It's Apple Inc. (AAPL) versus Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (BC94) (00593)0, round number who knows? starting on Tuesday. In fact, it's actually a retrial of an appeal of a decision made in August of last year. Will Samsung end up paying more or less than what the judge originally ordered in a patent trial the company lost against Apple?
Apple tries for $1 billion repeat
Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Fortune reports that Tuesday's retrial is in connection with a decision in Apple Inc. (AAPL)'s favor which was made in August 2012. A judge ruled that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (BC94) (00593)0 should have to pay Apple $1 billion for violating the company's patents.
In March of this year, however, the judge vacated $450 million of that award, ruling that the jury which had awarded the $1 billion didn't calculate the damages correctly. She decided that a new trial was in order to determine exactly how muchaSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (BC94) (00593)0 should pay Apple Inc. (AAPL). It is this retrial which starts on Tuesday.
Will Samsung pay more or less to Apple?
According to Elmer-DeWitt, many experts believe thataSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (BC94) (00593)0 will have to pay even less than the $450 million which was left on its penalty. However, he notes that the decision could easily go the other way and Samsung could end up paying even more than $1 billion.
This whole mess just gets more confusing by the day asaApple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung can't keep their grievances out of court. Apparently Samsung could have to pay the full $1.05 billion award which isn't even part of this trial.
The jury was confused
It's easy to see why the judge decided that the jury messed up their calculations in the original trial. Apparently they had a 20-page document to fill out. Too bad the jury wasn't filled with professional mathematicians and lawyers. They would have been the only ones who might have been able to navigate such a complicated document successfully.
Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents reports that Samsung's lawyers want a document that's almost as complicated for this new trial as well. Apple Inc. (AAPL), however, wants a one-page form that's much easier for the average juror to understand. The judge has agreed to let the jury use the one-page form this time around. Maybe this time they'll be able to understand it well enough to get the numbers right.
-By Michelle Jones