The Motley Fool Previous Page

Apple Wins Big -- Cue Samsung's Appeals

Anders Bylund (TMF Zahrim)
August 26, 2012

The smartphone world has been on pins and needles for the past couple of weeks. Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) and Samsung crossed legal swords in a California District Court, sparks flying sky-high at every slash and riposte. The case was pivotal, not only to the Apple-Samsung rivalry but also to the future of patents, innovation, and competition in America.

What's the big deal?
Patent lawsuits can make or break a company, and I don't think the "too big to fail" principle applies here. Memory-chip maker Micron Technology (Nasdaq: MU  ) would have been in serious trouble if Rambus (Nasdaq: RMBS  ) had won its decade-long patent and antitrust suit against the company, hit by billion-dollar damages and other sanctions. But that case went the other way, and now Rambus teeters on the brink of extinction instead.

The jury deliberations in the Rambus-Micron case dragged on for weeks as the jurors sorted through complex technical questions. I expected nothing less from the Apple-Samsung jury -- but the case ended after less than three days of jury deliberations.

Apple was awarded $1.05 billion in damages while all of Samsung's counterclaims were slapped down. The rapid verdict only rubs salt in Samsung's considerable wounds. The only salve on Samsung's fresh sores is that the jury found the South Korean company not guilty of unfair competition under antitrust laws.

Apple was asking for as much as $2.5 billion, so it's not a total victory. But it's one of the largest patent-related awards in history, and one that will set strong precedents for upcoming battles.

Sure, Samsung will probably appeal all the way to the Supreme Court in a multiyear process, and by the time it's all over, the products under examination will be used as doorstops and bookends. But early decisions do set the tone for coming procedures, particularly when the courts put so much investigative effort into them.

The jury members made significant mistakes in filling out their 20-page verdict forms, in one instance saying that one of Samsung's devices didn't infringe on a particular patent but awarding $2 million in damages on that claim nonetheless. The foreman asked Judge Lucy Koh to clarify which items needed amendments and then returned an amended version before even getting an answer.

This makes me wonder whether jurors weren't more interested in getting back to their lives than in handing out proper justice, and Samsung will probably attack from this angle in the appeals process.

That's just more reason to believe that this case will bounce around the judicial system for years to come.