“Samsung Electronics Co. said it will seek a further review of patent damages awarded to Apple Inc. even after winning a reduction of about 45 percent of the $1.05 billion amount,” Joe Schneider and Jungah Lee report for Bloomberg. “U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, on March 1 cut the damages award after finding that the jury based its decision on an incorrect legal theory.”
“‘We are pleased that the court decided to strike $450,514,650 from the jury’s award,’ Nam Ki Yung, a spokesman at Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung, said in an e-mailed statement today. ‘Samsung intends to seek further review as to the remaining award,'” Schneider and Lee report. “Koh, who previously rejected Cupertino, California-based Apple’s bid to ban U.S. sales of 26 Samsung devices, also denied the iPhone maker’s request to increase the jury’s award. The judge said the amount owed by the Galaxy maker was heavily disputed, and the jury wasn’t bound to accept either side’s damages estimate. The jury’s award for 14 other products stands at $598.9 million, she said.”
Schneider and Lee report, “Koh ordered a new trial on damages for some Samsung products. The companies should consider appealing her ruling before the trial begins, the judge said.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Let’s just make it zero, because that’s about as much worth as Apple’s gotten out of their thermonuclear wars in courts. Ripped off to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars by Microsoft in the 1990s and beyond and, despite patents up the wazoo this time, ripped by Samsung for likely even more in the 2000s and beyond.
It seems that there is no justice for the innovators; no real IP protection (perhaps until it’s too late to matter).
Dear “Legal Systems” of the World,
It’s 2013, six years after Steve Jobs pulled iPhone and all of its patents out of his jeans pocket, and you’re still “adjudicating,” you tedious failures.
Why should anyone bother patenting anything?
With the utmost sincerely, you suck.
Sincerely,
Timely Justice
—
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Related articles:
Judge Lucy Koh slashes jury award in Apple v. Samsung case from $1.03 billion to $599 million – March 1, 2013
Judge Lucy Koh orders Apple and Samsung to narrow claims – February 22, 2013
Apple appeals Judge Lucy Koh’s refusal to bar Samsung’s patent infringing smartphones from U.S. market – December 20, 2012
Judge denies Apple request for permanent ban on Samsung phones in U.S. – December 17, 2012
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Samsung’s new ‘Wallet’ bears striking resemblance to Apple’s Passbook – February 27, 2013
Korea JoongAng Daily: Samsung must stop slavishly copying Apple – September 3, 2012
South Korea reassesses its great imitator, Samsung – September 2, 2012
Convicted patent infringer Samsung acuses Apple of trying to limit consumer choice – September 1, 2012
Is Samsung copying Apple’s patented earphones? It sure looks like it – September 8, 2012
Samsung mimics Apple product videos in Galaxy S III promo (with video) – August 24, 2012
Now slavish copycat Samsung attempts to knockoff Apple’s retail stores (with video) – August 23, 2012
Samsung: Shameless slavish copiers – August 13, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple: Google warned Samsung against slavishly copying our products – July 25, 2012
Now Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s Mac mini – June 1, 2012
Samsung Mobile chief ‘designer’ denies that Samsung’s instinct is to slavishly copy Apple – March 23, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung shamelessly steals Apple’s iPhone 3G design – again – January 3, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung uses girl actress from iPhone 4S ad for Galaxy Tab 8.9 spot (with video) – January 2, 2012
Now Samsung’s slavishly copying Apple’s iPad television ads (with videos) – December 30, 2011
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Why are Apple’s icons on the wall of Samsung’s store? – September 24, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008
‘Even further review’ means ‘even more backhanders’ in the convoluted world of Judge Lucy Koh’s court’.
Judge Coo-Koh-Cachoo. Maybe the appeals court will have more sense but probably not. Those seats are filled by Obama too.
Nobody knows this but a certain L. Koh is employee #2 in the Samsung payroll list. Only Samsung’s chairman ranks higher at employee #1.
A Jury of peers…
Just go back to medieval days where the mob decided and beware judges ‘everywhere’ that the mob will soon catch on to the concept of ” whats good for the goose” and stick you and up on a pole for all to eat.
I liked the stick you on a pole part. “For all too eat” not so much.
It’s figurative…
This continues to show how flawed the justice system seems to be in cases like these. Common sense does not exist. Jury verdicts mean nothing. A poor judge that should have her cases reviewed, can nullify awards on a whim. Justice has not been done here. It makes no difference. There is nothing we can do. Why have patients at all? There is no incentive for Samsung to do anything else besides copy the daylights out of everyone, in all of there businesses in every country around the world.
how many months before Koh is on Samsung’s payroll, too?
Try -24 months.
Don’t you mean how many months has she been? Or are you just referring to how soon it will be made ‘officially’ public like the UK dufuss
yeah, the only question is when it becomes official, like in the UK.
For the inofficial part, BSSEE’s estimate of minus 24 months should be about right.
Next up on the Samsung legal docket: appealing to Obama to abolish the US Patents & Trademarks Office as being totally superfluous to requirements so as to enable the world’s greatest copycat company to carry on its activities with impunity and rip off American companies without fear of legal recourse whatsoever.
I guess redistribution now applies to foreign countries as well. What do you expect from a guy who still use a Blackberry?!
Samsung paid a judge in the UK as we all discovered. Why would Lucy Koh be an exception?
Chances are they paid off her extended family in Korea.
This is really suck. Fan from Singapore.
Agreed. Judge Lucy Koh is so suck!
Wow. Apple just can’t get any justice in protecting their hard work.
Story of the country… Very sad.
Miss me yet?
This was always going to happen – some of the phones listed were not ever sold in the US and some were feature phones that could not even do what they apparently infringed. But then more phones have been added to the list which ‘do’ infringe. It’s all about tidying up the award, to make it equitable. The starting point for the new trial is that certain features ‘do’ infringe, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the total award went beyond the original $1.2B.
The jury was lazy…they left too many holes in their maths. I put it down to court fatigue.
Cue the announcer- ‘In a world where anyone can get away with anything- where anarchy reigns- where the straight shooters are condemned and the traitor rewarded- enters a mutant child.’
Apple; the Ned Stark of the modern technology world in the real life drama, “A Game of Phones”.