Judge Slashes Samsung's Apple Damages in Half Jury Didn't Follow Rules, Used Incomprehensible Calculations The Judge overseeing Apple and Samsung's never-ending squabble has significantly slashed the damages Samsung needs to pay, in addition to criticizing the Jury for failing to follow the rules. According to Groklaw, Judge Lucy Koh has declared that the original damages were excessive, noting that she can't even clearly understand the logic used by the jury to calculate them. As a result, she's declaring a new trial to award damages sue for a significant number of Samsung products, collectively cutting $450,514,650 from the original damages. From Koh's ruling: Because the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury, the Court hereby ORDERS a new trial on damages for the following products: Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. This amounts to $450,514,650 being stricken from the jury’s award. The parties are encouraged to seek appellate review of this Order before any new trial.
The jury’s award stands for the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi, Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE, Intercept, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, and Galaxy S II T-Mobile. The total award for these 14 products is $598,908,892. The Jury was told not to base the awards on Samsung's profits for any utility patent infringements, and then that's precisely what the jury went on to do for much of it. As Groklaw notes, all the press applause for what an accurate and lovely job the jury did in awarding damages was somewhat overdone, since the Judge can't even remotely follow their logic for how the majority of the awards were calculated. The new trial and appeals will drag this out significantly longer, and Samsung is now saying they're even going to appeal the half of the damages award that wasn't reduced.
|
 | | Jury should have the final say It's not the job of Judge to understand Jury logic. Jury decide rightly to punish Samsung for willfully violating Apple patient and judge should let the award stand. | |
|  | | | Re: Jury should have the final say It's the judges job to set out instructions and if those instructions are not followed it's the judges jobs to make things right. Thank god we have judges that watch over juries. | |
| | | | | Re: Jury should have the final say said by NOCTech75:It's the judges job to set out instructions and if those instructions are not followed it's the judges jobs to make things right. Thank god we have judges that watch over juries.
Jury have a right to ignore Judge instruction like they can ignore a law that they don't like. | |
| | | |  BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: Jury should have the final say double | |
| | | | BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | said by silentlooker:said by NOCTech75:It's the judges job to set out instructions and if those instructions are not followed it's the judges jobs to make things right. Thank god we have judges that watch over juries.
Jury have a right to ignore Judge instruction like they can ignore a law that they don't like. jury is also supposed to disclose any information that could affect their decision, which the head juror did not.
not to mention completely ignoring prior art among other things. | |
| | | | tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | said by silentlooker:Jury have a right to ignore Judge instruction like they can ignore a law that they don't like. Which is one reason a judy _can_ negate a jury decision. Don't like it... this is why an appeal is part of the system as well.
But this is different then changing the damages. Its not unusual for a judge to adjust damages when they are as high as this. Perhaps because your everage garbage collector really does not understand how much money is involved in a patent issue. When you mention millions and billions their eyes just gloss over. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by silentlooker:said by NOCTech75:It's the judges job to set out instructions and if those instructions are not followed it's the judges jobs to make things right. Thank god we have judges that watch over juries.
Jury have a right to ignore Judge instruction like they can ignore a law that they don't like. Tell me what college gave you your law degree. | |
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by silentlooker:said by NOCTech75:It's the judges job to set out instructions and if those instructions are not followed it's the judges jobs to make things right. Thank god we have judges that watch over juries.
Jury have a right to ignore Judge instruction like they can ignore a law that they don't like. What you are eluding to is jury nullification, however it doesn't work as you describe. Nullification can't (or at least shouldn't) convict or decide for a plaintiff by making up laws or rules that don't exist. The nullification comes into play when they ignore existing laws or rules and decide they are unfair or don't apply.
A jury for instance can nullify a law that says a person cannot smoke marijuana because they feel that the law is unjust. They however can't convict a person for otherwise legally smoking a cigarette just because they don't like cigarettes.
