Apple victory aftermath: Samsung stock slips and experts question jury speed

Apple victory aftermath: Samsung stock slips and experts question jury speed

Summary: The Korean Android manufacturer saw its share price fall by seven percent on Monday, as it prepares its appeal against Friday's $1.05bn verdict - an appeal that could be helped by the speed at which the jury reached its conclusions

SHARE:
TOPICS: Patents, Apple, Samsung
26

The first shockwaves of Apple's momentous US patent win against Samsung have started to ripple out, with the Korean Android manufacturer's share price dipping seven percent in the first day's trading since Friday's verdict.

The aftermath of the verdict, which awarded Apple $1.05bn (£665m) in damages for Samsung's infringements of iPhone design characteristics and patents, has also seen a series of memos and statements issued by the companies involved in the case — with all parties predictably standing their ground.

Additionally, there are questions over the speed at which the jury wrapped up its findings. The jurors had to reduce the damages by around $2.5m almost immediately after issuing that verdict, due to some flawed adding-up, and some observers have seized on post-verdict quotes from jurors as evidence that the whole thing was rushed.

Indeed, the jurors took just three days to decide a case that featured 700 questions. According to the foreman, they did so without reading the instructions they were given by the court.

As expected, Samsung will appeal the verdict. Late on Sunday, the manufacturer also reportedly asked judge Lucy Koh to lift a preliminary ban she had already granted Apple on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, as the jury had not found Samsung's Android tablets to be infringing.

Stock slip

Samsung's share price fell by seven percent in Seoul on Monday. According to the BBC, analysts fear the effect a sales ban might have on the company.

Apple has requested that the US courts ban the Samsung devices named in the suit, but these are no longer in the Korean firm's current smartphone lineup. The worry seems to be that Apple will try to drag flagship handsets such as the Galaxy S3 into the argument.

Apple will formally try to have those devices banned at a 20 September court hearing.

Statements

Apple said "the mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew", and argued that the case was about "values", as well as money and patents.

"At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behaviour wilful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right," the company said.

Samsung, meanwhile, said the verdict was "a loss for the American consumer".

"It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies," the firm said, while also noting that some other courts around the world had rejected similar infringement claims from Apple.

Google, the driving force behind Android, also weighed in, saying most of the patents asserted in the case did not "relate to the core Android operating system".

"Several [of the patents] are being re-examined by the US Patent Office," Google said. "The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that."

Too fast?

Several observers, including Pamela Jones over at Groklaw, have seized on the speed at which the jurors reached their decision, as well as certain inconsistencies in interviews subsequently given by jurors.

If the jury did rush its verdict, that would be a factor in Samsung's favour when it comes to the appeal.

One juror, Manuel Ilagan, told CNET News.com that "once you determine that Samsung violated the patents, it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products, because it was all the same".

However, jury foreman Velvin Hogan — himself a patent-holder and by all accounts something of a mentor to his fellow jurors on the subject — told Reuters that jurors evaluated each device separately.

Hogan also said: "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist… We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

Jones noted that the 109-page instructions, which Hogan said the jury had decided not to read, specifically stated that "the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer".

Topics: Patents, Apple, Samsung

David Meyer

About David Meyer

David Meyer is a freelance technology journalist. He fell into journalism when he realised his musical career wouldn't pay the bills. David's main focus is on communications, as well as internet technologies, regulation and mobile devices.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

26 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Grounds For Declaring A Mistrial?

    Some of that jury behaviour could lead to the whole verdict being thrown out.
    ldo17
  • Broken Patent System

    I think each juror's personal phone preferences should have been made public knowledge going into this case. For them to come to such a summary judgement shows obvious bias. Throw out this verdict! Boycott Apple Products!
    Amy Johnson
    • You should do just that.

      Tel Apple how evil they are for protecting their IP. After all it's okay to copy Apple's work, while it's not okay to copy anyone else's work, at all.
      Troll Hunter J
      • Apple victory aftermath: Samsung stock slips and experts question jury spee

        @Troll Hunter J
        which company is not based on copied product? lucky for us dmca was not there when the nascent apples', intels', and microsofts' of today were just startups...
        kc63092@...
      • Huh? Wait, isn't it you who always says

        "It's OK for Apple to copy other's work, while it's not okay to copy Apple's work, at all
        William Farrel
    • @Amy....Please do your homework!

