MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Tech News (http://forums.macnn.com/tech-news/)
-   -   Apple and Samsung to retry $451 million in damages [u] (http://forums.macnn.com/113/tech-news/498549/apple-samsung-retry-451-million-damages/)

 
NewsPoster Mar 1, 2013 03:19 PM
Apple and Samsung to retry $451 million in damages [u]
<strong>[Updated with specifics of today's ruling]</strong> In a ruling out of San Francisco, Judge Lucy Koh today ordered $451 million in damages payable to Apple set aside from the <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/280210==http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/08/24/willful.infringement.finding.could.triple.damages/" rel='nofollow'>landmark smartphone trial damages</a> applied against Samsung. It won't be necessary to repeat the whole trial, but the damages portion will have to be redone for some devices. The ruling does not affect the jury's finding that Samsung deliberately copied Apple's technology and trade dress, but may allow the South Korean manufacturer to pay less -- or possibly more -- for its infringement.<br />
<br />
The $451 million is associated with 14 Samsung products; the new damages trial has been ordered because Koh feels she cannot make the adjustments herself, given the complexity and lack of clarity on which patents were found to be held in violation. The products involved include the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy S II AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.

As the awards stand, Apple is still owed $598,908,892, which will accumulate interest at a rate of 0.16 percent until paid in full. Additionally, supplemental damages from the period between the original verdict <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/280211==http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/08/24/willful.infringement.finding.could.triple.damages/" rel='nofollow'>in August</a> and the final judgement yet to be determined will be based on actual sales figures of the infringing devices, meaning Samsung may end up paying even more than the $1.05 billion originally awarded by the jury.

The new trial is not prejudicial against Apple or necessarily beneficial for Samsung, and is intended to clarify the nature of the infringement and which patents are held in violation for a more granular determination of what is owed, which is generally seen as being beneficial to Samsung. Damages for the infringement, however, could be higher or lower, and will be determined by a new jury. Given the court's schedule, it is possible that the follow-up damages determination could come after the next Apple v. Samsung trial, likely in 2014.


<div align="center"><p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"> <a title="View 13-03-01 Apple v Samsung Final Order on Damages on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/128003420" style="text-decoration: underline;" >13-03-01 Apple v Samsung Final Order on Damages</a> by <a title="View 's profile on Scribd" href="undefined" style="text-decoration: underline;" ></a> </p><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/128003420/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" scrolling="no" id="doc_17627" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>
 
The Vicar Mar 4, 2013 12:43 AM
Hmmm...
This feels familiar. Wait, wait, don't tell me.

Oh, yeah, there was a judge who made a ridiculous ruling against Apple in England, and then some time later, Samsung hired them on at unspecified wages as a legal consultant in another case. Oh, of course it's not bribery. Not in the slightest. Obviously Samsung has the right to retain any legal professional it likes, and to pay them any salary which seems reasonable. I'm sure that Koh, and all the members in her extended family (please remember that Koh is a Korean name, so the odds are pretty good she has some relations on Samsung's home turf), will receive no kickbacks whatsoever from the Korean multinational in return for permitting them to violate Apple's intellectual property at will.

Or, at least, none which would be legal grounds for investigation. It's not a criminal offense if your cousin in another jurisdiction gets a yacht cheap from someone you know, and then loans it to you for parties, for example. But of course even that is far too crude, and I'm sure the various Koh relations would never do anything like that.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2