Samsung to pay Apple another $290 million for patent infringement

A jury of eight members has come to a verdict in the retrial between Apple and Samsung. The conclusion: Samsung has to pay Apple $290 million for patent infringement.

Apple is probably happier with this number than Samsung is. During the trial, Apple's attorney made clear that it wanted $380 million while Samsung only felt it had to pay $52 million. The outcome of $290 million is far closer to what Apple wanted to take than what Samsung wanted to give. Both sides did manage to agree that Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing devices.

The retrial comes after last year's ruling that Samsung owed Apple a grand total of $1.05 billion, however the retrial was initiated when Judge Lucy Koh determined about $450 million of that needed to be reevaluated. Since Samsung has already been ordered to pay $598 million, adding in the new figure of $290 million brings Apple's monetary awards to $888 million.

This most likely will not be the last we hear about this feud between the two tech giants. The loser today will probably file for appeal, plus another trial is set to begin in 2014 with some newer devices in question for infringement. Unless Samsung is successful with an appeal, it just lost fairly close to $1 billion. That's no easy payment to make, even with these companies often throwing around millions of dollars like it's pocket change.

Source: AllThingsD | Gavel image via Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Xbox One console torn down by iFixit; repairability good

Next Story

Microsoft DNS servers down; Hotmail, Microsoft.com, others down [Update: Microsoft Response]

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Apple doesn't copy, what they do is buy other people's work and call it their own. no innovation there at all. And all companies do this. Innovation is at a halt these days.

Samsung should just stop supplying Apple with its technology. After all many of the Apple products come from Samsung as Apple does not have the ability to manufacture its own things.

nukenorman said,
Samsung should just stop supplying Apple with its technology. After all many of the Apple products come from Samsung as Apple does not have the ability to manufacture its own things.

None of the Apple products are manufactured by Samsung. Samsung don't even manufacture their own products - they're mostly made by OEMs in Shenzhen. Samsung provide some components to Apple. If Samsung refused to supply them Apple would have little difficulty replacing them and Samsung would be the loser.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
Samsung shouldn't have to pay Apple a single dime, and they should fight these false copyright violations!

They're patent violations, not copyright.

I sure wish Samsung would copy the part where I don't have to wait a year to get a current version of the OS on my phone (if I'm lucky).

virtorio said,
I sure wish Samsung would copy the part where I don't have to wait a year to get a current version of the OS on my phone (if I'm lucky).
what so it slows you down and you have to buy a new isheep?

Funny, the 4.3 update Samsung just released for the S3 kills the performance of the device (I know because that's what I have), but people at work with the iPhone 4 (not 4S) seems to be running the latest iOS7 just fine. Take your troll elsewhere.

I just hope Samsung stops trying to be like Apple or trying to win... hope they be more like other companies, they should do quality, slow but sure... do not rush.. there is the Samsung watch garbage as example.

I just cannot wait to stop hearing about this.

What is funny is I can go online and find a lot more products that copied Apple's design. Apple isnt going after them because they are not turning a profit or not to popular.

techbeck said,
I just cannot wait to stop hearing about this.

What is funny is I can go online and find a lot more products that copied Apple's design. Apple isnt going after them because they are not turning a profit or not to popular.

Because it makes a lot of business sense to sue a company which wouldn't have the funds to pay up....

Apple does however send out a lot of cease and desist orders to said small companies.

Of course this was going to happen. There is a clear difference between being inspired by someone and blatantly copying someone. Samsung blatantly copied and got caught.

webeagle12 said,
and when Apple copies, its usually ok with everyone

Who says it's ok with everyone? Apple has on numerous occasions infringed on products and services of other companies. They were sued and had to pay.

stevan said,

Who says it's ok with everyone? Apple has on numerous occasions infringed on products and services of other companies. They were sued and had to pay.

I think it is the Apple fans really. They are the ones upset with Samsung and bash Samsung as much as they can. But it is ok with them when Apple copies.

techbeck said,

I think it is the Apple fans really. They are the ones upset with Samsung and bash Samsung as much as they can. But it is ok with them when Apple copies.

I don't know, does that make the jury apple fans as well?

I'm an Apple fan for sure, I like their products but I can only afford an iPhone. I'll be the first to admit Apple has also copied companies throughout their history. But no one can deny that the iPhone reshaped the smartphones and iPad did the same with the tablets.

Personally it's people that constantly suggest that everything Apple comes out, they market as revolutionary and invented, when Apple doesn't do such thing.

stevan said,

I don't know, does that make the jury apple fans as well?

