Judge rebuffs Apple request to ban Samsung devices


Judge Lucy Koh has turned down a request from Apple (AAPL) to ban certain Samsung (SSNLF) mobile products in the U.S. because of patent infringements.

However, Koh did complete a $929.8M damages award to Apple stemming from the companies' IP dispute.

Apple and Samsung are due to face each other again this month in a trial over Apple patents different to those involved in the $929.8M award.

From other sites
Comments (15)
  • jagomendy
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    You must be missing the fact that the judge awarded $AAPL almost a Billion Dollars in damages for Samsung's infringement ($929,800,000 to be exact).
    6 Mar 2014, 08:19 AM Reply Like
  • imac007
    , contributor
    Comments (742) | Send Message
     
    The court awarded damages. Apple logically should be deemed to be continuing to be damaged by further sales of those same products. Allowing Samsung to continue damaging Apple in essence is condoning and making infringement a viable business practice.

     

    It's like targeting the opposing team star players. If intentional injury attempts are simply met with occasional penalties and the offending players aren't ejected from the game then headhunting key players becomes part of strategy.
    6 Mar 2014, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • Sirvasq
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    They can still continue to collect damages for future infringing sales. and will--even though they don't get an injunction.
    6 Mar 2014, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • jjkiam
    , contributor
    Comments (403) | Send Message
     
    Yes this judge has been effectively supporting Samsung's strategy all along.
    Samsung has done a simple cost benefit analysis and determined that it is far more profitable for them to continue to litigate. A 900+!million penalty is nothing compared to the profits they have made from sales of these phones ESP when you add in the rest of the world. Them it adds up to 10's of billions of profits. If this is the only penalty they have to face then they will just continue to keep this in court forever.
    This judge should be removed from this case. Denying the relief Apple sought on the grounds that they didn't prove that touchscreen are the reason people bought Samsung's phone sets an impossible standard that basically gives Apple no real means to stop this kind of patent abuse. She should just admit she is working for Samsung
    6 Mar 2014, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • name999
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    F.Y.I.

     

    She is the first Asian American United States District Court Judge in the Northern District of California, the first District Court Judge of Korean descent in the United States, the first female Korean American Article III judge, and the second Korean American federal judge, after Herbert Choy of the Ninth Circuit

     

    See the Wiki link below:
    http://bit.ly/1oumVga
    6 Mar 2014, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • John Court
    , contributor
    Comments (308) | Send Message
     
    @name999 So what?
    6 Mar 2014, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • name999
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    @John
    I DO NOT TRUST THIS JUDGE. IT MAKES ME FEEL WEIRD THAT A KOREAN AMERICAN JUDGE RULES ON THE SAMSUNG'S INFRINGEMENT CASE.

     

    900 MILLION PENALTY IS MORE LIKE SOME POCKET CHANGES TO SAMSUNG.
    6 Mar 2014, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • rsbduff@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (438) | Send Message
     
    Sadly, most patent infringement lawsuits are defensive. Large companies, like Apple or Samsung, sue anyone that is a threat to their technology.....This dampens innovations.

     

    Even if the lawsuit has not merit, it cripple a small company, and eliminate the technology threat for years. Again, Sadly.
    RSBDUFF
    6 Mar 2014, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • Vitalogy80
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps you don't know how many patent infringement suits are filed against companies like Apple and Microsoft every year...go take a look.
    6 Mar 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • pocohonta
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    @rsbduff - Most patent suits are from patent trolls (aka NPE) who do not produce anything but law-suits and because they are NPE and an empty corporate shell, there's no possibility to cross-license, counter-sue, or make the losing NPE pay.
    6 Mar 2014, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • DanoX
    , contributor
    Comments (3494) | Send Message
     
    Samsung steals and when the new device that Apple has is released this year you will see Samsung and Google in all their thieving glory. Within one year of it's release.
    6 Mar 2014, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • DanoX
    , contributor
    Comments (3494) | Send Message
     
    In many places oversea's you don't get to go to court on every little thing, and in most places if you lose you pay court costs. Which has cut down on the sheer number of court cases. The US leads the world in nonsense civil cases.

     

    In any case Samsung has a winning strategy, in rich on rich conflicts the courts don't want to do anything if they can avoid it, pressure is always brought to bear to settle no matter what, it's only money right? The judges in most of the Apple cases even before the case was heard, didn't want to do anything (body language) or they offered an opinion that Apple was guilty beforehand (the E-Book case).
    6 Mar 2014, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • chapinlara
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Jjkiam makes good sense. $900 million is peanuts in comparison to the revenues and profits those infringing products provide Samsung. Unless products are taken off the market, Samsung has no real incentive to copy technology and motivate them to invest in R&D and thus on innovative products. It is a well orchestrated game with calculated risks, which Samsung will win everytime unless they pay for the true consequences.
    6 Mar 2014, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Keyser Smith Jones Soze
    , contributor
    Comments (101) | Send Message
     
    The problem here is not with this judge. In fact she granted a preliminary injunction against several Samsung devices, but it was remanded by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, before having any effect on the sale of those devices. The problem is with the way the laws are written and with the way the courts have been interpreting them. On the one hand there are numerous "software patents" that are written in jabberwocky but that nevertheless have been deemed meaningful by the courts. On the other hand in the case of design patents, which should be regarded as an important class of patents especially for handheld computing devices, the formulaic method for calculating the royalties is very obviously a joke. If it did what it ought to do, half of all the profit that Samsung has made from selling phones and tablets for the past five years should be turned over to Apple. Had Samsung not copied Apple's designs and done so in a rather flagrant way, most of the profit that Samsung has made from selling those devices would have gone to Apple instead. This is absolutely true, and given that it is, there just isn't anything fair about what has happened here. The amount of the reward is probably only about 1% of the amount that would be fair. And this is very likely the single most outrageous miscarriage of justice, in the realm of ownership of intellectual property, that has ever occurred, by a vast margin. It amounts by and large to the wholesale theft by one company of the intellectual property of another, while the courts basically closed their eyes and stuck their heads in the sand. I suspect that sentiments within the courts would probably have been a lot different if most all of Apple's manufacturing were in the USA and the cost in terms of jobs, which translates to a direct impact on the U.S. economy, were manifest. From that perspective, I think it would be fair to chalk this up to a hidden cost of overseas manufacturing.
    6 Mar 2014, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • pocohonta
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    On a brighter note, Apple will get a one time boost of $1billion. Let's put that toward a buy back Mr. Cook.
    7 Mar 2014, 11:18 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs