[Update: Complete device-by-device breakdown, jury instructions added] Samsung planning various arguments for its appeal


Samsung clearly has no intention of taking the verdict in the Apple lawsuit lying down. With some victories around the world in similar cases, Samsung’s lawyers are adamant they can overturn the charges and are looking at various avenues to point out that the damages awarded are unfair. They also released the following statement:

“Apple’s arguments boiled down to an assertion that everyone who bought a Samsung device would have bought the equivalent product from Apple had the Samsung product not been on the market. But that reasoning ignores any brand loyalty customers might have had to Samsung, or they might be customers of carriers that at the time didn’t offer Apple products. I would say there are quite a few problems with the way Apple calculated damages.”

The first bit obviously stands for a multitude of reasons: not everyone who bought a Samsung device was actually open to an iPhone. While I don’t have numbers any numbers, I believe its reasonable to argue that a significant few bought a Galaxy phone because they wanted Android, not iOS. And the second bit of that statement, regarding Apple’s exclusivity deal with AT&T, seems particularly strong. Until January 8th, 2011, the only network you could get an iPhone on in the US was AT&T. Keeping this in mind, it’s difficult for Apple to claim that the devices Samsung sold to users on other networks hurt their own sales, since the role of the network and it’s coverage plays an important while deciding which device to purchase.

Apple was awarded $57 million for the Samsung Prevail (Boost Mobile) and a little over $53 million for the Samsung Mesmerize (US Cellular), with the iPhone still not available on either network. Additionally, the Samsung Transform cost Samsung about a million, though it was made available on Sprint almost a year before the network’s customers could use an iPhone without switching carriers. Apple was also awarded $3.5 million for the Replenish, which was available on Boost and on Sprint for 4-5 months before the iPhone. In total, we’re talking about $115 million in damages with these devices. I’ll try to update this list once I get my hands on with a complete breakdown of damages per device.


Update: The following  device-by-device breakdown of damages was provided on Groklaw. I have cancelled out those devices I believe did not compete with iPhone by being available at a network that did not sell the iPhone ever or was released before the iPhone was announced for the network, thereby not competing with it at the time of sales. I kept the entire Samsung Galaxy Tab damages since a breakdown based on networks was not provided. The total provided by Groklaw is also different since he and a few of his readers believe that the courts have it wrong by a few ten thousands (on the lower side).

Captivate . . . . . . . . . .80,840,162

Continuum . . . . . . . . . .16,399,117

Droid Charge. . . . . . . . .50,672,869

Epic 4G. . . . . . . . . . .130,180,894

Exhibit 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,081,820

Fascinate. . . . . . . . . .143,539,179

Galaxy Ace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Galaxy Prevail. . . . . . . .57,867,383

Galaxy S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Galaxy S 4G . . . . . . . . .73,344,668

Galaxy S II (AT&T). . . . . .40,494,356

Galaxy S II (i9000). . . . . . . . . .0

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). . . .83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch).100,326,988

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) . . .32,273,558

Galaxy S (Showcase) . . . . .22,002,146

Galaxy Tab . . . . . . . . . .1,966,691

Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi . . . . . .833,076

Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE . . . . . . . .0

Gem. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,075,585

Indulge . . . . . . . . . . .16,011,184

Infuse 4G . . . . . . . . . .44,792,974

Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Mesmerize . . . . . . . . . .53,123,612

Nexus S 4G . . . . . . . . . .1,828,297

Replenish. . . . . . . . . . .3,350,256

Transform. . . . . . . . . . . .953,060

Vibrant . . . . . . . . . . .89,673,957

TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . .1,049,423,540



Total, removing the damages for the above devices……………..$251,873,686. That is $797,549,854 less than the initial damages.


Update 2: The following excerpt is from the jury instructions that can be found here.

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the
infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial
position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages
award be less than a reasonable royalty.


[via Talk Android, Damages from Groklaw, Jury Instructions]

Raveesh Bhalla

The LG Optimus G will have an all new True HD IPS+ display, new battery

Previous article

Lenovo, ZTE pip Apple in China smartphone share

Next article

You may also like


  1. This is not surprising at all. I expect the whole thing to be stretched out plenty. I think the target here should be invalidation of the patents.

  2. I don’t see how they awarded 3.5 million for the replenish. its a BlackBerry style device with stock android 2.2. Absolutely no touch wiz on the phone. I mean it has a damn keyboard right on the front of the device.

    1. good points

    2. software copying.

  3. The idea was that these would be invalidated.
    The jury, by it’s own admission not only did not read the instructions but listened to a patent holder that has how own patent to defend.

    The comments from jurors coming out was that they knew there was prior art but decided to ignore it so they could get done quicker.
    They awarded damages for non-infringing devices…. and had to go correct it?
    This jury wanted to go home, so they rushed the process so they could do exactly that.

    I have a feeling this jury verdict will be tossed precisely because they failed to do what they were asked to do.

    1. I think the phandroids should stick to one argument. At first it was the judge, then the patent system, then the jury. If your going to point fingers try to be consistent about it.

      You can argue specifics, but the bottom line is Samsung copied Apple.

      1. it would be childish to blame one thing and stick to just one glaring problem in this whole trial. many things went into account here with this trial. Yes the judge, yes the uneducated jury, yes the patent system. the whole thing is a Fucking mess and both companies have their hands dirty in litigation and copying. every successful companies has always tried to take a competitors product and one up it and do better, that’s pure competition. every company fuels it’s flame with the ashes of weaker companies and the idea of beating it’s closest rival. I’m proud and disturbed at the incredible amount of competition between these companies because it just means better products for us, regardless which device we use. either which way you slice it these companies produce amazing products. I just hope that they find a way to coexist and live within the competitive realm of business instead of seeking the others extinction. I find it crazy some of these software patents they were awarded. the icons? bounce back? the rectangle lol. I find it hard to believe anyone is going to spend 200+ on a phone and sign away their life for two years on a phone and not know what they were buying. that argument is weak, that said I hate touch wiz because of it being a simple colorful ui akin to the iPhone. I look to the future and it is bleak if all these companies fight in the courtroom instead of by what’s on the store shelves.

        1. Microsoft and Apple found a way to co-exist. Samsung can still choose to have all these iPhone patents if they want, include all those awesome patented features, and thus – coexisting. They chose to steal rather than buy the rights.

          1. Round corners and a bezel is not a patent

          2. On the contrary. This trial showed there is. And Apple owns that patent.

          3. Microsoft and Apple found a place to co-exist AFTER they sued each other several times. Then Apple fell far behind. At the minute Google and their free OS is their enemy if that changes then they will begin to war against each other again – don’t be so naive.

          4. You’re right, how could I be so naive!

          5. You answered that question a while ago.

          6. sheep-colored glasses…

          7. The only reason Apple and Microsoft “co-exist” right now is because MC isn’t doing anything to affect anyone right now. They sell so few devices that Apple doesn’t see them as a threat. I can promise you that if MC started selling as many devices as Samsung’s Android division, Apple would be breaking out their big book of imaginary patents.

          8. The only reason why you think Apple and MS coexist is Microsoft hasn’t done anything innovative in the same competitive market as Apple for years. No longer do you see the douchebag commercials “Mac vs PC”. Why? Because Apple won. Apple isn’t winning this war versus android so they are picking the largest competitor out of the lot, Samsung. Why go after LG when Samsung outsells them worldwide?

            Mobile devices are the hot commodity and this is where Apple bought and bribed for patents, not for OSX, but for mobile. Again, back to your lame Microsoft/Apple thing…. both have taken decidedly different routes. Microsoft is asking for licensing for its patents. Apple is whining and taking companies to court over it. Wait for Win8 to gain traction and you’ll see the old titans collide once more. FACT.

          9. That’s because Apple wanted an outrageous price for their tech, then claim Samsung is making unreasonable prices for their patents.

            I would have stole it too, had Apple been such a douche. Excuse my language.

      2. Why should there be only one argument when additional issues were brought to light through the course of the trial? This simply shows that there is a systematic error in this entire process.

      3. Well said, yeah it’s too much for their small minds to comprehend that Samsung copied apple, their level of fanboyism is way too highf lol

      4. How sad to come to a website called Phandroid then call the readers Phandroids – Really cutting edge debating skills there !

      5. Why stick to one when many arguments are valid. Just as a sheeptard will claim many Apple patents are valid and not just one. The fact remains that Koh is a staunch Apple supporter. The fact remains the Jury didn’t give a crap about Samsung, glossed over facts and some already had predetermined to have Samsung pay out the ass. The fact also remains that Apple patents frivolously and the patent office approves it. It’s a lot harder to prove a patent invalid after it has been awarded. That is a fact.

        I guess if you’re going to sheeptard troll, this is the place to do it as most other sites would have you banned by now for consistently attacking people and trolling any article regarding Apple just to incite members. Consider yourself lucky.

      6. Maybe the jury and the judge are both a part of a larger problem.

      7. Why can’t it be all three? Reading through the source article (Groklaw), there are quite a lot of good points made about the inconsistency of the jurors’ decisions.

        Instead of just going “Ha! My favorite company won!”, why don’t you actually start reading into the information that’s slowing coming out now?

      8. Whoa! Alex my man you should try not to think too much buddy. :-P

    2. Mark R, I read that article too. Just amazing. A juror admitting that they glossed over the prior art evidence so they could get done quicker, that blew my mind because I thought for sure a reasonable jury would invalidate at least some of Apple’s patents. The lop-sided nature of the verdict is questionable.

      & well said wtpanos…. Alex, not so much…. LOL!

      1. thank you good sir

    3. The really amazing thing is that the jury did not find the Samsung Tab in violation. It is such an obvious Apple knock-off.

    4. Highly possible. Jurors are not usually our equal peers.
      Most of us don’t end up on a jury. There is a reason why, and it’s not about doing ones civil duty LOL

    5. I’ve served on a jury 5 times over the years and was a jury foreman twice. You’d be surprised at how many times people were willing to side with the majority (even if they knew the majority was wrong), just so they could get out of their sooner and get back to sitting on their couch. People don’t take jury duty serious and it seems everyone wants to get out of being on a jury. Think about that next time you run into legal problems and are being judged by a “jury of your peers”.

  4. You shouldn’t be able to patent a standard design feature like curved edges which is essentially the only design that consumers find attractive these days. If that’s the case then Apple should be suing any company that did away with square edges after the release of the iphone or ipad.

    1. They plan on it. The Samsung trial is just the beginning. And with the verdict, it is going to be hard to defend against.

  5. “Samsung clearly have no intention of verdict in the Apple lawsuit lying down”
    Needs a word or two somewhere in the middle.

    1. When the hell are you guys going to get a proofreader? These constant mistakes are just sad.

    2. “Samsung clearly has no intention of taking the verdict in the Apple lawsuit lying down”

      1. Actually, they apparently do have that intention. The “verdict” was “guilty of patent infringement”, which they don’t seem to be opposing. Rather, the story is only about contesting the damages. (In essence, “Okay, we infringed Apple’s patents, but they weren’t hurt THAT much!)

        1. I can assure you that they will follow both avenues of recourse.

          1. I don’t doubt that. My comment was simply based on the literal content of the article.

  6. Aaand they’re lose the appeal as well lol

  7. The jury is completely biased. They had already decided in advance that Samsung will lose b/c it’s not American. That’s it. There is no justice, it’s kind of cold war.

    1. Proof? I’m sure every major news agency and the Department of Justice would love to see your evidence.

      1. You want proof? Here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1

        now go back to your rotten apples

        1. Groklaw? That is the best you can find? Groklaw is nothing more than Fantasy Lawyer. Lol!

          1. Groklaw is better than apple fanboys that claim there is no such thing as prior art

          2. I thought Sammy made a very compelling case for prior art.

          3. As did I, but as it seems according to a juror testimony they did not do the prior art evidence justice

          4. I WANT MY PHONE TO CHARGE!Thats all I care about.I just want peace. Dont say your putting me in a coffin. Electronics really lack something. Its probally your design. Why be like this. I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR PRODUCTS. All of them are disposable. Flat screens stink . Ucan have the you can phone can have. Put them in a coffin no humans.Your not right You are a embarrassing to samsung. Your comments. Stink and your the type of people that are problems.For are country. You can damage someone by hiding behind a computer and link to others personal accounts. Great service So be it. Apple is BETTER ANYWAY. Even the desktop i can build stink. They work thought. Hey its to Alex mcfarland. sorry Mr Ellis

          5. SciFi like 2001 and other non-product demos showing window resize. Samsung’s attempt at showing prior art was very weak. For example, Robert Kearns never claimed to invent wind shield wipers just a specific advancement that provided a substantial improvement. The piece parts of Kearns’s invention were nothing impressive but the unique combination providedsubstantial improvements over existing designs.

            The prior art was debated (per the jurors) heatedly for some time and not glossed over like some have lied about.

            This puts things in an easier context to understand.

          6. I’m sorry but were you in the jury room? I will take the testimony of a juror that says they skipped over the topic of prior art

      2. read and don’t be a sheeptard. There is evidence out there regarding the jury. Again, read.

      3. Google it. There are several articles that have comments from jurors saying that Samsung was an underdog going into the trial due to several factors: the fact that Apple was based nearby, the fact that it was an American company versus a foreign one, the fact that patent holders generally win (I don’t know where they got that), and the perception that Apple recreated computers and the cell phone.

        That confessed bias,I would think, if enough for a successful appeal.

    2. My thoughts exactly.

    3. They weren’t biased. Just stupid and irresponsible.

  8. Cost of the devices plays a big role in a consumers choice. Probably a lot of those samsung phones were cheap, or free with contracts.

    so that is another point they will probably argue.

  9. Not to mention that while we’re talking about consumers walking into a cell provider confused, I’m pretty sure the salespeople could easily tell the difference between an iPhone and a Samsung. So the whole idea of someone walking into the US and mistakenly getting a Samsung instead of an iPhone is absurd by even the longest stretch of the imagination.

    1. Thank you. If I found out that a Samsung device wasn’t an iPhone, I wouldn’t get the device anymore. Simple as that. Of course this is just an example.

      I don’t see where Apple is coming from this.

    1. Thanks for this, quoted the damages bit and linked to it

  10. It’s okay for apple to steal designs.
    But if anyone else steals the design apple rightfully stole, their products will be banned. Why don’t the trolls get a life and stop trolling phandroid? They are obvious jealous. Because Apple technology is still in the stone ages.

  11. The only thing good about any of this is I do prefer my Android phone to look nothing like an iPhone.

  12. This fight that Samsung wants to continue with, to me, has a strong basis. It’s very true that if people really did want the iPhone that they would have left their current carrier and gone over to AT&T or VZN depending on the timeframe. When I got my Transform, I didn’t want an iPhone, and I didn’t even have the chance to get an iPhone because my family was on contract for Sprint for some time after my upgrade. This really is a valid point made by Samsung.

  13. great article that illustrate how dumb that jury was!

  14. Two words — Palm Pilot — look at the Palm’s from the 2000’s — white in color, rounded corners, battery operated, scrolling text, colorful icons, looks like the iPhone — only years before it!


  15. Exactly how I felt the other day. They aren’t damages at all if the consumer willfully selected Samsung products as personal preference. Did that logical fact EVER get brought up in court? I swear, Apple is the most egotistical, conniving, and downright selfish company. Good luck to Samsung and all other companies Apple has thrust themselves in front of.

  16. According to the Korea Times, Samsung is reeling in shock.

    Former CEO and current strategy boss Choi Gee-sung has provided very poor leadership and decision making for Samsung. He has managed to antagonize Tim Cook, a very fair man, and the entire Apple executive team.

    Samsung is Apple’s largest supplier and they risk losing that business.

    The fact that Samsung copied the Apple designs is obvious to anyone who is paying attention. By denying the obvious, Choi Gee-sung just makes the situation worse for Samsung. He appears to be both a liar and a cheat, who is not a trustworthy business partner.

    Samsung employed some of the best Intellectual Property attorneys in the USA. Apple could only win this lawsuit by a unanimous decision of all nine jurors. The evidence was so overwhelming in Apple’s favor, that even the best lawyers would not succeed for Samsung.

    Choi Gee-sung is a very stubborn man. Apple offered a licensing agreement amounting to $24 per unit sold. That was a very fair and reasonable offer.

    I’m sure Apple would have also insisted on a ‘no cloning’ clause as Microsoft has agreed to. This would force Samsung to come up with their own designs, something that they should have done in the first place.

    Now Samsung is faced with the prospect of a $3 Billion settlement involving triple damages for willful infringement. Choi Gee-sung’s best move would be to telephone Tim Cook and try to get that original $24 offer reinstated. Otherwise Apple may move against current Samsung products and against Google directly.

    1. of course it was obvious, anyone outside of the samsheep spectrum saw it, the whole world pretty much knew it, yet “they are in shock” lol serves them well. anyone thinking they can come rip off apple was just put on notice. i do hope they appeal so that they can lose that as well

  17. TL;DR

    Perhaps you were so busy thinking about what you were going to say that you didn’t properly read the comment you replied to. If you had you would realize that in response your babbling on about how you thing Touchwiz does rip off apple doesn’t answer the OP’s point that neither Touchwiz nor and iPhone-esque form factor were present on the Replenish.

    Or perhaps you thought your semi-literate super-paragraph was so important for everyone to read that you just attached it to the highest rated comment in the thread. In which case, I have to break it to you, you still didn’t get anyone to actually read all the way through that.

    Don’t post your comment as a reply next time. Thank you.

    1. I updated it for you, so it would be easier to read.

      1. And you still completely missed JMcGee’s point.

        1. Head on over to YouTube, where you can see some of the infringing software features in use on the Samsung Replenish reviews.

          This article adds in the fact that because the iPhone was not present in that network at the time- damages not be considered. This would only make sense if you were to include upgrade only, not new activations.

          I’ll let you in on a purchasing decision I made a while back that I think I am not the only one who made.

          When the Galaxy Line first came out and I saw all the carrier versions of it, I liked the Vibrant and Epic the most.

          The vibrant just felt the best in my hand, it was light, and it’s physical appearance was closest to my iPhone. The epic was the next best thing, it had an awesome glass/plastic front (or whatever it was), the bezel looked awesome, again similar design to the iPhone from the front, but I like this one the best. Although thicker, the best part was *bam*, a full slide out keyboard.

          I loved the OLED technology way better than the screen on the iPhone especially in a way it integrated with the dark OS Settings/SMS area. Something about pulling my phone out at night and seeing those deep contrasts and pure blacks made me have goosebumps.

          Previously not an Android fan, at all – these phones me go Android (Epic) because they were the closest thing to thing to the iPhone that Android had to offer. Not just in an performance point a view, but also the look, the feel, the design all just made me feel right at home in the Android OS.

          That was a while ago though, I have a Focus now, I love it. The Galaxy may have been an awesome phone for me when I had it, but it’s a clear rip-off of the iPhone, so much so that It made me switch to Android for a good period of time. It got my business. I have no beef with Samsung at all, they make beautiful Televisions, and I still use it as my primary phone manufacturer.

          Sure I would love for Apple to adopt OLED, sure I would love Samsung to adopt the build quality of an Apple Device, and your sure as hell I need way more Apps on this damn marketplace. Maybe that will all happen. With the iPhone 5, Windows 8, and Galaxy S 4, all I know is I will be the one winning out in the end.

          1. Milk just came out of my nose! LOL! I have a better idea, how about you head on over to an Apple Fan site, get your validation there because you are not going to get it here…

          2. Milk coming out your nose; a perfect description of yourself.

          3. Yes it does, means I have a sense of humor… Please go write your lengthy novels elsewhere! :)

          4. A sense a humor. How does one describe a sense of humor. One might say it has to do with wit, raunchiness, or sarcasm. There has been many intakes on what is considered good humor, and I don’t mean the ice cream. This can date all the way back in the the 1500’s where the roots of some ancient rumor can be found. England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a “bone-house” and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they thought they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the “graveyard shift”) to listen for the bell, thus, someone could be “saved by the bell” or was considered a “dead ringer.”

            You may think that you have a sense of humor, or comedy zing to your shoes. But perhaps you don’t know the true meaning of what it really is. Comedy may be divided into multiple genres based on the source of humor, the method of delivery, and the context in which it is delivered. The different forms often overlap, and most comedy can fit into multiple genres. Some of the sub-genres of comedy are farce, comedy of manners,burlesque, and satire.

            Satire, in case your aren’t aware – has a common feature of strong irony or sarcasm. Sarcasm has been related to being afraid of the truth and an underlying emotional attitude in which the co-existing contradictory impulses (like your hate) derive from a common source and are thus held to be interdependent. In your case, could be easily related to cowardice.

            And for you to discredit anything I say because of it’s length is nonsense. It goes to show how Darwinism has taken affect on you as an individual. Lack of comprehension is okay in my book, but when you ask “why is he a successful marketer and I’m a DJ?”, the answer should be obvious.

          5. Alexa, no need to be passive aggressive here. Your senseless babbling about personal ideals has no bearing on this thread which is solely about Samsung planning their appeal. Please reread and stay on focus. I know it’s hard being an apple fan and all, but try to maintain your composure in these trying times.

          6. If you didn’t notice, a majority of the content in my posts was copy and pasted. Google trolling, then google filibuster. :)

    2. Very well spoken JMcGee :)

  18. I have started a topic on the forums here to try and look at each and every device,patent, and infringement. I could sure use a lot of help, because there is way too much there for even, oh…say 9 people to go over.

    Anyways, pop on over to http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/607143-samsung-v-apple-verdict-teardown.html and start looking into any details you can find!


    1. Very important so it required all caps? That was some breaking news for sure. And yeah, people who buy apple products are “loosers” for sure. There have been successful android phones with non removable batteries like the RAZR,.

      1. you forgot the Maxx……

  20. There were lot of similar product designs like the iphone, except it was made way before the iPhone was created. IMO, apple feels threaten by the way competitors catching up thus patent the design that was not theirs in the first place.

    1. Exactly… Samsung had slides depicting touchscreen phones with rounded corners and grids of icons prior to the iPhone
      (do a search for “Samsung F700”) , but was barred from presenting them as evidence. Meanwhile, Apple was allowed to present a distorted version of the same information, which conveniently depicted only non-touchscreen phones before the iPhone, and only touchscreen designs after.

  21. I’m still in aw that pinch-to-zoom was upheld in the face of significant prior art. I think this is one of the most important things for Android not to lose. Bounce-back is more of a gimmick than a crucial feature, but pinch-to-zoom is a fundamental feature needed. Initially I was sweating a little over Apple’s claim of this, but after Samsung’s clear display of prior art I thought we were in the clear. Disappointing to say the least.

    1. Not only did the jury disregard evidence of prior art, this juror explicitly admits they “skipped that one” so they could more quickly rule in Apple’s favor:

      Please see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390&repost=1

      The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn’t clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.

      “It didn’t dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day,” Ilagan said. “We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent — what was prior art –because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn’t something out there before Apple.
      “In fact we skipped that one,” Ilagan continued, “so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.” …

  22. Can patents be invalidated…. several of apples’ were obviously granted in error. Some patent examiner was paid off or was high the day the patents were granted.

    1. Patents can be invalidated (and I believe Google is working hard at identifying which ones to target with that kind of move). However, the issue here is that Samsung failed to do so already, and according to my limited legal knowledge, they have to fight the rest of the fight with the patents held as valid.

      I don’t know how much its possible, but I see the best thing for Samsung being the proof that the jury quite clearly ignored rules (not allowed to talk to press, not following guidelines regarding damages) and fight for a mistrial, everyone go back to square one and start all over again. It’s extremely unlikely to happen, especially considering how unjust the trial has been so far, but that is what would be best for Samsung and Android both.

  23. Since apple is profiting off of my fascinate, how do I go about getting a refund from apple? I didn’t think it was an iphone and only bought it because it was made by Samsung and ran android.

  24. now take off 25% for the statment by the jury saying they wanted to punish Samsung although the rules stated they were to only compansate not punish. then another 50% for the number brand loyalty and android fans. now were at approx $300,000,000 then factor in Samsung’s patents they dident even feel like looking at is say cut that in half we have $150,000,000

    1. then drop that in half for the prior art now $75,000,000 and that sounds like a reasonable settlement for this type of case saying if they had acctully lost at all if they had a fair trial.

  25. Nice racist photo of the Korean company with yellow/brown skin and Apple with pale white hippy skin LOL.

  26. interesting

  27. Why couldn’t we have that Australian judge? He was cool. =.D

  28. Update? Where’s the update (complete list, jury instructions)?

  29. This is a fucking joke. Samsung will appeal to a court and a judge with half a brain. The majority of the patents are garbage patents with plenty of prior art presented. Apple can go burn. Steve Jobs is dead and I do truly hope his soul is in constant torment in the special part of hell that he is in.

  30. In light of their loss to Apple in the trial, Samsung’s marketing team has come up with a new tagline for the Galaxy S smartphone: “Samsung Galaxy S, the ‘fake Rolex’ of smartphones”.

  31. The FIRST appeals argument should be about the obvious and serious JURY MISCONDUCT that they have already admitted to. There may well be NO bans, at least for quite a while.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Handsets