Friday, March 1, 2013

Federal Judge Cuts Damage Award to Apple

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh lowered the damages awarded to Apple Inc. by $450.5 million for 14 Samsung products including some products in its hot-selling Galaxy lineup, saying jurors had not properly followed her instruction in calculating some of the damages.

This is significant for many reasons, one of which is Samsung had been expected to pay 1 billion dollars in damages to Apple.

Judge Koh also found errors that pertain to how and when Apple notified Samsung about allegedly violating patents with iPhone and iPad. And she ordered a new trial.

Samsung is thrilled.

No comment from the royal palace of Apple.

The more I read this article the more I liked Judge Koh. And I'm by no means an expert.

In December, Koh refused to order a sales ban on the products the jury found infringed Apple's patents. She said Apple failed to prove the purloined technology is what drove consumers to buy a Samsung product instead of an Apple iPhone or iPad. Samsung says that it is continues to sell only three of the two dozen products found to have infringed Apple's patents.

What drives customers to buy a Samsung product over Apple is a little more complicated than what Apple allegedly claims. I stay away from Apple products because I don't like the general concept of control Apple has always wanted to promote and maintain with its products and how it views the Internet as a whole.

You can read more here.

What really bothers me about all this is the jury's original verdict. Things have changed in the past ten or fifteen years. People aren't the same as they used to be. I know people who would die for Apple and they don't even know why. If you ask them they draw a blank...and these are people who most of the time can't even afford an Apple product. They're all so political, but yet when you ask them a specific political question that goes deeper than what they read on facebook or twitter they either don't know or get the answer dead wrong. And to trust something as complicated as this to a jury that I would bet didn't understand half of what happened during the trial truly makes me wonder about how the legal systems works.

On a much smaller scale, I've seen a few other cases that ended in ways no one would ever have predicted. And it's going to be interesting to see how this all unfolds.



No comments: