After seeking $2 billion, jury awards Apple just $120 million over Samsung’s infringement

Macdailynews ^ | Friday, May 2, 2014 · 9:19 pm

[Swordmaker]

“Apple Inc., after seeking $2 billion in damages, won only $120 million from Samsung Electronics Co. in a jury trial over smartphone technology,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. “The verdict sets the stage for the iPhone maker to seek a judge’s order banning U.S. sales of its rival’s devices that infringed its patents. The jury also found that Apple infringed one Samsung patent, awarding it $158,000 in damages.”

“‘It is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple,’ Brian Love, an assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, said in an e-mail. ‘This amount is less than 10 percent of the amount Apple requested and probably doesn’t surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case,’” Rosenblatt reports. “Jurors found that Samsung infringed two of the four Apple patents it considered in a case, which revolved around whether the maker of Galaxy phones used features in Google Inc.’s Android operating system that copied the iPhone maker’s technology. A finding that Samsung infringed the auto-correction patent was issued by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh before the trial.

[Swordmaker]

They won a 368 million dollar verdict against Apple on 11/6/2012. apple has used every trick in the book to fight it.

SueRae, you've read some things and swallowed them. . . But look behind the curtain at the facts. . .

VirnetX—the company you are referring to—is what is known as a non-practicing entity. They did not invent the technology to which you are referring. An NPE buys a portfolio of fringe patents or even just one patent—these fringe patents are patents that are NOT being licensed for any use and can be purchased for low prices—not with the intent to use the patent to make something, but to sue with it. They find an obscure claim in their newly acquired patent that is similar to something a producer IS already making, doing, and/or producing, something that can be stretched into being construed as infringing and then sue the company who is actually doing the useful work, regardless if their "patented invention" is apropos to what they are making, doing, or producing. That IS a patent Troll. That is what your VirnetX is. I've read their patents. . . pretty heavy and boring reading.

If you’re not familiar with the name VirnetX, you should be. The Internet security software and technology company (also known as a patent troll) has filed a patent infringement suit against every major tech company in the business, including Apple.source

Why has this tiny, unknown company suddenly started suing everyone in sight, which YOU think is just the evil Apple? Because, they acquired a laughable set of patents that establish a virtual private network, assign domain names, securing virtual private networks, and establishing a secure VPN using an encrypted key. There are literally hundreds of methods of doing these things. . . but claims in these patents with antecedents back to 1998 lead to the claim they invented VPN. . . not just their approach. Did the people granted these patents perhaps really come up with the idea of the Virtual Private Network and assigning Domain names? Hell no! VPN obviously predates 1998 as does assigning domain names, but it's in their claims. . . so everyone involved is attempting to invalidate the idiotic patents under obviousness, prior art, and other issues. That is what you are defending.

The fact that NO ONE WAS LICENSING these patents means they were most likely worthless. No one was licensing the VirnetX VPN and DNS methods. That's why the NPE can acquire them so cheaply. No one wanted them. An NPE buys a fringe patent gambling they'll be able to find something in the claims they can use to convert it into a pile of windfall licensing money by demanding licensing from a company such as Microsoft, HP, or Apple for a happenstance claim violation. . . not because they are truly infringing the patent itself. Claims are written extremely broadly by patent attorneys to include everything imaginable AND unimaginable.

In the case you are claiming Apple is so heinously guilty about and is so evilly appealing. . . Apple demonstrated IN COURT they legally licensed the virtual connectivity technology Apple used from Cisco built into hardware ROM ICs. If so, and Cisco was licensed for the patents Cisco used, then Apple was covered under the doctrine of patent exhaustion and Apple need not be directly licensed. Cisco testified that it IS licensed for everything in their ICs and the testimony showed it was NOT VirnetX tech. In fact, the Cisco licensed tech was in NO WAY similar to VirnetX's software patents. You can't infringe something that is not there, SueRae. Yet the jury ignored the evidence and found for VirnetX in what had to have been a very expensive sympathy vote. But then this was the East Texas Plaintiff Friendly "Rocket Docket" Federal Court famous for such skewed patent awards. I guess their hearts bleed for the "poor little inventor, too." Too bad they're nowhere to be found in this little juror amorality tale.

In 2013, when VirnetX sued Cisco on the same patents, VirnetX LOST! Cisco used the same testimony and evidence that Apple had used. . . and proved they did not use the VirnetX patents, in fact using totally different approaches to accomplish a similar result. However, the jury did not, unfortunately, invalidate the VirnetX patents. Since Apple licenses the Cisco ICs for that purpose, it is impossible for Apple to have infringed VirnetX patents, as found by the first jury using to the same evidence, which the second jury found not to be infringing EVEN WITH THE PRECEDENCE of the Apple verdict! THAT is why Apple is appealing. There are two contrary judgments. So here we have the totally absurd case where the customer Apple, has been found to be infringing a patent on a product found to be not infringed by the seller, Cisco, in the same court . . . on the same product, for the same patents, with the same testimony, and evidence. Is it any wonder this is being appealed???

