“If you thought that the one billion dollars a jury awarded Apple last year had been cut nearly in half, you may be forgiven. That’s how most of the business press reported it,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune. “What actually happened is that Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the big Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial last August, ‘vacated’ $450 million of that award six months later.”
“Responding to Samsung’s complaints, she ruled in March that the jury had made such a hash of some of the damages calculations that they couldn’t be sorted out without a new trial,” P.E.D. reports. “That trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday.”
P.E.D. reports, “A third trial, covering some of the products Samsung has introduced in the two and a half years since Apple filed its original suit — including the Galaxy S3 (but not the S4) — is scheduled to begin in March 2014.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Lucy Koh likes being a star.
In reality, the specific reason for this retrial is that Judge Koh is a FAIL. Not the jury! Judge Koh.
This is another Lucy though in this case is distinctly unloved.
What, Lucy from peanuts ? Lucy Lu? Lucy in the sky with diamonds? Lucy lawless from Xena warrior princess??
That would be Lucille Ball… “I Love Lucy”…
(Maybe before your time)
I “Love” Lucy? As in Lucille Ball. Hence the play off the word “unloved.”
Lucy doesn’t love you (not like you want her to).
I suppose the jury had been given instructions that were “Lucy Goosey”
exactly
Patent law may need revision. Patent law may be obsolete. What isn’t obsolete is the DELIBERATE pace of justice. It cares not whether you believe in an outcome or sympathize based on your emotional connection to an issue. The law takes its time to get it right. It doesn’t care about you or your opinion. The law will get it right eventually.
Thanks for your nihilistic display of ignorance of the basic principles of American law.
As Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970: “A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value…”
How is this relevant at all. don’t lecture me about the basic principles of american law. You quote a speech by Chief Justice Burger to do what, espouse an opinion.
perhaps you have lost faith in American law, but the way I see it, the slow wheels of justice win and trump your fanboi enthusiasm. BTW- nowhere does Justice Burger define what time frame is appropriate in seeking justice. I am still waiting for the other two things that Burger mentions in his speech.
Here’s the full quote:
“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.”
OK, so what a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says about American justice is irrelevant, because you say so. Got it. When did you go to law school and how many briefs have you written explaining the meaning and significance of USSC cases and opinions?
Trial of the century? Is that because that’s how long it lasts?
We already know Samsung will appeal (again)
Justice delayed is justice denied
Responding to Samsung’s complaints, she ruled in March that the jury had made such a hash of some of the damages calculations that they couldn’t be sorted out without a new trial.
And the press neglects to point out that JUDGE KOH had sole responsibility for directing the jury HOW TO calculate the damages. The jury screwed up specifically because KOH screwed up.
How about we put Judge Koh on trial for INCOMPETENCE?!