The jury was directed to not discuss patent validity.
Um, I don't think they were. The jury instructions are in a PDF linked from Groklaw, and include:
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 29 UTILITY PATENTS—INVALIDITY—BURDEN OF PROOF
I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether each party has proven that claims of the other side’s utility patents are invalid.
and is followed by several pages of explanation. For example, Instruction 31 talks about prior art. Patent validity is one of the things the jury was supposed to determine.
"Woz always prefers to speak his mind, rather than someone else's."
Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team.
Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team.
Last August, a jury awarded Apple $1.05bn in a patent infringement case against Samsung. On Friday, the US District Court judge who presided over that case slashed those damages by $450m.
Judge Lucy Koh found that the jury had improperly calculated the amount of damages awarded to Apple, and trimmed the total down to under $600m Apple had originally asked for $2.525bn in damages from Samsung.
I knew this would happen. I think judge Koh got herself into a mess with the original verdict. This was probably all she could do to try and rectify her mistake.
I can't quite see how any portion of a bundled together verdict can stand.
It will need a retrial on whatever left that has not been declared invalid.
edit - just read again. At least the BBC site makes less nonsense reading than elsewhere. And it does seem to be a retrial.
That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that.
Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December.
There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products.
The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed.
That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that.
Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December.
There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products.
The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed.
No misunderstanding at all. The jury wayyy over estimated, sided with apple (which was no surprise considering the place it was held, the jury foreman having apple interests..) based on pretty much shaky evidence or actually none at all and apple won. It was a farce from start to finish, Thankfully now its being sorted out.
Also, one of the patents apple is clinging on to, is in the process of being killed, so the award will only continue to go down. The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon.
The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon.
It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined.
The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung.
It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one.
It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined.
The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung.
It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one.
The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on.
Yes, misunderstanding. The title is wrong. The damages haven't been slashed by $450m. That portion has been scheduled to be recalculated. The new damages may be higher or lower; they won't be zero, so the total won't have been reduced by $450m. It's bad reporting.
The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on.
That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about.
Yes, misunderstanding. The title is wrong. The damages haven't been slashed by $450m. That portion has been scheduled to be recalculated. The new damages may be higher or lower; they won't be zero, so the total won't have been reduced by $450m. It's bad reporting.
So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?
That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about.
Its not separate. If and when the patent is dropped the damages will once again fall.
So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?
That is how the BBC describes it, though I agree that a lot of other articles put a different angle on it.
So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?
If you follow The Register link, the article cites as its source The San Jose Mercury News. That mentions that the judge ordered a new trial on the damages, and says, "But the new trial on the damages could restore some of the $450 million Apple lost in Friday's ruling." Even The Register mentions a new trial; it just fails to make it plain what the trial is for.
Paulbrock has already got the information from the BBC link. So the information was available from both links posted here, if you took the trouble to look.
Another good source is Groklaw, because it often cites the original court documents.
The long running legal dispute has seen Apple's damages cut by $382 Million and some of the previous rulings struck out.
A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier today that while Samsung did indeed violate Apple's design patents, it didn't do the with same Apple's trade dress — broader elements of design and aesthetic that dictate the presentation of Apple's gadgets. With that bombshell dropped, the court has asked for an update on the damages to be awarded sans the trade dress stuff, which should work out to a roughly $382 million discount for Samsung.
Doesn't that mean the amount it was reports to be cut by has now gone up again
This is the best explanation I can find on this long running case:
The current legal fight between Samsung and Apple has been going on since 2011, when Apple alleged that several Samsung phones infringed on design and utility patents for its iPhone. In 2012, a court found that Samsung had indeed infringed on Apple's patents for "bounce-back" scrolling, multitouch gestures, and tap-to-zoom options on iOS. It also found that Samsung's phones had infringed on both officially registered and unregistered iPhone trade dress. Apple had requested $2.5 billion in damages, and it ended up getting slightly over $1 billion.
