在經(jīng)過為期三天的研究之后，上周五，陪審團(tuán)裁定蘋果在與三星的專利糾紛中獲勝，認(rèn)定三星侵犯蘋果申訴5項(xiàng)專利之中的兩項(xiàng)。蘋果隨后發(fā)表一份聲明，感謝陪審團(tuán)，并暗示將繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗，捍衛(wèi)公司的創(chuàng)新產(chǎn)品。 蘋果在起訴對方時(shí)，要求三星賠償22億美元損失。但陪審團(tuán)裁定，蘋果因3項(xiàng)專利遭三星侵權(quán)獲賠1.196億美元，遠(yuǎn)低于這家位于加利福尼亞州的公司提出的、為總共5項(xiàng)專利遭侵權(quán)索賠的20億美元賠償金。 陪審團(tuán)認(rèn)定，三星侵犯了蘋果的“快速連接（quick links）”專利，專利號為U.S. Patent 5,946,647;以及蘋果的“滑動(dòng)解鎖（Slide to Unlock）”專利，專利號為U.S. Patent 8,046,721。對于蘋果提出三星所侵犯的其背景同步、文本預(yù)測和全局搜索三項(xiàng)專利，法庭認(rèn)定三星并未侵犯這三項(xiàng)專利，因?yàn)楦鶕?jù)三星的辯護(hù)，這家韓國電子集團(tuán)在這兩項(xiàng)技術(shù)上主要依賴于谷歌(Google)的支持。 1.196億美元賠償金中絕大部分——約9900萬美元——是針對647專利“快速連接”。 申訴5項(xiàng)專利中僅2項(xiàng)獲得支持，對于蘋果來說這是很小的勝利，但是兩項(xiàng)專利意味著每個(gè)侵權(quán)設(shè)備，都需要支付6.4美元的專利使用費(fèi)。賠償主要涉及到的產(chǎn)品是三星2012年5月推出的Galaxy SIII旗艦機(jī)。三星Galaxy SIII將受到很大沖擊，涉5200萬美元賠償。對Galaxy tab沒有影響。 蘋果在聲明中稱：“對于陪審團(tuán)和法庭的工作，我們深表感謝。今天的裁決再一次重申了世界各地法院認(rèn)定的結(jié)果：三星故意盜取了我們的想法，并且抄襲了我們的產(chǎn)品。蘋果將繼續(xù)努力捍衛(wèi)自己的辛勤工作，正是這些努力讓我們帶來了像iPhone這樣令人喜愛的產(chǎn)品，我們的員工將繼續(xù)獻(xiàn)身獻(xiàn)身設(shè)計(jì)并為用戶呈遞好的作品。” 三星也不甘示弱地拿到了賠償 該陪審團(tuán)還裁定，在三星聲稱的2項(xiàng)專利中，部分iPhone和iPod產(chǎn)品侵犯了其中一項(xiàng)，這標(biāo)志著蘋果在自己家門口遭遇了一場罕見的失敗。蘋果只須支付三星15.84萬美元的賠償金，而此前三星要求的賠償金額達(dá)620萬美元。 上一次兩家公司在加利福尼亞州對簿公堂時(shí)，蘋果曾取得全面勝利。而這次卻不是。 在2012年的那場訴訟中，陪審團(tuán)幾乎完全倒向蘋果，裁決三星侵犯了蘋果另一組智能手機(jī)專利，支付10億美元賠償金，不過這一賠償金額在隨后減少到9.3億美元。 蘋果或?qū)＠謾?quán)指控戰(zhàn)火燒至三星新機(jī) 此前早些時(shí)候，蘋果試圖將三星Galaxy S4納入訴訟范圍，但因?yàn)樵V訟時(shí)限遭法官駁回。但若Galaxy S4和之前產(chǎn)品都涉嫌侵犯了蘋果數(shù)據(jù)監(jiān)測專利，這就意味著蘋果將能夠擴(kuò)大三星的負(fù)債總額。法官尚未裁定蘋果能否擴(kuò)大三星故意侵權(quán)導(dǎo)致的損失范圍，也未明確是否會(huì)對Galaxy S3和其他類似設(shè)備實(shí)行禁售，但任何禁售令都將對三星造成災(zāi)難性后果。 蘋果此前曾在與HTC的專利糾紛中獲勝，美國國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)的認(rèn)定，HTC侵犯數(shù)據(jù)檢測專利，2012年HTC試圖移除這一功能，但最終還是同意與蘋果簽訂許可協(xié)議。圍繞這項(xiàng)專利蘋果也曾起訴摩托羅拉。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文：Verdict Split in Apple v. Samsung,by Rick Merritt

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 三星：除了蘋果這些不算專利的專利，我們都沒抄
• “蘋果你夠了！”谷歌出面為三星撐腰
• 蘋果三星專利訴訟戰(zhàn)火恐波及Android？9seesmc

{pagination} Verdict Split in Apple v. Samsung Rick Merritt SAN JOSE, Calif. – Jurors here awarded Apple a fraction of the patent infringement damages it sought from Samsung, failing to hurt the Korean giant or slow the Android juggernaut, analysts said. The verdict in the second Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case here gives both sides reason to claim victory publicly and feel defeat privately. Apple can claim it won by far the most damages ($119.6 million) and instances of infringement. However, it reaped little more than five percent of the $2.191 billion in the damages it sought -- far less than the $1.05 billion awarded in its first case here 18 months ago -- and the jury found no infringement on two of its five patents in the case. Samsung was awarded damages for Apple infringing one of its patents, but it got an even smaller fraction ($158,400) of the total ($6 million) it sought, and a fraction of the amount awarded to Apple. It was the first decision in the two cases of Apple infringing a Samsung patent. A few shoes have yet to fall in the case. Judge Lucy H. Koh will be asked to grant an injunction against Samsung selling infringing mobile devices in the U.S. That's not widely expected, and in any case Samsung's latest models such as the Galaxy S5 were not at issue in the trial. Jurors found Samsung guilty of willful infringement on the '721 patent on which it awarded just $750,648 in damages. The decision gives Judge Koh the option of increasing those damages up to three fold. On Monday, jurors will be dismissed and get an opportunity to talk publicly about their thinking behind the verdict. It's anyone's