4 ms·

Apple versus Samsung: Jury foreman justifies $1bn verdict

36 points by xd 14y ago

antihero 14y ago
Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.
- upinsmoke 14y ago
  They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
  - olalonde 14y ago
    I'd rather have them differentiate on cost and quality (as I suspect most HNers would) but well, it might not be in their best interest business-wise.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      This is exactly what they want to avoid doing.
  - jerrya 14y ago
    I think you're both wrong! I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II. But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen" aware apps.
    - rustynails77 14y ago
      The problem is that when Samsung customise Android, they do so to (a) differentiate, and (b) to ensure you can't upgrade. On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty much said "prior art can not be ignored".
      - fpgeek 14y ago
        Here's another gem: "Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid X2 and the reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the judge and told to the court when asked that question. And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason it's not among the 26 accused phones. " The Droid X2, of course, isn't a slider. The juror probably has a Droid 2.
        regularfry 14y ago
        Nice. Except they awarded $130e6 in damages for the Epic 4G. A slider.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        Good catch. I forgot that part. The more I hear from the jury the more it sounds like they first decided "Apple good. Samsung bad." and filled in the rest from there.
      - rbanffy 14y ago
        You can upgrade. And, as a bonus, you get rid of Touchwiz.
  - olgeni 14y ago
    On Samsung devices you can programmatically configure the hotspot without being punished too hard. (oh well)
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    Touchwiz provides them with differentiation, but not in a positive way.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    They seem quite happy using WP7/WP8, though...How come that logic doesn't apply there? Sure WP7 is not that popular yet, but the point is they would want it to be popular as well to have a strong alternative to Android. And at that point they'd be in square one, with a lot of other companies developing devices with identical software, just like in the PC business, which is another market Samsung seems happy to be in. So yeah, I don't buy that argument. Sure they'd prefer if they'd do their own thing, but I'm sure they wouldn't be too mad about if it if all they could use was stock Android (which by the way, they seem to be using in their Galaxy Camera). If Google is the only one making a cross-license with Apple, then that scenario is even more likely, because the deal would obviously cover only Google's own software implementations, and not Samsung's or anybody else's. So then if a company wants legal protection against Apple, they'd have no choice but to use stock Android. Win for them, win for us. If some decide to keep on making their own custom software, then the legal risk is all on them.
  - antihero 14y ago
    TBH the one thing that Google Nexus devices have is that they offer a "pure" Android experience (and unlockability) which means that I'd avoid buying anything else.
ars 14y ago
This quote really bugs me: "Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.
- cremnob 14y ago
  Here is his full answer: "Prior art was considered. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable. And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other. And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art." It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
  - ars 14y ago
    I read the full quote and it's wrong. Period. If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.) It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make stuff up to some degree - lookup Jury nullification, so I'm not really expecting it to be tossed).
    - 14y ago
neya 14y ago
>Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. That guy is just bullshitting everyone and assuming we are all idiots. The same could be said for Apple too, in defense of Samsung, right? EDIT: The way I see it - He supports Apple simply because he is in the same shoes as Apple himself. Do you know what patent this guy owns? It is a 'very innovative patent' just like Apple's 'rounded corners'. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec... Now you see, why he's supporting Apple. Both own BS patents. Actually, this verdict should have been expected - The court is in the country of the infringer (Apple), The lawyers are from the same country and the money is also from the same country. There is no reason as to why people should support Samsung (Korean) than they should support Apple (in an unfair world). Apple has easy access to every kind of influence you could think of. This leads us to several conclusions: 1) One who has more money in this is system called 'democracy' RULES this system, because they automatically gain all the power they need. Including support from all legal systems and governments. 