Since then, Samsung and Apple have both been trying to tilt the ruling and the damages in their favor. Apple tried and failed to get a sales ban on the infringing phones and tablets (all of which have now been obsolete for several years), and it requested an additional $707 million from Samsung. It got neither of these; in fact, its original damages were recalculated and slightly cut back. Now that the earlier decision has been struck down, lower courts will have to calculate a new damages number. Samsung, however, has also had its share of disappointment. It lost a second patent battle to Apple in 2014, for the smaller amount of around $120 million.
Comments
Um, I don't think they were. The jury instructions are in a PDF linked from Groklaw, and include:
I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether each party has proven that claims of the other side’s utility patents are invalid.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57512463-71/woz-i-hate-the-apple-samsung-patent-fight/
"Woz always prefers to speak his mind, rather than someone else's."
Woz should replace Tim Cock ooops Cook, apologies but Woz seems to be on top of my list right now and would drive Apple in the direction of less patent fights and more concerned on creating innovative products... If I was appointed as CEO of Apple I would pay Samsung back the $1m and sack the jacked up hyenas legal team.
I think you mean $1B.
Last August, a jury awarded Apple $1.05bn in a patent infringement case against Samsung. On Friday, the US District Court judge who presided over that case slashed those damages by $450m.
Judge Lucy Koh found that the jury had improperly calculated the amount of damages awarded to Apple, and trimmed the total down to under $600m Apple had originally asked for $2.525bn in damages from Samsung.
Won't someone think of Apples poor shareholders
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/01/judge_slashes_apple_samsung_judgment/
Good to see. Next what will happen is the apparent damages will be dropped completely i think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825
I can't quite see how any portion of a bundled together verdict can stand.
It will need a retrial on whatever left that has not been declared invalid.
edit - just read again. At least the BBC site makes less nonsense reading than elsewhere. And it does seem to be a retrial.
That's how jury trials work under US law. There won't be a full retrial just for that.
Samsung lost their bid for a retrial back in December.
There does seem to be a bit of misunderstanding over exactly what has happened. Basically, Judge Koh has made some minor alterations to the jury's infringement findings, but because the jury did not show their calculations for the damages awards the court cannot make the appropriate adjustments to the damages awards for those particular infringing Samsung products, so she has instead vacated the damages figures for those particular products.
The infringement rulings still stand, and a new jury will now decide on new damages awards for those particular infringements, in addition to the ~$600m of the original awards that has been affirmed.
No misunderstanding at all. The jury wayyy over estimated, sided with apple (which was no surprise considering the place it was held, the jury foreman having apple interests..) based on pretty much shaky evidence or actually none at all and apple won. It was a farce from start to finish, Thankfully now its being sorted out.
Also, one of the patents apple is clinging on to, is in the process of being killed, so the award will only continue to go down. The new trial coming soon to decide the new damages will kill the entire lawsuit i reckon.
It won't. That's the point I was making. The new jury will only reexamine the damages that were vacated, and none of the infringement findings will be reexamined.
The remaining $598,908,892 of the original jury's damages stands, and the new jury will not reexamine that. Apple is now legally entitled to seek payment of this sum from Samsung.
It's also entirely possible that a new jury could award higher damages than the first one.
The patent apple is using (something about prior art) is in the process of being killed. If that does happen the damages will drop as thats what a huge portion is based on.
That's a separate issue, and not what the headline is about.
So every outlet has reported it wrongly. If that's the case, i wont take your word for it naturally as your no expert in this. So can you point me to the correct report?
Its not separate. If and when the patent is dropped the damages will once again fall.
That is how the BBC describes it, though I agree that a lot of other articles put a different angle on it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21638825
I thank you
Paulbrock has already got the information from the BBC link. So the information was available from both links posted here, if you took the trouble to look.
Another good source is Groklaw, because it often cites the original court documents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21704946
The long running legal dispute has seen Apple's damages cut by $382 Million and some of the previous rulings struck out.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/18/apple-v-samsung-partially-reversed/
Doesn't that mean the amount it was reports to be cut by has now gone up again
This is the best explanation I can find on this long running case:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/18/8619871/apple-samsung-appeal-patent-trade-dress-2015
All these companies employ lawyers full time, so most of it is sunk costs.