      Come on now. Have you ever served on a jury? There's a process of voir dire when the lawyers get to ask jurors about this sort of stuff...and they did..

      http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/31/the-7-men-and-3-women-who-will-decide-apple-v-samsung/

      When the jury pool was screened...by the lawyers from both sides....these questions were asked and answered. Please...enough of the knee jerk, fanboy/fangirl reflex responses.

      A jury came a to a decision that you don't agree with...that's fine. But they were in the court, they heard the testimony, heard the law, and made their decision. Clearly, you didn't follow the trial as closely as they did, but somehow you know better. Think about that for a second.
      UGottaBKidding
      • As I predicted, it is already happening

        "Clearly, you didn't follow the trial as closely as they did, but somehow you know better. Think about that for a second."

        Whenever your team doesn't win (see UK Samsung win where Apple was the absolute loser): the verdict wasn't fair, it is obvious that Samsung copied, the courts are all idiots.

        When your team does win: it must be fair and right because those people know way more than you do, they were there, you weren't
        toddbottom3
        • @Toddy Please stop putting words in my mouth

          I said nothing about the UK...I merely noted that Amy, like so many others, jumped to an incorrect conclusion without doing her homework. The jurors were asked about which smartphone they used and many other related questions. it really isn't that hard.

          But...as you know so well...it's always easier to win an argument when you put words into the other side's mouths. Nice try though. You're earning your pay this week, transparent though you may be.
          UGottaBKidding
        • Toddy...just to clarify

          Amy challenged the fairness of the jury and decried the fact that because their personal phone choices weren't public they must all be biased....yet...on ZDNet itself there is a story detailing that this questions has been asked and answered by the Samsung lawyers themselves. I simply asked that she do her homework and not respond with knee jerk nonsense.

          http://www.zdnet.com/apple-samsung-on-trial-whos-judging-7000001887/
          UGottaBKidding
  • This was not a trial about the patent system, but about Samsung vs Apple

    This is interesting how Android fans did not question at all the jury in the Google-Oracle trial verdict, and considered that the case was closed even if Oracle plan to appeal, but here the same people make it for granted that the verdict will be overthrown. Strange double language.
    atari_z
    • Fair question

      But I believe there was no such obvious problem during Oracle-Google trial. Including skipping the prior art.
      Let me know if there was something of that proportion during that trial and I will reconsider.
      kirovs@...
  • Jurors my foot

    This conclusion is absolutely ridiculous and if I were a betting man I would put money on how many of those jurors own iPhones with a bonus point for Velvin Hogan. A pity they could not be objective.

    "At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth."

    So they invented the touchscreen, rectangular smartphone with a built in music player then? Didn't think so.....

    "We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy."

    Copied what - the shape? The icons? Phones have been around for a long time and OSes even longer than that. There is nothing specific to the iPhone that Apple invented which did not already exist - ergo they did not invent it.

    "We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behaviour wilful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right,"

    What was stolen?

    Did the jurors even ask themselves any of these questions?
    12312332123
    • The suit was more than that

      It was not about rectangular phone, it was the specific design of the iPhone - minimalistic. Samsung most definitely copied that. As well as pretty much ripped off the icons. I looked at early Samsung android phones in 2010 and both my wife and I thought they were a rip off of the iPhone (and I got a Droid X instead).

      It was about pinch to zoom, bounce click, and a few other things which are most definitely unique ideas.

      And if you don't think design is patentable you have to have your head check. It's what allows Nike to patent putting air in a pair of shoes, the designs of their shoes can't be copied (except by Skechers who only exists to copy others designs), etc. It's why drugs can be patented, etc. Design is something that can and should be patented. People who take the risks -should be allowed to reap those rewards.

