The jury is in: Samsung infringes, but damages to Apple are a “mere” $120M

Ars Technica:

The second blockbuster Apple v. Samsung patent trial has ended, and it looks like a Pyrrhic victory for Apple.

The Cupertino company can notch a second win, but with far less damages than it requested. Apple wanted $2.2 billion, and the jury awarded it $119.6 million, or just over 5 percent of what Apple had requested.

I don’t think this ends here though.

  • rattyuk

    John Quinn’s “Apple would be dancing in the street if they were awarded $100 million” struck a chord.

    And we learn in this cut and paste generation that all you need to is copy and take the piss out of the customers that own the original and you’re laughing all the way to the bank.

    On the positive side Apple have been steadily building differentiation that cannot be copied, and they also have carte blanche to copy back. When Apple starts competing in in the only space Samsung have a serious foothold in at the top end, large screen phones, what will Samsung have to sell then?

    Looks like we’re in for some interesting times.

  • Seems fitting for the patents in the suit. $2B was entirely too much.

    • At $100m, this is profitable for Samsung. Copying shouldn’t be.

      • blade0r

        So true. Refunding a mere $100M won’t stop Samsung to servily copy all of Apple’s innovations. It’s an embarrassing decision for the jury.

      • I don’t think so. They lost a boat load of credibility, massive legal bills, massive expert testimonies and lost a partner on their hardware side. It cost them dearly. That #1 spot want garnered and held strictly because of the patents on the suit.

        Apple paid a mere 150k for patent violations to Samsung. Feel the same way about that our is it one-sided?

        • Pretty one-sided, yeah. I owned a Samsung when the original iPhone came out. I remember what it was like.

          • But did you buy it because of those patents? [honestly]

          • I bought an iPhone on my next phone because I liked the design, which is what Samsung copied. The patents are just (unfortunately) the only tool to enforce that, which is its own entire bag of stupid.

            I should note, too, that last Samsung was a pretty blatant copy of another phone, though I didn’t realize that until later.

            Really, those phones should have been turned back at the border for several years.

          • So you did or didn’t buy the Galaxy S and was it because it looked like the iPhone?

            Do you mean the S4 was a copy of another phone?

          • Are you asking me at what point the earth becomes unsalted? When is the fruit no longer poisonous?

            No idea. Not yet.

          • Nope, just getting you to clarify your “I had a Samsung phone” point as it pertains to how it is of relevance.

            No worries though…I get it. 😉

          • Because I saw what Samsung’s design team could come up with without copying Apple, and I saw the difference copying Apple made, and I know what kind of tainted by copying product they’re now selling.

          • Fair perspective. Thx for the clarity.

        • Moeskido

          I don’t know for a fact that Samsung’s credibility is at all affected where the general public is concerned.

          How accurately was this story reported in standard news media, and what are non-tech people going to hear when they go shopping for a phone at a carrier store?

          • I doubt they’ll hear anything when they go to the store. Why should they? The S5 isn’t copying Apple, neither was the S4. [IMHO]

            Non-techies ask their tech friends so even without good tech press coverage they probably heard of it. Well, I guess anyone banking on Apple being top dog would tell them so maybe not a lot.

          • Moeskido

            Not everyone has tech friends.

          • Very true. I concede that point.

  • Nick Schaedel

    It’s not worthless. It, a) acts as a disincentive to other companies considering shady behaviour by showing that Apple will go after you vindictively; and b) gives Apple the delicious ability to describe Samsung as “legally convicted copycat”. Plus, the return is on the $890m they already earned, and today Apple discovered that one device had not been included in damages calculations, so the number isn’t final yet either.

    • rattyuk

      It probably is more than worthless, Nick.

      All it really proves is that if you have big pockets you can just steal others ideas and go with it. I do think that a large part of the problem here is the time between the infringing devices appearing and the time of the case.

      The simple truth is that the world has forgotten about what the phone was like before the iPhone and assume that all phones are like that because of Google’s blatant copying. If you give a non-technical person an Android device they just assume that that is what it has always been like.

      On your B point, unfortunately the 2 million dollars Samsung spent on buying in the two patents to sue Apple with, including the one it won on, numbering photographs, allows Samsung to do exactly the same thing and it is being reported as such on the TV this very morning. The 0 award for the Galaxy SII infringement won’t bring in any significant money, Samsung just paid for a get out of jail free card.

    • Meaux

      It was only on two patents and Samsung can fire back that Apple is also a “legally convicted copycat”.

  • Moeskido

    Hardly sounds like something Apple would be satisfied with.