I'm an Apple fan for sure, I like their products but I can only afford an iPhone. I'll be the first to admit Apple has also copied companies throughout their history. But no one can deny that the iPhone reshaped the smartphones and iPad did the same with the tablets.

Personally it's people that constantly suggest that everything Apple comes out, they market as revolutionary and invented, when Apple doesn't do such thing.

I am not denying anything here and not talking about the jury. Was replying to someone's "everyone" comment. But I think this wasn't mainly about patent infringement and mainly to stop/stall Android and Samsung. Apple has had it out for Android for years and so had Jobs.

techbeck said,

I am not denying anything here and not talking about the jury. Was replying to someone's "everyone" comment. But I think this wasn't mainly about patent infringement and mainly to stop/stall Android and Samsung. Apple has had it out for Android for years and so had Jobs.

I think people at Apple are smart enough to know that a simple lawsuit will not stop Android. They won't magically remove tens of millions of devices out there. I think this is more about copying in general and Apple showing that if someone copies them, they will go after them in courts.

techbeck said,

I think it is the Apple fans really. They are the ones upset with Samsung and bash Samsung as much as they can. But it is ok with them when Apple copies.


Can you list a product Apple copied?

Jockulation said,

The Maglock

If you're talking about the magsafe (power connectors for their laptops) I don't see how you would think it's copied since Apple owns the patent and I've never seen a laptop that uses it (short of the Surface which is allowed because of the cross licensing agreement between Apple and MS)

Just because they "own" the patent to the Magsafe (Maglock), doesn't mean they didn't copy it.

It's been in use in Asiatic countries for over a decade, if not more on things such as kettles.

techbeck said,
I think it is the Apple fans really.

Hey, I hate Apple with the fiery passion of a thousand burning souls.

Yes, I lived through the "I'm a mac" ad era. No, I will never forgive apple for trying to associate wintel computer users with the nerd stereotype. Yes, I have issues.

BUT, Samsung really did copy Apple on this. Their first Galaxys just cloned the look of the original iphones. At least, that's how I see it in my biased - but not biased toward Apple - opinion.

AWilliams87 said,

Can you list a product Apple copied?

Since you asked, iOS 7 has several "borrowed" UI elements. I am not saying this is a good or bad thing. I am only answering your question.

Jockulation said,
Just because they "own" the patent to the Magsafe (Maglock), doesn't mean they didn't copy it.

It's been in use in Asiatic countries for over a decade, if not more on things such as kettles.


I tried really hard to pull this up, but I couldn't find a reference. Can you supply a link about them copying it?

You won't find an article about them copying it.

Simple fact is, they've (Magesafe/Maglock) been in use for decades prior to Apple getting a patent on them.

stevan said,
Of course this was going to happen. There is a clear difference between being inspired by someone and blatantly copying someone. Samsung blatantly copied and got caught.

And Apple have never copied anything from others. NOT AT ALL.

Exynos said,

And Apple have never copied anything from others. NOT AT ALL.

That's why I said this earlier:

I'm an Apple fan for sure, I like their products but I can only afford an iPhone. I'll be the first to admit Apple has also copied companies throughout their history. But no one can deny that the iPhone reshaped the smartphones and iPad did the same with the tablets.

You forgot your capslock on again.

Jockulation said,
You won't find an article about them copying it.

Simple fact is, they've (Magesafe/Maglock) been in use for decades prior to Apple getting a patent on them.


Uh huh.

Exynos said,

And Apple have never copied anything from others. NOT AT ALL.

Samsung replicates hardware products flat out. Apple doesn't do that. Samsung has done so with TVs, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and cell phones (both smart and dumb).

stevan said,

That's why I said this earlier:

You forgot your capslock on again.


No, i did not forgot my caps lock on. However, i'm fine that both Apple and Samsung are copying others.

The thing i have a problem with is that Samsung gets sued by Apple into oblivion for copying something small they got inspired over while Apple copy and steals others works every day and patents others works and ideas and they goes on a suing spree on others after that and on the same time gets away from anything they gets sued for just because it would hurt USA's money income if Apple would lose to any big cases there. Therefor Apple doesn't lose any of those cases in USA, because the state in the USA defends Apple that way.

Not only that, but if Apple would lose this case, Samsung would for sure sue Apple into oblivion 50000000 times for hurting their income on stupid patent trolling. Apple would lose so much money on that then that USA would get really hurt money wise that way.

Exynos said,

No, i did not for got my caps lock on. However, i'm fine that both Apple and Samsung are copying others.

The thing i have a problem with is that Samsung gets sued by Apple into oblivion for copying something small they got inspired over while Apple copy and steals others works every day and patents others works and ideas and they goes on a suing spree on others and on the same times gets away from anything they gets sued for just because it would hurt USA's money income if Apple would lose to any big cases there. Therefor Apple doesn't lose any of those cases in USA, because the state in USA defends Apple that way.

Not only that, but if Apple would lose this case, Samsung would for sure sue Apple into oblivion for hurting their income on stupid patent trolling. Apple would lose so much money on that then that USA would get really hurt money wise that way.


You can't patent something which has "prior art". If the patent is granted, and prior art of found there after, the patent becomes invalid. So your claim about them patenting "others works and ideas" seems very unbelievable.

EDIT: Also, Samsung did and does try to sue Apple wherever it could, especially in Korea, and has lost almost every time, if not every time.

Exynos said,

No, i did not forgot my caps lock on. However, i'm fine that both Apple and Samsung are copying others.

The thing i have a problem with is that Samsung gets sued by Apple into oblivion for copying something small they got inspired over while Apple copy and steals others works every day and patents others works and ideas and they goes on a suing spree on others after that and on the same time gets away from anything they gets sued for just because it would hurt USA's money income if Apple would lose to any big cases there. Therefor Apple doesn't lose any of those cases in USA, because the state in the USA defends Apple that way.

Not only that, but if Apple would lose this case, Samsung would for sure sue Apple into oblivion 50000000 times for hurting their income on stupid patent trolling. Apple would lose so much money on that then that USA would get really hurt money wise that way.

That's not how the lawsuit system works. Not even sure where you got that idea. Apple didn't sue Samsung into oblivion, this settlement is nothing compared to what either samsung or apple make.

First it's the patent system that's broken, now it's the law system that's broken. Is there anything you won't hide behind?

AWilliams87 said,

Uh huh.

Whether or not you believe me is beside the point. Simple fact is, Apple did not invent Magsafe/Maglock. They simply took an existing product and patented it.

AWilliams87 said,

You can't patent something which has "prior art". If the patent is granted, and prior art of found there after, the patent becomes invalid. So your claim about them patenting "others works and ideas" seems very unbelievable.

EDIT: Also, Samsung did and does try to sue Apple wherever it could, especially in Korea, and has lost almost every time, if not every time.


So, explain this to me. How did Apple manage to patent the MagSafe contact when it was not their idea or their innovation?

And what about this thing that is even more ridiculous. Apple is suing others for the 'slide-to-unlock' feature in USA when it's been deemed invalid everywhere else that case have been up to: http://seekingalpha.com/articl...k-patent-for-the-third-time

Why are Apple allowed to sue others over something Neonode have patents / prior art to and owns?

So no, your post is far from the truth on how things gets done in reality.

Jockulation said,

Whether or not you believe me is beside the point. Simple fact is, Apple did not invent Magsafe/Maglock. They simply took an existing product and patented it.


Perhaps you and Exynos need to read this: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/

You cannot patent and existing product, so it's hard for me to believe you on this one. You still may be right however, I haven't seen proof of it being so though.

Exynos said,

So, explain this to me. How did Apple manage to patent the MagSafe contact when it was not their idea or their innovation?

And what about this thing that is even more ridiculous. Apple is suing others for the 'slide-to-unlock' feature in USA when it's been deemed invalid everywhere else that case have been up to: http://seekingalpha.com/articl...k-patent-for-the-third-time

Why are Apple allowed to sue others over something Neonode have patents / prior art to and owns?

So no, your post is far from the truth on how things gets done in reality.


Can you provide a link to Magsafe being copied, then patented by Apple? I have not been able to find it. I typed into both Google and Bing "'apple copied magsafe'" (with the quotation marks) and got 0 results.

AWilliams87 said,

Can you provide a link to Magsafe being copied, then patented by Apple? I have not been able to find it. I typed into both Google and Bing "'apple copied magsafe'" (with the quotation marks) and got 0 results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe

Where this was said: MagSafe works exactly the same as the magnetic power connectors that many deep fryers and Japanese countertop cooking appliances from the early 2000s have in order to avoid spilling their dangerously hot contents.

So Apple stole the idea behind it and patented it.

EDIT: Someone said this on the Engadget webpage about the same case.

"For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money. 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."

Innovation and hard work? You mean the innovation and hard work others have put in so APPLE can COPY and STEAL the ideas, patent them, and claim them as their own? The majority of the patents used in the case had prior art, the fact that judge Koh and the jury ignored them (the jury was told to ignore them by the jury foreman) is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention the fact that the entire trial should be retried due to that same foreman pushing the jury in Apple's favor by telling them to ignore the instructions, voting a certain way, and pushing the jury to "punish" Samsung to the maximum allowable by law regardless if the devices infringed or not... It's truly sad that this is what is considered "justice" these days...

Exynos said,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe

Where this was said: MagSafe works exactly the same as the magnetic power connectors that many deep fryers and Japanese countertop cooking appliances from the early 2000s have in order to avoid spilling their dangerously hot contents.

So Apple stole the idea behind it and patented it.

EDIT: Someone said this on the Engadget webpage about the same case.

"For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money. 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."

Innovation and hard work? You mean the innovation and hard work others have put in so APPLE can COPY and STEAL the ideas, patent them, and claim them as their own? The majority of the patents used in the case had prior art, the fact that judge Koh and the jury ignored them (the jury was told to ignore them by the jury foreman) is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention the fact that the entire trial should be retried due to that same foreman pushing the jury in Apple's favor by telling them to ignore the instructions, voting a certain way, and pushing the jury to "punish" Samsung to the maximum allowable by law regardless if the devices infringed or not... It's truly sad that this is what is considered "justice" these days...


Are you talking about magnetic connectors as a whole? Apple didn't simply patent a magnetic power connector. You can make a toaster now with that type of connector. As a matter of fact, Microsoft filed a patent for a magnetic power connector for mobile devices of their own last year. What they patented was Magsafe, which is a specific implementation of a magnetic power connector.

Exynos said,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe

Where this was said: MagSafe works exactly the same as the magnetic power connectors that many deep fryers and Japanese countertop cooking appliances from the early 2000s have in order to avoid spilling their dangerously hot contents.

So Apple stole the idea behind it and patented it.

EDIT: Someone said this on the Engadget webpage about the same case.

"For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money. 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."

Innovation and hard work? You mean the innovation and hard work others have put in so APPLE can COPY and STEAL the ideas, patent them, and claim them as their own? The majority of the patents used in the case had prior art, the fact that judge Koh and the jury ignored them (the jury was told to ignore them by the jury foreman) is absolutely ridiculous, not to mention the fact that the entire trial should be retried due to that same foreman pushing the jury in Apple's favor by telling them to ignore the instructions, voting a certain way, and pushing the jury to "punish" Samsung to the maximum allowable by law regardless if the devices infringed or not... It's truly sad that this is what is considered "justice" these days...

Yes deep fryers have a magnetic power connector. That is a specific application, just as Apples MagSafe is a specific implementation for charging a laptop battery, with visual notification via led lights for a full, or non full charge.

If anything I would say they were inspired by the magnetic connector, and adapted the method to their specific requirements, which you can do, and patent.

Edited by Binary, Nov 22 2013, 2:17am :

AWilliams87 said,

Can you list a product Apple copied?

Good grief! Where to start? Well, they stole their own name. The company name Apple belonged to the Beatles who sued Apple Computer in California court and won. As part of the settlement, Apple were forbidden to do anything in the music business without paying money to the Beatles. Just how much money Yoko Ono made from iTunes isn't clear, but she probably made more than Steve Jobs.

Apple stole the concept of the mouse-driven GUI from Xerox.

They stole the name "Macintosh" which was the code-name used by Microsoft. The Macintosh is the 'sweetest apple" and it grows in Washington State. The Apple internal codename was SAND.

All of this inside their first decade of business.

They copied their product naming convention from Japan's NNT DoCoMo's iMode product line. Jobs thought putting a small "i" before the product name was cool so he just lifted the idea.

Last month they copied Microsoft in eliminating skeuomorphism from their software designs. The list is long.

Major_Plonquer said,

Good grief! Where to start? Well, they stole their own name. The company name Apple belonged to the Beatles who sued Apple Computer in California court and won. As part of the settlement, Apple were forbidden to do anything in the music business without paying money to the Beatles. Just how much money Yoko Ono made from iTunes isn't clear, but she probably made more than Steve Jobs.

Apple stole the concept of the mouse-driven GUI from Xerox.

They stole the name "Macintosh" which was the code-name used by Microsoft. The Macintosh is the 'sweetest apple" and it grows in Washington State. The Apple internal codename was SAND.

