Cory Johnson, Bloomberg West Editor-at-Large, explains how a retrial of the Apple v. Samsung patent case could result in even more being awarded to Apple.
Johnson speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg Rewind.”
Why Samsung Should Fear a Retrial of Apple Case:
Direct link to video via Bloomberg TV here.
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
Bloomberg TV hasn’t played on my Mac since I don’t know when. Flash sites play OK, as well as everything else that I can think of.
I have zero confidence in the American legal system when it comes to patent law. It moves too slow to protect the rights of patent holders. And if the jury can make a mistake like this ao easily, why ahould patent cases even be handled by ordinary citizens in the first place, instead of experts? Also, Judge Koh was overly deferential to Samsung too, so I don’t have much confidence in her faIrness either. I hope I’m proven wrong.
She was overly differential to Samsung? How so? What facts do you base that on? I’m neither a judge or lawyer but I am interested in how you came to that conclusion. Other then you may perhaps love Apple and hate Samsung? But that’s not what I’m talking about. How was she overly differential legally and technically?
How about the decision to delay and delay and delay the justice until it just didn’t matter anymore?
How about not penalizing Samsung when they defied court orders to release information on the web?
How about denying Apple from adding other major infractions just because of some stupid timing error?
How about thinking that $599m is the appropriate amount when anyone can see this amounts to less than 5% of actual Samsung revenues from infringed devices. Do you really think only 5 out of every 100 phones sold by Samsung were because of the copying? Really?
Overly differential? Answer here:
Nokia files amicus brief supporting Apple’s pursuit of permanent injunction against Samsung
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 · 11:28 am
“Apple is appealing Judge Koh’s mid-December denial of a permanent injunction against multiple Samsung products over half a dozen intellectual property rights (mostly patents) a jury found Samsung to have infringed.”
Read more at http://macdailynews.com/2013/03/06/nokia-files-amicus-brief-supporting-apples-pursuit-of-permanent-injunction-against-samsung/#QIovroJAYeK6QUO4.99
How about not allowing into evidence the fact that Samdung’s lawyers couldn’t tell their tablets apart from an iPad at a distance of 10-12 feet?
How about the fact that she refused to triple damages because in her estimation Samsung did not “wilfully” infringe on Apple’s patents. What? They accidentally infringed?
I don’t think you’d want the system we have in the UK where the judge sits without a jury and then makes a judgement – shortly before being engaged on a lucrative contract by one of the parties involved in that case.
How dumb is the guy on the left? He actually said “So you’re saying Apple could have had to pay more money? Apple pay. This after a simple and clear explanation of results of the Apple Samsung trial that initially awarded Apple $1.5 billion. It is sad to think people pay attention to any thing that guy says.
I caught that too. What a dumb fuck! Cory Johnson is a very good reporter. I have watched him for years. Competent, thorough and very fair. And certainly up to speed on Apple. Not a fanboy but a very objective reporter. He knows his shit. And notice how careful and deliberate he delivers his report. Bloomberg has some very good reporters. And their share of knuckleheads too. The same as CNBC and Fox business network.
And did you also catch when the other guy said he didn’t understand the details of the patent trials he covered a few years ago, either?………Some reporter eh!!!!!!!
Can’t watch the entire clip, looks like my internet is crawling again to death..
what is the purpose of a retrial? a re-retrial? then a re-re-retrial? A jury made a conscientious decision that was handed down through due process, Lucy “I’m A Star!” Koh has merely negated justice.
I cannot and will not watch the video because it requires Flash Player. I have removed this security nightmare from my Mac and will not reinstall it.
Always hope wish our judges everywhere in the workd are like the bible described King Solomon, who has wisdom in xraying for the plain truth.
Arguments? Debate and reasoning? When your heart is close to the universe (which nowadays can’t expect from our “supreme” judges), you know Samsung is a shameless slavish copier of Apple’s products. Period. They think people are dumb (which we are I guess, worse with Judge Koh for sure) and can’t understand what is an inspired product and what is a copied product.
Why should Samsung care? These lawsuits are all part of their marketing budget and business plan… Ape popular designs, trick unsuspecting consumers, build brand awareness, then move onto the next thing while being sued. Pay a billion dollars while making billions and billions more.
NOTHING is going to come from these types lawsuits unless the awarded amount REALLY hurts. Make them pay royalties on all devices from the same product line for as long as that product line is still being sold… In other words, make Samsung pay royalties on every Galaxy device they sell since they built that brand off of Apple’s design.
If you don’t have flash installed and want to watch the video, in Safari just enable the Debug menu and then from the Debug menu, change your User Agent to “iPad”. The page will reload and the HTML5 video feed will show from Bloomberg.