And THAT—because of this case and others—is why Congress, not Obama, are considering changing the rules regarding the ability of NPEs to sue. Congress is considering that patents must be exercised, licensed by and/or used by their owner/holder before infringement suits can be brought.

You said you weren't a lawyer. May I suggest you dig deeper into facts before you label Apple a patent Troll. Apple uses the patents they develop, own, or assert. . . or intends to one day. They do not meet the definition of a troll. These people you think you are protecting are NOT the inventors. Far from it. . .

[Swordmaker]

well when Apple “worshipers” try to play the Hate Samsung because they are Koreans card, then it is appropriate to point out how little of the so-called “American” Apple is made overseas.

You ARE an idiot. Here YOU are the one playing the insult card. . . The call Apple users "worshippers" and "bigot" card. Find an American made computer, VanDeKoik. . . Guess what? It's the Apple MacPro, manufactured in Austin, Texas.

VanDeKoik, you are the one in here throwing spite balls, we are merely responding to YOUR bile. You are the one who invades every Apple thread to post negative comments.

[Swordmaker]

I see. . . have you READ the VHC patents? I have. They are nothing special. You maintain that EVERY company in tech was stealing this technology. BULLsh!T. These were and are common concepts. . . with multiple methods of accomplishing them. That was testified in court. Cisco’s method did not infringe. You claim Cisco’s attorney “confused” the jury. . . More BS.

Cisco has no NEED to appeal a decision they won! Nor why should they ever license VHC’s technology. They are not infringing. You can’t have it both ways.

If SAIC developed these “oh so technical, and important” inventions, tell me. . . How did this itty, bitty company acquire them??? If, as you say, they were developed for the Government, then the GOVERNMENT OWNS THEM. . . that’s the way government contracts work. How did that work????

Please provide your unambiguous non-myth PROOF of Steve Jobs stealing “everything that crossed his path.” I assure you your proof had better be damned solid. I’ve been shooting down trolls for fifteen years on this tripe with documented facts. I haven’t lost yet. You won’t come up with anything new.

[Swordmaker]

What a drama queen!

So we find out all of the “stolen” stuff was a stupid slide to unlock feature and some other frivolous crap.

And now Apple spends their time “stealing” ideas from Android using their definition of it. Of course you will never admit to that. That would be speaking ill of Apple.

And did you find ANY thing in there about "putting them out of business"? Is "Android" a "business"? You might also want to research the origination of those ideas you claim are "stolen" from Android. . . and find out what company is attributed with their invention. Hint: it ain't Google, Xerox, or Microsoft. . .

[Leonard210]

Hear hear.

[Leonard210]

Exactly.

[SueRae]

Actually, the inventors of those patents DO work for the company...as they did for SAIC. And they did/do have other licensees. Avaya, Siemens and one or two others. we’ll see how far Cisco gets trying to bid for FirstNet and other programs without those licenses. If those patents are worth nothing, why is Apple continuing the fight? Why did Apple profess to have an easy to implement workaround at trial, only to have it completely disrupt Facetime and iMessage when they attempted to implement it? But if you’re a die-hard Apple fan, go with it. Stay tuned.

[VanDeKoik]

And did you find ANY thing in there about “putting them out of business”?

” I’m going to destroy Android”
-Steve Jobs

“Uh, I dont see anything”
-Swordmaker

” Is “Android” a “business”? “

I’m seriously not going to entertain your attempt at splitting hairs. you know what I’m talking about.

” You might also want to research the origination of those ideas you claim are “stolen” from Android. . . and find out what company is attributed with their invention. Hint: it ain’t Google, Xerox, or Microsoft. . .”

Yeah, we know. Apple invented everything. Even the stuff they haven’t invented that other people have done first. I read enough deranged nonsense from iUsers to know how badly you twist time and space to attribute virtually everything on Earth to Apple.

Either Apple invented everything and everyone else stole it or Apple has to “keep up with market trends, and thus it is ok for them to take other people’s ideas because they will make them better”. It is usually a combo of both of those.

[VanDeKoik]

“You ARE an idiot. Here YOU are the one playing the insult card. . . The call Apple users “worshippers” and “bigot” card. Find an American made computer, VanDeKoik. . . Guess what? It’s the Apple MacPro, manufactured in Austin, Texas.”

Ooooooh wow! I’m glad you pointed out Apple’s most popular and highest selling device as your go-to example. Apple certainly took a gamble moving the bulk of their product line from China here. /s Maybe you will bra about how all of Apple’s print ads are made in the U.S. too?

The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. But Apple tosses you a PR crumb and you roll with it.

[Leonard210]

“The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. But Apple tosses you a PR crumb and you roll with it.”

I was thinking the same. Why now, after proclaiming for years the superiority of Chinese factories, would Apple build a factory in Texas? Why just a few years ago Saint Steve said it was impossible.

Visit an Apple factory in China? No need, we have one here. Just drop in at the Austin plant anytime, the Chinese plants are identical, just bigger. And, ya know, Chinese. And covered in suicide nets. But the suicide nets were designed right here in the USA!

[Swordmaker]

The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. But Apple tosses you a PR crumb and you roll with it.

WOW! I can't believe in your bile, hate, and rush to attempt to discredit me you stoop so low as to have said that. Do you prefer to lie, or does it just come naturally? Is it your first inclination? Do you just automatically believe anything Apple claims is untrue? If se, VanDeKoik, your Apple Derangement Syndrome (ADS) is showing. You seem to be foaming at the mouth.

Let's see just how truthful your claim "The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. . ." is, shall we?

Well, let's see. Here's some photos germane to the issue:

Tim Cook seems to think its manufactured in Austin, Texas.

"Assembled in USA" is laser engraved on the Apple MacPro

Here's a YouTube of the entire process. . .

Wow! Did you notice all the Chinese workers. . . Oh, wait. . . they're not Chinese, they're Texans! Oops! So much for the VanDeKoik claim!

The MacPro IS fabricated in Austin, Texas, USA, yet you baldly claim "The damn thing isnt even fabricated over here. But Apple tosses you a PR crumb and you roll with it." You obviously make it up as you go. . . and think Freepers will give you a pass? That's a Democrat/Liberal/Alinsky technique.

By-the-way, the MacPro is not the only Apple computer being made quietly in the USA. 9-to-5-Mac found that Apple had started shipping iMacs with these markings last year:

Note where the computer was made.

Stop trying to create your own facts! Game, Set, Match! You lose, VanDeKoik.

[Swordmaker]

Actually, the inventors of those patents DO work for the company...as they did for SAIC. And they did/do have other licensees. Avaya, Siemens and one or two others. we’ll see how far Cisco gets trying to bid for FirstNet and other programs without those licenses. If those patents are worth nothing, why is Apple continuing the fight? Why did Apple profess to have an easy to implement workaround at trial, only to have it completely disrupt Facetime and iMessage when they attempted to implement it? But if you’re a die-hard Apple fan, go with it. Stay tuned.

SueRae. . . They HAD no licensees until they got Microsoft to capitulate in 2011. I repeat. . . Why did SAIC release this "oh so valuable patent," and allow the employees to go, if it was so important as you claim? If it was developed for the US government as you claim, the Government would hold title. That the way Government contracts work. . . and if there is a clause that allowed SAIC to retain ownership, again why assign it elsewhere. . . Especially if it has a potential value in the "billions" of dollars. It simply doesn't make sense. I've slogged through these patents trying to find something unique that justifies this. I can't find it except what I've described. . . which comports with the contemporaneous testimony and facts. These are extremely obvious developments to anyone in the industry. . . and by definition, should not have been patentable. . . Except for their specific approach. Cisco and Apple use a different approach to accomplish a similar thing. No infringement of VirnetX's approach.

[Swordmaker]

” I’m going to destroy Android” -Steve Jobs
<
” Is “Android” a “business”? “

Deflect, dance, bob, weave. Answer the questions. Quit obfuscating to avoid honesty. You are a master of erecting strawman arguments that are NOT the issue. You make a claim that is false to facts, then shoot your straw target. Presenting your erroneous opinions as though they were established FACT. Taking things out of context so that you can be properly indignant about what YOU want things to be. Sometime, actually, most times, you are simply wrong.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Deflect, dance, bob, weave. Answer the questions. Quit obfuscating to avoid honesty. You are a master of erecting strawman arguments that are NOT the issue. You make a claim that is false to facts, then shoot your straw target. Presenting your erroneous opinions as though they were established FACT. Taking things out of context so that you can be properly indignant about what YOU want things to be. Sometime, actually, most times, you are simply wrong.

Physician, heal thyself.

[Swordmaker]

Physician, heal thyself.

I can prove what I've posted. . . with links from authoritative sources. They have an echo chamber of FUD sources.

