| 
 The verdict covers 13 older Samsung devices that a previous jury 
found were among 26 Samsung products that infringed Apple patents. 
 The previous jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion. But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh 
reduced the damages to $640 million after ruling that jury miscalculated the 
amount owed on 13 devices and ordered a new trial.
 
 Apple had asked for $380 million, arguing Samsung's copying cost it a 
significant amount of sales. Samsung countered that it owed only $52 million 
because the features at issue weren't the reasons most consumers chose to buy 
Samsung's devices instead of Apple's.
 
 Samsung said it would appeal both verdicts.
 
 "For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money," Apple 
spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. "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."
 
 A third trial is scheduled for March to consider Apple's claims that Samsung's 
newest devices such as the popular Galaxy S III on the market also copied 
Apple's technology.
 
 Apple and Samsung are the world's two biggest smartphone makers. The bitter 
rivals have been waging a global battle for supremacy of the $300 billion 
worldwide market. The size of the award didn't faze Wall Street or harm or help 
either company's financial fortunes in any significant way.
 Samsung reported it had $47 billion in cash at the end of September and racked 
up $247.5 billion in revenue last year. Apple has $147 billion of cash on hand 
and took in $170.9 billion in revenue last year.
 
 "We understood that the money wasn't really an issue," said juror Barry 
Goldman-Hall. "This was about the integrity of the patent process."
 
 Goldman-Hall, 60, of San Jose was one of two men and six women on the jury, 
which was tasked only with determining damages.
 Apple has argued in courts, government tribunals and regulatory 
agencies around the world that Samsung's Android-based phones copy vital iPhone 
features. Samsung is fighting back with its own complaints that some key Apple 
patents are invalid and Apple has copied Samsung's technology.
 Samsung lawyer William Price argued Apple is misconstruing the breadth of its 
patents to include such things as basic rectangle shape of most smartphones.
 
 "Apple doesn't own beautiful and sexy," Price told the San Jose jury.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
 
			Apple attorney William Lee told the jury that Samsung used Apple's 
			technology to lift it from an also-ran in the smartphone market 
			three years ago to the world's biggest seller of them today.
 			"Apple can never get back to where it should have been in 2010," Lee 
			told the jury Tuesday at the conclusion of the weeklong trial.
 			The fight in San Jose is particularly contentious. The courtroom is 
			a 15-minute drive from Apple's Cupertino headquarters, and several 
			prospective jurors were dismissed because of their ties to the 
			company.
 			The three jurors who discussed the verdict outside court said 
			Apple's proximity made no difference in their deliberations.
 			"Although Apple is down the street, it's a global company just like 
			Samsung," jury forewoman Colleen Allen said. "I have a Samsung 
			television and refrigerator and an Apple computer. I like both 
			companies."
 			Allen, 36, of Aromas, is an emergency room nurse who served nearly 
			eight years in the Navy, including a posting in Afghanistan.
 			"If we didn't award Apple much, we're saying it's OK to infringe 
			patents," Allen said.
 			The South Korea-based Samsung has twice sought to stop the trial, 
			accusing Apple on Tuesday of unfairly trying to inflame patriotic 
			passions by urging jurors to help protect American companies from 
			overseas competitors. The judge denied Samsung's request for a 
			mistrial, but did reread an instruction ordering jurors to put aside 
			their dislikes and biases in deciding the case.
 			On Wednesday, Samsung again demanded a halt to the trial after the 
			U.S. Patent and Trademark Office told Apple it was planning to 
			invalidate a patent protecting the "pinch-to-zoom" feature at issue 
			in the jury's deliberation. The judge ordered more briefing while 
			declining to stop the trial. [Associated 
			Press; PAUL ELIAS] Copyright 2013 The Associated 
			Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
			
			 
			 |