispute against Apple,” John Ribeiro reports for IDG News Service.

“A jury in California decided in August that the South Korean company must pay Apple $1.05 billion for infringing several of its patents in Samsung smartphones and tablets. Apple filed last week for additional damages of $707 million,” Ribeiro reports. “In its filing on Friday, Samsung said that the court’s constraints on trial time, witnesses, and exhibits prevented Samsung from presenting ‘a full and fair case’ in response to Apple’s claims.”

Ribeiro reports, “The filing also questions the jury decision on a number of issues. The court it said, for example, should enter judgment on Apple’s design patents, because “no rational jury could find those patents valid.” No reasonable jury, applying correct standards, could likewise find Apple’s utility patents valid, it added.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote in August: Apple created the modern day smartphone and taught the world what an iPhone is. This was not trivial, nor was it free.

The reason there are copies – of anything – is to take for free (steal) that which was paid for by the original maker: The R&D, the salary and perks of the world’s preeminent industrial designer [and his team], the education of the public through TV spots and a very expensive network of retail outlets, the hundreds of millions in online, print, television, etc. marketing, everything that goes into a product.

This why a maker of knockoff handbags makes Coach knockoffs, to trade on Coach’s work in order to move their fake wares without investing in the design, marketing, etc. This is why a maker of auto knockoffs makes BMW knockoffs. This is why Samsung knocked off iPhone. Samsung stole Apple’s work and they traded on Apple’s considerable investment. This is why the jury found Samsung guilty.

There is no market for paintings of Campbell’s soup cans without Warhol.

Making knockoffs isn’t flattery, it’s theft. It’s also an expression of companies’ disdain and low opinion of their own customers.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

26 Comments

    1. You’re really surprised at this??? DSamsung will try anything! And unfortunately, the way Judge Lucy Koh handled the trial and the foreman of the jury ran his mouth afterward, they may just get a re-trial. However, keep the faith! This is just legal technicalities and Apple can win a second and third time when it goes to appeals.

      1. It really does not matter AT ALL what the foreman said after the case UNLESS he states he did something during the trial or deliberations that the Judge expressly forbid or unless he lied about his background and beliefs when he was chosen. Neither of these things happened. He can say almost anything he wants now.

        I know of a case where an $35+ million arbitration was held and the sides claimed to have thoroughly investigated the three arbitrators. After the decision the losing side did another investigation and turned up some potentially biasing information on one of the arbitrators. They appealed on that basis. The appeals court said, “Tough. You can’t blame anyone but yourself for not properly choosing the arbitration panel.” (Of course I’m paraphrasing, but the appeals court was very terse in their ruling.)

        The same will hold with the jury. I’d be truly SHOCKED, TRULY SHOCKED, if Samsung did not investigate every potential juror prior to their seating. If they missed something, or failed to object to a juror and s/he got empaneled then that is SAMSUNG’s FAULT and the fault of no one else.

        Barring specific jury misconduct, overturning a Jury Verdict is extremely difficult.

        Now, getting a mistrial or retrial based upon the Judge’s actions (or inaction) is much, much more likely. I don’t see that happening here. Koh did minimize the amount of filings and trial time, but it will be very difficult for Samsung to prove that this hurt Samsung more than it did Apple.

  1. I will not shed any tear when (if) I hear the following news…

    “… Breaking News… In 3 separate occasions, family members of Samsung Executives in US got shot in the head with a note stable to each head says ‘Copy This!! Yo Samgfu_k!!’ Police still searching for suspect or suspects. “

        1. Thanks Lordthree for calling out iCupertino on his racist BS.

          I think lately that the forums have been inundated with racist name calling that is neither desired or needed in our obsessive Macfandom. I even wrote MDN, which selected to delete comments rather than directly encourage civility.

          I call on all forum members to stand up against racist and homophobic language and stick to the point of why we come here. Which in my case is to get my daily Mac news fix.

          1. @Respect_required wrote: “I call on all forum members to stand up against off-topic political rants and provocations, and racist and homophobic language and stick to the point of why we come here.

            I’m looking at you TM for that totally unnecessary and uncalled-for provocation. I enjoy reading your on-topic insights but let’s keep the political barbs out of the comments.

    1. The foreman deserves being focused on.

      The rest of the jury should not be slandered, they just did what they were there to do. Blame the judge and all the attorneys, not the jury.

    1. Actually, if they want more time, Apple won’t be forced to focus on “rectangle with rounded corners” and the Calls icon… they can stretch out and focus on many more of the thousand paper cuts. It could wind up being much much worse for Samsung.

  2. Samsung was totally ok with the time restrictions, witnesses and evidence before the trial had started. The judge made clear the playing field and if they felt it was inadequate, they had an opportunity to say so. Like everything they do, they didn’t think it through enough and underestimated the competition. Not only that they mocked the law, the court system, the judge, the jury.

    Another Samsung Fail.

  3. Standard legal maneuver. Actually Samsung’s attorneys could be considered to have committed malpractice if they don’t file the request. The judge will deny it shortly.

    1. I hope you are not hinting that Samsung got hosed. I think they got off easy.
      BTW please everybody, do not confuse me with that idiot iCupertino. I don’t believe he even knows where Cupertino is, he sounds more like he is from down south somewhere. Racist jerk.

      1. Hell nah. They got what they deserved. Guess that was a bad comparison. When I first read headline it just reminded me of kids playing and when one loses the other say “I wanna re-do, no fair” Bad comparison. My fault.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.