      I think it's a good thing Samsung got B!tch-slapped. HTC, Motroloa, LG, Microsoft, etc can all make successful smartphones that don't look or feel like an iPhone. Samsung can too. And I'm not a Samsung hater - I have one of their great TV's and a Samsung refrigerator. This time they messed up big time.
      itguy10
      • Riiiight

        Minimalist....
        So Apple have dibs on single button phones, but who are they going to pay for stealing the volume rocker? I'm sorry, but I do not see a marked difference between the design of something like the HTC Magician which predates the iPhone by a good couple of years and the iPhone just because Apple decided to drop a couple of call buttons. First black phone? no. First touchscreen phone? no. First recangular phone with rounded edges? no. Get real....

        Oh and this is classic:
        "It was about pinch to zoom, bounce click, and a few other things which are most definitely unique ideas."

        Yes, they were really neat ideas. Just a shame they were NOT Apples ideas. They were ALL demonstrated by Samsung to have been in existence long before Apple even thought of making a phone. Pity the jurors were too busy playign with their iPhones to notice I suppose.
        12312332123
      • Not patentable

        You shouldn't be able to patent "minimalistic design." It's only the changes you make to to the minimalistic design that should be patentable as "trade dress." It's what you add to the rectagle that can be patented, IHMO, not the rectangle itself.

        To that extent I agree that Apple should be granted compensation for Samsung's first Android phone because it wasn't just a rectangle with a screen. It was a picture perfect copy of the iPhone, down to the silver colored band around the outer edge.

        But there was a lot more than this to the trial, and much of it was just absurd.
        dsf3g
        • That silver colored band has been used

          on Zunes and many other products prior to the iPhone.

          Do you mean to say that only Apple can use it on phones?

          Well, there's always time to patent chrome bumper on cars!
          William Farrel
      • Pinch and zoom unique ideas?

        I am amazed by the stubborn resistance that some people have when you tell them that apple didn't invent everything. Pinch and zoom are intuitive gestures and should not be patented. Jeff Han showed this before iphone. In this video he gives credit to someone else who worked in the field in the 80's. He went on to form a company making large touch screens and Microsoft just bought that company. I wonder why, for protection maybe.

        Here is the link:

        http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html

        Our technology is built a small piece at a time and everyone is standing on someone else's shoulders. Somethings should not be patented. I am sure a lot of these software techs remember movies like " Johnny Mnemonic 1995". Do you think that didn't influence anything and where did the director get the idea, it must have been around somewhere............calfee
        calfee20
        • Pinch and zoom unique ideas?

          @calfee20 link was excellent. Technology and ideas generally evolved, one idea leads to the next. Can anyone remeber the original apple computer and pointing device call mouse? These were copied from existing technologies by other companies, notably Xerox. May be Xerox should look at collecting royalties from Apple?
          As it stands now, small innovators will be watching their backs all time to avoid being sued instead of just concentrating on what they are good at, to innovate.
          The real winners out of all these are big companies and lawyers. Who is going to speak for the small startup innovators?
          chorleong
      • Isn't it amazing how overnight, the Apple fanboi song has changed

        Apple fanbois like itguy10 are terrified of how this makes Apple look like a huge corporate bully. The hatred towards Apple is real and growing and so whereas Thursday, itguy10 and his Apple fanboi peers are on the record as saying:
        "Metro is fugly, WP7/8 is terrible, don't buy M$ products, Nokia sucks, look at their horrendous sales, etc"

        now on Monday we get:
        "HTC, Motroloa, LG, Microsoft, etc can all make successful smartphones that don't look or feel like an iPhone"

        So suddenly, MS's smartphone OS is "successful"?

        We are being played by a script folks, a script certainly provided by Apple to make it look like they "care" about our choice, about innovation, and that the best way of improving competition is to ban competing devices. We are all encouraged to remember how fantastic WP8 is, right before we are told that we still shouldn't buy it.
        toddbottom3
  • Confused....

    I don't have any stake in this fight, but I do have a hard time reconciling this....

    "Apple said "the mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew", and argued that the case was about "values", as well as money and patents."

    With this....

    “Good artists copy, Great artists steal”

    So, Apple... which is it? Is it "Good" to copy, or does that cross a line with respect to your "Values"?
    Badgered