All of this inside their first decade of business.

They copied their product naming convention from Japan's NNT DoCoMo's iMode product line. Jobs thought putting a small "i" before the product name was cool so he just lifted the idea.

Last month they copied Microsoft in eliminating skeuomorphism from their software designs. The list is long.


I asked for a product they copied, but you came up with they stole the name "Macintosh", Apple and the "i" convention? I'm talking about an actual product they sell.

As the the GUI: I knew someone would bring this up. PARC Xerox was a research division that had many concepts; they didn't actually sell those computing stuff. So when Jobs was invited to the facility (in return for shares of Apple bought by Xerox) and saw the GUI, he actually license it from Xerox, similar to how Microsoft license some of the Kinect's camera patents from PrimeSense. You wouldn't call that stealing would you?

iOS 7 = Windows Phone.
Panorama + Notification Bar + Folders = Android
Reject calls with SMS = Android
iMaps = Google Maps (Opps)
Fingerprint scanning (Cracked) = PCs (Safe)
Multitasking = webOS
Copy/paste = WinMobile
Ping = Facebook, Twitter
iPad = Samsung´s Photoframe
iPad Mini = Dell Streak
iPod = Creative Technology and Walkman
‘iPhone' name = Linksys' iPhone®
Original iPhone = Samsung's S700 Mp3 Player
iPhone 4 & 4S = LG's Prada
Pinch to zoom = Samsung
iMessage = BlackBerry Messenger
Siri (Clippy) = Xiaoi Bot + Nuance (MS Clippy).
App Store = Ubuntu Software Center
Bigger Screen = Everybody else
MacBook Air = HP's Sojourn
Macsafe = Asian Crockery
Thunderbolt = Intel
OSX, iOS = Unix
Newton = Psion Series 3, HP 95LX
Apple Logo = Genesis 1:6, 3:6
Aluminum = Cheapest Metal
Plastic = ($$$ Reinforced Polymers)
Security = Buy a new one...

I said actual products, not naming convention or technologies collaborated on together with others. But first, lets first eliminate the ones which make no sense:

Aluminum = Cheapest Metal
Apple Logo = Genesis 1:6, 3:6
Plastic = ($$$ Reinforced Polymers)
Bigger Screen = Everybody else
Security = Buy a new one...
OSX, iOS = Unix
iMaps = Google Maps (Opps)
Fingerprint scanning (Cracked) = PCs (Safe)

Thunderbolt = Intel
Thunderbolt was a technology both Apple and Intel collaborated on together.

Pinch to zoom = Samsung
Samsung didn't create pinch-to-zoom nor owns a patent on it. One of Apple's claim against Samsung was that they copied it from them, not the other way around

MacBook Air = HP's Sojourn
The air didn't copy that at all. Just because it's thin, just doesn't mean if they create their thin laptops, they copied someone else.

iPod = Creative Technology and Walkman
This is like saying they copied others when they created their first iPad or desktop. Makes no sense.

iPad = Samsung´s Photoframe
It's interesting you showed that pic from only the front view. Samsung wasn't the first company to make such a design like that from the front. The frame also had physical buttons on it. Once you turn it from the side or back, however, the similarities disapears: http://photos.appleinsider.com/samsungvsapple.004.082411.jpg

Prototypes of the iPad existed before Samsungs photoframe product. That came out in court. Also, they were different products to begin with. The problem with Samsung is not that they copy a trash cans design, for example, to make a smartphone. It's that the copied someone elses smartphone design to make their own smartphone; especially when the one you copied was the most successful at the time. If they copied a trash can for the design of their smartphone, that is not a problem

The same applies to this: Original iPhone = Samsung's S700 Mp3 Player

iPhone' name = Linksys' iPhone
Jobs didn't copied the "i" convention from Linksys. That one is actually coincidental.

iPhone 4 & 4S = LG's Prada
This one is interesting, because a researcher at LG actually claimed Apple copied their design. However, one of the things that came out in court was Apple's R&D timeframe and design concepts. Both devices were under development at the same time. But it was the iPhone which had the first prototype. LG's prada mockup actually came out after, although prada came to the market first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...ilpage&v=CW0DUg63lqU[/b]
I wonder do you really understand that Steve jobs quote. They don't try to copy or mimic actual physical products made by others.

I realize you guys are joking, but that'd be the worst thing ever. Apple's not going to care, it'll just be the job of some unfortunate souls to count all this.