In this case, the witness made incorrect legal theory. He in essence said that Samsung infringed for a reason that wasn't applicable. | |
| | | | | | Juries cannot ignore the law and when they do verdicts get overturned. That's the whole reason why we have an appeals process. | |
|
| | | said by silentlooker:Jury decide rightly to punish Samsung for willfully violating Apple patient and judge should let the award stand. Did Samsung F them in the A while Apple was knocked out in the O.R.? If not, what kind of violation did Samsung do to this Apple "patient?" | |
| | | | | Re: Jury should have the final say said by rizzo2dial:said by silentlooker:Jury decide rightly to punish Samsung for willfully violating Apple patient and judge should let the award stand. Did Samsung F them in the A while Apple was knocked out in the O.R.? If not, what kind of violation did Samsung do to this Apple "patient?" They copy their design which was proven in court. | |
| | | | | | Re: Jury should have the final say said by silentlooker:said by rizzo2dial:said by silentlooker:Jury decide rightly to punish Samsung for willfully violating Apple patient and judge should let the award stand. Did Samsung F them in the A while Apple was knocked out in the O.R.? If not, what kind of violation did Samsung do to this Apple "patient?" They copy their design which was proven in court. Which is bullshit. My SII resembles nothing that Apple has produced. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Jury should have the final say But but but... rounded corners... that aren't sharp and cause injury! Because no other cell phone, or even any product for that matter has had rounded corners before Apple did it!
And app store™!
Totally original! | |
| | | | | tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2 | Samsung _did_ take actions to have their phones be like the iPhone. Samsung emails basically admitted to this and Google even cautioned Samsung that they could be sued by Apple for certain things that they were doing.
Bottom line... Samsung probably did not care and determined that it was worth a roll of the dice. Microsoft, Apple and many other companies do things like this all of the time.
I mentioned this in other posts about this suit... Samsung would appeal, the amount would be reduced and then Samsung and Apple will agree on an amount. Samsung will pay it and Samsung will have a much larger market share and basically make that money back 10 fold.
My main point is that Samsung stole, Apple stole.. all of these companies "steal". But it's not like they are making a copy... they are just "stealing" ideas which should have been open to start with. | |
|
| | | guppy_fishPremium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by silentlooker: They copy their design which was proven in court.
All that was proven was the home town, silicon valley jury is not impartial.
As this gets appealed, all the Samsung will have to pay is lawyers fees.
If Apples patent are "valid" the so would be round wheels on cars or other shapes, how about the use of a "directional control device" ( steering wheel )
The patten system is broken, that all this jury has proven
Apple is the number 1 when it comes to coping other's work, hey kettle meet the pot lol | |
|
| |  rideboarderwelcome to the socialPremium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA | Samsung already had phones that looked similar before the iPhone even came out, but that was conveniently ignored in the trial. The whole lawsuit was bs, which is why apple failed with a similar lawsuit in the UK. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | That is why Trial by Jury should be disbanded. Juries, on the average have no understanding of whatever is needed for the case at hand, you have "common" people that just do not have the tools or "educational" background [I say this because in cases like this intellectual property", they have little to no idea what that is comprises]. I have seen other court cases involving, forensic accounting, trace evidences in murder cases, corporate fraud [think Enron, WorldCom..] the juries did not have a clue about the evidences). "Specialised "juries" that are versed in knowledge of the subject at hand should be the only juries that . IMO | |
| | |  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: Jury should have the final say it is "jury of your peers" not "jury of hand selected experts". | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Jury should have the final say "Juries of your peers" is a load of rubbish. They are not my peers Say that you committed accounting fraud, similar to what Andrew Fastow did by moving debts of the company's balance sheet and masking it and you were judged by a jury of your peers as you put it, you think that the average jury would have the slightest inclination of forensic accounting, financial statements, public companies, shareholders, 10-Q, 10-K [SEC filings] to why you committed fraud and its implications? NO. This system is flawed. They are not qualified to even begin to handle cases like that, people attend university for years to acquire the knowledge. What makes you think so person of the street will have the same knowledge? They do not and as such are not legible to preside on cases like those. Now a simple smash and grab is one thing but a case involving Physics, genealogy, biology, trace evidences,they cannot understand to make a non bias judgement. As they say " you cannot send a boy to do a man's job". | |
|
| |
| | Juries == clueless Juries are chosen for the most part to be as clueless as possible so that the lawyers have a chance of manipulating them. They should not be expected to have any common sense let alone technical expertise. | |
| | | Jury Selection I think the crux of the matter is that the lawyers shouldn't play a part in selecting juries at all. It should be either totally random, or a group of "professional juries" should be retained that are at least somewhat knowledgeable of the subject matter of the trial. I tend toward the random method for criminal cases and the professional jury method for civil cases.
As for "jury nullification", if you want to escape jury duty these two words are magically capable of immediately wiping you off the prosecutor's list. I even stated that this clearly wasn't going to happen in that case, but I was released anyway... | |
| scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| I like Squire James idea - the random mob for criminal trials, and a jury of professionals in the field for Civil trial - and these professional juries should be paid well for their expertise - like at least their daily wage from their regular job - paid for by the loser of the trial. | |
|
| |
|
|