2) If you assumed everything happened in a fair platform, without exchange of money illegally, then your assumptions are plain wrong. Apple has a lot of money..even more than Samsung, it is easier for Apple to payout the necessary guys in the legal system and still not leak it outside to anyone, than it is for Samsung. This is NOT to confirm they bribed someone, but just to let you know that there is a very high probability of them doing so. Why do I think so? Think about this fact: Apple has sued numerous competitors using their BS patents and has won several times. Numerous competitors have sued Apple and none of them have had a fair victory yet. Surely there is something fishy going on here. Also to be noted - Apple has more money than any of their competitors. 3) I suspect even Samsung's lawyers could have been manipulated, because they all seem slightly dumb to me (on purpose?). In all its entirety, this whole legal system and patent system is just a clever way for the people involved to make money. Tomorrow, if you plan to start a phone company, just keep all this in mind; You are as vulnerable as Samsung is to get sued for BS reasons by such patent trolls (Apple). A little personal: I wanted to buy a tablet for my mom, I was seriously considering the iPad 2, because it still is a really good tablet. After all this BS, I've decided not to buy any of their products, even though in the end, loss of a single user is not going to matter to them. But I am pretty sure that there is strength in numbers. I sincerely plead everyone to boycott Apple and its products, because if its going to be more than just one user(me), it WILL surely have an impact on them. Hopefully, they will learn not to repeat all this shitty behavior again. A little deeper: Actually, if you are against Apple for such bad behavior, you have no other choice, than to boycott them. A few months back, my idea was to create a better tablet than Apple did and show the world that they aren't the only ones who can do it and they are over-hyped as hell. I contacted Chinese OEM's, display guys, etc. But, later I realized, it will be of no use, because I will be as vulnerable as Samsung was...and I don't even have the money to defend myself or my tablet startup. Hence the only way to screw Apple right now is to stop buying their products. Thanks for reading.
sbuk 14y ago
This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the appeal, of it is allowed, and see. One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time.
- dsirijus 14y ago
  I rather interpret it as internal struggle within people themselves. Personally, I go from Android to iOS fanboyism within a blink of an eye. I own both because of this internal indecisiveness. On one side you have awesome hardware and jail, on other not so great hardware and a lot less restrictions. I think that's what's driving all this, not camps on either side.
- Shivetya 14y ago
  the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision. Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?
  - eckyptang 14y ago
    And this is where the Jury fails. A Jury is a forced consensus. They should have an odd number (so a draw is impossible) of independent jurers who do not communicate with each other at all.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      The jury consisted of 9 people.
  - sbuk 14y ago
oliwarner 14y ago
Apple should be asking for a mistrial without prejudice at this point. If they don't (and the judge doesn't), Samsung is going to flip this decision like a pancake in appeals just on the interviews of the foreman. Unless a temporary sales ban is worth more to Apple...
- rbanffy 14y ago
  A temporary sales ban on previous generation phones is not very valuable. And Apple is much more exposed to similar sales bans because they have a much smaller product lineup.
danmaz74 14y ago
"but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." This is just RIDICULOUS. By this line of thought, every time new hardware or software methodologies come out, you could patent the same old software solutions again! If reimplementing a well known feature, algorithm, or whatever on new hardware isn't obvious "for a practitioner skilled in the art", then I really don't know what is.
fijal 14y ago
Ok, so let me get this straight. Samsung was found infriging on trivial patents, because they copied the entire look & feel? It does seem to me that what samsung did was more than a bit unethical (although I did not follow up enough to have a very good opinion), but the actual reasons why it was found infriging was something completely different? That makes no sense whatsoever. The jury foreman is defending a completely irrelevant thing to me. That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone charged for tax evasion.

