Results 1 to 7 of 7

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Judge Axes Four Patents from Apple vs. Samsung Retrial, One Patent Left in Question

  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,249
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 140 Times in 125 Posts

    Default Judge Axes Four Patents from Apple vs. Samsung Retrial, One Patent Left in Question


    With the Apple vs. Samsung retrial continuing, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh recently axed four patents in-suit from the proceedings worth roughly $114 million. Apple’s Phil Schiller on the other hand further explained how his company was harmed by Samsung’s copycat devices. The one property that remains is the ‘915 patent for “pinch-to-zoom,” which is an important patent, however it may be possible to return some of the lost award from the single patent depending on the jury’s decision.

    For those of you who didn’t know, Apple and Samsung are continuing to duke it out at a retrial over damages that Judge Koh vacated in March after she found the Apple vs. Samsung jury to have inaccurately calculated awards applied to 13 Samsung devices. As for Schiller, the Apple executive finished up his testimony saying Samsung’s copying of the iPhone and iPad’s design diluted the company’s cachet. According to in-court reports from Reuters, Schiller hammered the idea that Samsung’s patent infringement hurt Apple not only in the short term but hurt consumer trust in the company. According to him:

    It's much harder to create demand and people question our innovation and design skills like people never used to. Samsung] weakened the world view of Apple as this great designer and innovator.
    Samsung’s counsel, William Price, went on the offensive in cross-examining Schiller, with an attempt to bring in the question the validity of Apple’s design patents. Price asked the following:

    Apple doesn't own a patent on a product being beautiful or sexy, isn't that correct?
    To which Schiller responded by saying:

    The industry does tend to follow trends of products that are doing well.
    Apple argued that by copying its designs, Samsung took away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad. Before Judge Koh ruled Apple couldn’t seek damages on four patents, the Cupertino California company was seeking $400 million from Samsung with Samsung admitting infringement but seeing the damages as being worth around $52 million instead.

    The witness testimony is to continue and conclude on Monday with final arguments from both parties to be offered on Tuesday. The jury will then be asked to discuss and provide a final verdict.

    Source: Reuters

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bklyn NY !!
    Posts
    913
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 62 Times in 51 Posts

    hopefully the pinch to zoom patent will be throw out as well. I hope Sammy's lawyers can and will demonstrate that apple is only interested in harming competition and is just jealous of Samsung's success.

    Id show the jurors how apple's own lawyers themselves felt that there was enough differences between the devices and apparently saw the need to introduced doctored photos to make the devices appear more similar than they really are.

    NOBODY has ever purchased a Samsung device thinking it was an Apple device (yeah, I know about the BS story from a while back) EVERYWHERE you go to buy these products they are locked away and are given to the purchaser by the sales person (assuming they know a Samsung from an Apple) not to mention those pesky logos and company name on the damn boxes.

    *awaiting the trolls & haters to respond*

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by jOnGarrett View Post
    hopefully the pinch to zoom patent will be throw out as well. I hope Sammy's lawyers can and will demonstrate that apple is only interested in harming competition and is just jealous of Samsung's success.

    Id show the jurors how apple's own lawyers themselves felt that there was enough differences between the devices and apparently saw the need to introduced doctored photos to make the devices appear more similar than they really are.

    NOBODY has ever purchased a Samsung device thinking it was an Apple device (yeah, I know about the BS story from a while back) EVERYWHERE you go to buy these products they are locked away and are given to the purchaser by the sales person (assuming they know a Samsung from an Apple) not to mention those pesky logos and company name on the damn boxes.

    *awaiting the trolls & haters to respond*

    You're the only one I see as a troll. You come to a tech blog for everything apple, (sporting your nifty android avatar) and come up with some crazy information. Just so you know it was samsungs lawyers, not apples that couldn't tell the judge which device belonged to what company. I work in retail and I first hand have had a customer point to a samsung tab and say I want that. After further questioning come to fine out that they wanted the ipad and had no clue that they accidentally chose the wrong thing. With samsung recently in the news for paying off users in blog threads I must question who your real employer is.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Chalty669 For This Useful Post:

    Jato_BZ (11-16-2013)

  5. #4
    This Judge has been after Apple. She has some personal vendetta against Apple.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by jOnGarrett View Post
    hopefully the pinch to zoom patent will be throw out as well. I hope Sammy's lawyers can and will demonstrate that apple is only interested in harming competition and is just jealous of Samsung's success.

    Id show the jurors how apple's own lawyers themselves felt that there was enough differences between the devices and apparently saw the need to introduced doctored photos to make the devices appear more similar than they really are.

    NOBODY has ever purchased a Samsung device thinking it was an Apple device (yeah, I know about the BS story from a while back) EVERYWHERE you go to buy these products they are locked away and are given to the purchaser by the sales person (assuming they know a Samsung from an Apple) not to mention those pesky logos and company name on the damn boxes.

    *awaiting the trolls & haters to respond*
    So you are waiting for yourself to respond?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Perceptum For This Useful Post:

    Jato_BZ (11-16-2013)

  8. #6
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Boston,MA
    Posts
    105
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by jOnGarrett View Post
    hopefully the pinch to zoom patent will be throw out as well. I hope Sammy's lawyers can and will demonstrate that apple is only interested in harming competition and is just jealous of Samsung's success.

    Id show the jurors how apple's own lawyers themselves felt that there was enough differences between the devices and apparently saw the need to introduced doctored photos to make the devices appear more similar than they really are.

    NOBODY has ever purchased a Samsung device thinking it was an Apple device (yeah, I know about the BS story from a while back) EVERYWHERE you go to buy these products they are locked away and are given to the purchaser by the sales person (assuming they know a Samsung from an Apple) not to mention those pesky logos and company name on the damn boxes.

    *awaiting the trolls & haters to respond*
    i have S4,i5,ipad Air and Tab 3 they are all good in their own rights

  9. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Akshay Masand View Post


    [Apple] was seeking $400 million from Samsung with Samsung admitting infringement but seeing the damages as being worth around $52 million instead.

    Source: Reuters
    Sorry, trolls: Samsung admits IP theft. They're just debating the value of what they stole. Considering this goes to the value of future customers and all the future purchases they make, not only from Apple but third party, I'd say $400 million is conservative in a $8+ billion app market for Apple.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •