Apple’s $539 million in damages is a ‘huge loss’ for iPhone knockoff peddler Samsung

“Samsung Electronics Co. took a gamble when it appealed a finding it infringed Apple Inc.’s smartphone design patents, and a friendly subsequent ruling from the U.S.’s highest court made it seem like the bet would pay off,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. “Instead, Apple won an additional $140 million.”

“Seven years after the start of a global patent battle, a jury in a lower court in San Jose, California, delivered a verdict Thursday heavily favoring Apple in a trial that could reshape how companies view the value of patents that protect the shape and design of products,” Rosenblatt reports. “Samsung had appealed the case, and won a 2016 Supreme Court ruling giving it a chance to pare back an earlier award. After that ruling, the basic question for the jury was: Should Samsung have to pay damages based on sales of smartphones in their entirety, or just their components that infringed the iPhone maker’s patents?”

“‘As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for,’ Neel Chatterjee, an intellectual property litigator in Silicon Valley, said of Samsung’s appeal. ‘The jury saw substantial value tied to the design elements of the iPhone, and actually awarded more than Apple previously won,'” Rosenblatt reports. “Now Samsung has to pay $539 million, an increase of $140 million. That makes it a ‘huge loss’ for Samsung, said Michael Risch, a law professor at Villanova University School of Law in Pennsylvania, “and shows the risk it took by continuing to fight.””

“While the verdict isn’t significant for either company’s bottom line, Apple has long maintained there’s a bigger principle at stake. After the 2012 jury sided with Apple, Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said the lawsuit was about values, and that the company “chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying” its work,” Rosenblatt reports. “Apple said in a statement after the verdict that the case “has always been about more than money.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung, of course, will appeal because the festering chaebol obviously lacks any trace of ethics and morals.

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

And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.

Apple wins $538.6 million from Samsung in latest iPhone patent retrial – May 24, 2018
Samsung, maker of iPhone knockoffs, denies knocking off Apple’s Animoji – February 26, 2018
South Korean dishwasher maker Samsung preps knockoffs of Apple’s Face ID, Animoji, Secure Enclave – January 4, 2018
Samsung said to copy Apple by axing 3.5mm headphone jack – December 6, 2016
Oh-so-innovative Samsung to unveil Jet Black Galaxy S7 next month – November 21, 2016
Now slavish copier Samsung looks to knock off Apple iPhone’s 3D Touch – November 14, 2016
Samsung’s patent application for smartwatch straps includes drawings of the Apple Watch – August 5, 2016
Slavish Apple copier Samsung debuts ‘Captured on Galaxy S7’ ad – June 17, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung to debut knockoff of Apple’s phone upgrade program in South Korea – March 9, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung to attempt to knock off Apple iPhone’s Live Photos – January 14, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung to attempt to knock off Apple iPhone’s 3D Touch – December 14, 2015
Slavish Apple copier Samsung announces rose gold Galaxy Note 5 – October 15, 2015
Samsung can’t seem to stop mimicking Apple – May 4, 2015
Slavish copier Samsung in talks to launch Apple Pay knockoff – December 16, 2014
Samsung returns to mimicking Apple’s iPhone with chamfered metal-edged Galaxy Alpha – August 13, 2014
Samsung’s plastic, 32-bit Galaxy S5 has serious fingerprint sensor problems – May 6, 2014
Samsung’s new ad for Galaxy Gear stupidwatch slavishly copies Apple’s original 2007 iPhone ad (with video) – October 7, 2013
Samsung announces plastic Galaxy S4 ‘Gold Edition’ phone – September 25, 2013
Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s iPad mini with Galaxy Tab 3 (with photo) – July 23, 2013
9 ways Samsung has slavishly copied Apple over the years – July 14, 2013
Now Samsung copies Apple product rumors, said to be working on wristwatch device – March 19, 2013
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
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
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


  1. That is a good kick in the back side, however i wish Samsung suffered a much higher financial penalty. Samsung better pay up soon instead of dragging its dirty feet

    1. It wasn’t about money for Samsung either. They want a trial to go their way for future lawsuits.

      Samsung’s strategy is copy and drag out. They play the long game and don’t care. They will simply try to tire you out or, if you’re a smaller company, keep going until they bankrupt you.

      The company’s morally bankrupt, in general.

    2. If judge Lucy Koh hadn’t severely limited the scope of the case, the original decision would have more heavily in Apple’s favour. The case was cut from dozens of patents down to 11. Probably about 10% of the original patent offending was ever heard by the jury, basically because judge Koh was too lazy to hear the whole case. From there Samsung has been able to appeal, delay, appeal, delay, Play the long game as others have said. Now Samsung can claim, we only copied a few minor patents, we are being punished on the value of the whole phone, this is not fair, we are the good guys. In reality, the extent of patent offending was never heard. The free for all, of blatant iPhone copying, can be blamed squarely on judge Lucy Koh.

  2. I think that if Samsung appealed..again..the award against them might become even higher simply for the annoyance factor of having to hear all this again. Time for them to move on IMO.

  3. ScamScum has wrecked its own reputation with consistent and dire acts of self-destruction.

    Maybe someday it will get a clue and learn. Meanwhile, I consider them no better than bratty, clumsy children in adult clothing.

      1. It’s a part 2 of my imagined public face of Samsung. Earlier I’d posted Leo G. Carroll in ‘Tarantula’ with is face warped out of shape. This particular face was, I believe, a ‘make-up’ artist demo. I like the stitching threads.

Reader Feedback

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