36 points by xd 14y ago

antihero 14y ago

Ideal outcome: Samsung keeps producing awesome handsets, but uses stock Android instead of Touchwiz.

upinsmoke 14y ago
They won't. It will be very hard to differentiate themselves from thousands of other Android devices.
- olalonde 14y ago
  I'd rather have them differentiate on cost and quality (as I suspect most HNers would) but well, it might not be in their best interest business-wise.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    This is exactly what they want to avoid doing.
- jerrya 14y ago
  I think you're both wrong! I like the hardware of the SGII I have, and I would prefer the hardware of the Galaxy Note, or the Galaxy Note II. But also, remove TouchWiz, and still the Galaxy Note II has some very nice and innovative software allowing for pseudo-windowing on Android, as well as "Pen" aware apps.
  - rustynails77 14y ago
    The problem is that when Samsung customise Android, they do so to (a) differentiate, and (b) to ensure you can't upgrade. On a more "on topic" note, this juror is a turkey. As another poster pretty much said "prior art can not be ignored".
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      Here's another gem: "Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid X2 and the reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the judge and told to the court when asked that question. And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason it's not among the 26 accused phones. " The Droid X2, of course, isn't a slider. The juror probably has a Droid 2.
      - regularfry 14y ago
        Nice. Except they awarded $130e6 in damages for the Epic 4G. A slider.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        Good catch. I forgot that part. The more I hear from the jury the more it sounds like they first decided "Apple good. Samsung bad." and filled in the rest from there.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      You can upgrade. And, as a bonus, you get rid of Touchwiz.
- olgeni 14y ago
  On Samsung devices you can programmatically configure the hotspot without being punished too hard. (oh well)
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  Touchwiz provides them with differentiation, but not in a positive way.
- mtgx 14y ago
  They seem quite happy using WP7/WP8, though...How come that logic doesn't apply there? Sure WP7 is not that popular yet, but the point is they would want it to be popular as well to have a strong alternative to Android. And at that point they'd be in square one, with a lot of other companies developing devices with identical software, just like in the PC business, which is another market Samsung seems happy to be in. So yeah, I don't buy that argument. Sure they'd prefer if they'd do their own thing, but I'm sure they wouldn't be too mad about if it if all they could use was stock Android (which by the way, they seem to be using in their Galaxy Camera). If Google is the only one making a cross-license with Apple, then that scenario is even more likely, because the deal would obviously cover only Google's own software implementations, and not Samsung's or anybody else's. So then if a company wants legal protection against Apple, they'd have no choice but to use stock Android. Win for them, win for us. If some decide to keep on making their own custom software, then the legal risk is all on them.
- antihero 14y ago
  TBH the one thing that Google Nexus devices have is that they offer a "pure" Android experience (and unlockability) which means that I'd avoid buying anything else.

ars 14y ago

This quote really bugs me: "Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." That's just wrong - if it was correct then you could say the same thing about samsung: Samsung's code won't run an an Apple machine, so it's different and not violating the patent.

cremnob 14y ago
Here is his full answer: "Prior art was considered. But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable. And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other. And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art." It looks like this jury was a lot more informed than the internet lawyers give them credit for.
- ars 14y ago
  I read the full quote and it's wrong. Period. If "interchangeable code" was the standard then why apply it only to prior art? Why not apply it to future art as well? (Samsungs implementation.) It looks like this jury just made stuff up. And I really hope the judgment gets completely tossed for this. The judge has yet to rule on that (although it's rare to toss a jury verdict since they actually are allowed to make stuff up to some degree - lookup Jury nullification, so I'm not really expecting it to be tossed).
  - 14y ago

