And The Verdict Is In... Samsung Owes Apple $290 Million More In Damages

A jury on Thursday ruled that Samsung must pay Apple $290,456,793 in additional damages for patent infringement, slightly less than the $380 million Apple had requested.

"For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money," Apple said in a statement. "It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love. While it's impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost."

cnn.com

Samsung, meanwhile, said it is "disappointed by today's decision, which is based in large part on a patent that the US Patent and Trademark Office has recently deemed invalid."

"While we move forward with our post-trial motions and appeals, we will continue to innovate with groundbreaking technologies and great products that are loved by our many customers all around the world," the Korean company said in a statement.

indiatimes.com

The court has vacated District Court Judge Lucy Koh's earlier denial of Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against 26 Samsung products found by a jury to infringe in the monumental 2012 trial.

thedrum.com

That means Cupertino's lawyers will have another chance at permanently ending sales of those devices in the long-running legal showdown.

theverge.com

The court has sent the issue back to Judge Koh with respect to Apple's technical utility patents, where she will have to apply a new standard.

knowyourmobile.in

Rather than showing that the patented features were the "sole" reason for driving sales of the products — a requirement the court found to be too strict — Apple will only have to show "some connection between the patented feature and demand for Samsung's products."

The court went on to hold that an injunction might be warranted if the evidence shows "that the inclusion of a patented feature makes a product significantly more desirable," or that "the absence of a patented feature would make a product significantly less desirable."

theverge.com

As a result, executives from both companies have taken the stand to present arguments.

Most recently Apple’s head of marketing Phil Schiller said that Apple’s iPhone was such a huge risk for Apple that he felt Apple basically bet its future on the device. Now, Schiller is remarking on why Samsung’s patent infringement has been so frustrating for the company.

Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president, testified in court on Friday and said that Samsung hampered Apple’s iPhone and iPad sales by launching smartphones which were similar in design to Apple gadgetry.

techienews.co.uk

Schiller argues that Samsung basically copied Apple’s iPhone and then, ultimately, consumers questioned “[Apple’s innovation and design skills in a way that people never used to.”

indiatimes.com

Schiller’s argument suggests that Samsung wouldn’t have created the devices had the iPhone never existed. It’s a similar claim to Apple’s original “copycat” accusations toward Samsung.

Meanwhile, Samsung’s lawyers see things differently, and questioned Schiller on how it might be possible for Apple to own patents on a phone or tablet that is “beautiful” and “sexy.”

Samsung’s legal team argues that Apple doesn’t have the right to say whether or not another product can or cannot be beautiful, and ultimately has no right to “preclude the design of this hardware.”

Schiller responded saying that a Galaxy Tab, held up in question, “looks like an iPad.”

indiatimes.com

Apple wants $380m (around £235, AU$406m) in damages, but Samsung only reckons it should have to pay $52m (around £32m, AU$55).

Regardless of the outcome we're pretty sure they'll be at least 5,627 appeals and counter-appeals from one side or t'other, so strap yourselves in guys.