[burghguy]

Dude I thought you might have some game but you don’t understand anything you are talking about. I was at the Trial. I heard the explanation to the judge and I read the motion to suppress and strike the testimony and why it was appropriate. Apple is on the hook for $368 million for past damages acruing about a million a day in interest and the judge has awarded a running royalty of .98% on anything using FaceTime or instant messaging. Look it up bright boy. Oh and Apple has not posted one cent nor is there a bond. VHC agreed that Apple, with its $150 Billion off shore avoiding taxes, was collateral enough. When Apple exhausts all its appeals, it will have to write a very large check. As for what engineer Allie told VHC’s attorneys I dare you to do the research. Apple knew what they were doing, they just thought they would get away with it. I won’t even go into the manipulation of VHC stock by Apple’s hedge fund ,Braeburn or the many IPRs they have brought directly or through alter egos to try and kill the VHC patents. So far, no dice for Apple. Please don’t respond. You are pathetically overmatched and under informed.

[Leonard210]

“Stop trying to create your own facts! Game, Set, Match! You lose, VanDeKoik.”

Your little endzone dance was a bit premature but typical.

I was ready to give you a win here but the images specifically do not say “Made in USA”. In order to say “Made in USA” the product must be “all or virtually all” made in the USA.

“All or virtually all means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content. The policy goes on to clarify that a ‘product that is all or virtually all made in the United States will ordinarily be one in which all significant parts and processing that go into the product are of U.S. origin.”

Made in USA vs Assembled in USA
http://nationalstandardparts.com/documents/AssembledvsMadeinUSA.pdf

Apple is saying that the MacPro is “manufactured” in Austin yet the image you posted simply says “Assembled in USA.” The iMac pic is from an October 2012 model and has the same wording.

“In regards to the production of the American made Mac Pro, Tim cook has been quoted as saying ‘The product will be assembled in Texas, include components made in Illinois and Florida, and rely on equipment produced in Kentucky and Michigan.’”

Computers Made in The USA
http://www.computersmadeinusa.com/

The fact is, there is no way of telling how much of either product is actually made in USA and Apple isn’t even claiming that the iMac is manufactured here.

“In the case of Apple’s new iMacs, no one outside of Apple really knows what that might be, and iFixit’s teardown isn’t particularly illuminating. It might be putting together the individual components of Apple’s new Fusion Drives; it might be the gluing and bonding process for the iMac displays (which, likely, is more involved than “screwdriver” assembly); or it might be those vibration-suppressing gaskets on the hard drives. It might be all those and more – nobody knows.”

Does ‘Assembled in USA’ mean anything for Apple?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/does-assembled-in-usa-mean-anything-for-apple/#ixzz30merAuV3

It’s just more of your trademarked hairsplitting. You haven’t proven that any of Apple products are able to claim that they are made in USA, manufactured in the USA or fabricated in the USA by the FTC standards, just that some of the components are assembled here.

“’A product that includes foreign components may be called “Assembled in USA” without qualification when its principal assembly takes place in the U.S. and the assembly is substantial. For the ‘assembly’ claim to be valid, the product’s last ‘substantial transformation’ also should have occurred in the U.S.’

Example: A lawn mower, composed of all domestic parts except for the cable sheathing, flywheel, wheel rims and air filter (15 to 20 percent foreign content) is assembled in the U.S. An “Assembled in USA” claim is appropriate.

Example: All the major components of a computer, including the motherboard and hard drive, are imported. The computer’s components then are put together in a simple “screwdriver” operation in the U.S., are not substantially transformed under the Customs Standard, and must be marked with a foreign country of origin. An “Assembled in U.S.” claim without further qualification is deceptive.”

Made in USA vs Assembled in USA
http://nationalstandardparts.com/documents/AssembledvsMadeinUSA.pdf

Apple Lexicon
Assembled in USA: 100% really and honest-to-Steve pretty much, um, assembled in USA. Squirrel!
from The Apple Lexicon (™) Interpreting Apple Theology Since 1994

[roadcat]

http://techland.time.com/2013/12/19/apple-mac-pro-made-in-the-usa-on-sale/

Apple “Made in the USA” Mac Pro Launched
High-end computer features all U.S.A. components

If you google american made computers you won’t find much at all, except Apple. Lenovo, the Chinese company, is starting to build here in the U.S.A. but largely with chinese components.

Apple didn’t make a gamble building in Austin. Austin is hot with technology. My daughter lives there, and her husband is an inventor. Why did they move there? Lots of incentives. Apple iPhone chips have been made there for years. Every time I visit my daughter I see the manufacturing plants that Apple and others have built. Try not to be so anti-American, and congratulate these American companies for building here, as do many of us who support American goods.