neya 14y ago

>Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error. That guy is just bullshitting everyone and assuming we are all idiots. The same could be said for Apple too, in defense of Samsung, right? EDIT: The way I see it - He supports Apple simply because he is in the same shoes as Apple himself. Do you know what patent this guy owns? It is a 'very innovative patent' just like Apple's 'rounded corners'. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7352953 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec... Now you see, why he's supporting Apple. Both own BS patents. Actually, this verdict should have been expected - The court is in the country of the infringer (Apple), The lawyers are from the same country and the money is also from the same country. There is no reason as to why people should support Samsung (Korean) than they should support Apple (in an unfair world). Apple has easy access to every kind of influence you could think of. This leads us to several conclusions: 1) One who has more money in this is system called 'democracy' RULES this system, because they automatically gain all the power they need. Including support from all legal systems and governments. 2) If you assumed everything happened in a fair platform, without exchange of money illegally, then your assumptions are plain wrong. Apple has a lot of money..even more than Samsung, it is easier for Apple to payout the necessary guys in the legal system and still not leak it outside to anyone, than it is for Samsung. This is NOT to confirm they bribed someone, but just to let you know that there is a very high probability of them doing so. Why do I think so? Think about this fact: Apple has sued numerous competitors using their BS patents and has won several times. Numerous competitors have sued Apple and none of them have had a fair victory yet. Surely there is something fishy going on here. Also to be noted - Apple has more money than any of their competitors. 3) I suspect even Samsung's lawyers could have been manipulated, because they all seem slightly dumb to me (on purpose?). In all its entirety, this whole legal system and patent system is just a clever way for the people involved to make money. Tomorrow, if you plan to start a phone company, just keep all this in mind; You are as vulnerable as Samsung is to get sued for BS reasons by such patent trolls (Apple). A little personal: I wanted to buy a tablet for my mom, I was seriously considering the iPad 2, because it still is a really good tablet. After all this BS, I've decided not to buy any of their products, even though in the end, loss of a single user is not going to matter to them. But I am pretty sure that there is strength in numbers. I sincerely plead everyone to boycott Apple and its products, because if its going to be more than just one user(me), it WILL surely have an impact on them. Hopefully, they will learn not to repeat all this shitty behavior again. A little deeper: Actually, if you are against Apple for such bad behavior, you have no other choice, than to boycott them. A few months back, my idea was to create a better tablet than Apple did and show the world that they aren't the only ones who can do it and they are over-hyped as hell. I contacted Chinese OEM's, display guys, etc. But, later I realized, it will be of no use, because I will be as vulnerable as Samsung was...and I don't even have the money to defend myself or my tablet startup. Hence the only way to screw Apple right now is to stop buying their products. Thanks for reading.

sbuk 14y ago

This is getting rediculous. This has been discussed as nauseum without either side agreeing. Picking over the bones of the trial while writing untold paragraphs about the whys and whatfores is wasting cycles. Wait until the appeal, of it is allowed, and see. One thing to note though. There has been an awful lot of cogantive bias exhibited by both sides. It must stop. It just leads to flaming and even more wasted time.

dsirijus 14y ago
I rather interpret it as internal struggle within people themselves. Personally, I go from Android to iOS fanboyism within a blink of an eye. I own both because of this internal indecisiveness. On one side you have awesome hardware and jail, on other not so great hardware and a lot less restrictions. I think that's what's driving all this, not camps on either side.
Shivetya 14y ago
the bias started with the jury. They had a self declared expert as their foreman. That he was able to sit on the jury astounds me and from the other stories its obvious other members of the jury deferred to him. Hence the assumption I have is, he took his "knowledge" of the system and decided before the trial was complete. It is about the only way to explain the speed of which they arrived at their decision. Have you ever been in a group where one person is so obnoxious with their views you just want it over?
- eckyptang 14y ago
  And this is where the Jury fails. A Jury is a forced consensus. They should have an odd number (so a draw is impossible) of independent jurers who do not communicate with each other at all.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    The jury consisted of 9 people.
- sbuk 14y ago

oliwarner 14y ago

Apple should be asking for a mistrial without prejudice at this point. If they don't (and the judge doesn't), Samsung is going to flip this decision like a pancake in appeals just on the interviews of the foreman. Unless a temporary sales ban is worth more to Apple...

rbanffy 14y ago
A temporary sales ban on previous generation phones is not very valuable. And Apple is much more exposed to similar sales bans because they have a much smaller product lineup.

danmaz74 14y ago

"but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." This is just RIDICULOUS. By this line of thought, every time new hardware or software methodologies come out, you could patent the same old software solutions again! If reimplementing a well known feature, algorithm, or whatever on new hardware isn't obvious "for a practitioner skilled in the art", then I really don't know what is.

fijal 14y ago

Ok, so let me get this straight. Samsung was found infriging on trivial patents, because they copied the entire look & feel? It does seem to me that what samsung did was more than a bit unethical (although I did not follow up enough to have a very good opinion), but the actual reasons why it was found infriging was something completely different? That makes no sense whatsoever. The jury foreman is defending a completely irrelevant thing to me. That said, I'm actually glad that it's the look & feel that matters rather than really those trivial patents, but the whole thing looks like Al Capone charged for tax evasion.