guess what the four men and four women on the jury will decide. Before they are let go, they will be asked why they assessed no damages for one Samsung smartphone they decided had infringed, an apparent mistake caught by Apple's attorneys. The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing one of its patents. The full verdict form is below. applesam.pdf In summary, the jury found: All Samsung accused devices infringed Apple's '947 "quick links" patent. No Samsung devices infringed the '959 "universal search" or '414 "background synch" patents. Six Samsung devices infringed Apple's '721 slide-to-unlock patent. The Judge ruled at the start of the case Samsung infringed Apple's '172 "automatic word correction" patent. Apple infringed Samsung's '449 patent on presenting photos and videos. Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University who has been following the case, provided extensive commentary on it: Though this verdict is large by normal standards, it is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple. This amount is less than 10 percent of the amount Apple requested and may not surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case. Apple launched this litigation campaign years ago with aspirations of slowing the meteoric rise of Android phone manufacturers. It has so far failed to do so, and this case won't get it any closer. Overall, this outcome is feels like a defensive victory for Samsung, and not a particularly shocking one. Compared to the first case between these companies, this trial was an uphill battle from the start for Apple. With Google directly involved in developing the allegedly infringing software, Apple's claims that Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone never rang true. Apple's case at trial also bogged down at times in nitty-gritty expert testimony about the patented technology and complex damages calculations. Samsung's partial win on its own counterclaims is icing on the cake, a moral victory against Apple's insistence that it is a peer-less innovator. The focus of this case now shifts to whether Apple can convince Judge Koh to issue an injunction banning the sale of Samsung products found to infringe. So far Apple has been unsuccessful at doing so and, without a sales ban, this case is unlikely to move the needle on the larger battle between Apple and Android. It is also important to remember that no money has changed hands and none will for some time to come, if ever. Samsung appealed Apple's earlier victory and will almost certainly appeal this one as well. Large damages awards in patent cases are reversed quite often post-trial. It's entirely possible that we'll be right back where we started 18 months from now. To the extent it wasn't already apparent, this verdict should suggest to Apple that litigation isn't a very effective means to gain a competitive advantage over Android. Hopefully, Apple will come to that conclusion, end its worldwide patent war, and go back to competing in the marketplace with innovative products. Florian Mueller, an analyst following the mobile patent wars, also commented on the verdict on his blog. "So far, the only feature that Google and its Android device makers have not been able to work around without losing the benefit of the invention is rubberbanding," he wrote. "After more than 50 months of Apple litigation against Android, this fact shows the limits of Apple's intellectual property." Mueller also suggested both this jury and the one in the case 18 months ago may have been too timid in questioning the validity of the patents at issue. At least one of the Apple patents in the first case was successfully challenges at the patent office, he noted.