While this might seem a lot, we would have thought that it represented a huge win for Samsung, which could have faced a bill of $2 billion if Apple had got its way. Remember that Samsung had expected to pay something for the patents, it just did not want to pay the $2 billion that Apple was insisting it got.
But this morning it seems that the Tame Apple Press is packed full of stories claiming that Apple had won and Samsung was moaning about the state of the US jury system had now it was going to appeal.
Ubergizmo said that it seemed that "Samsung's pockets have been hit yet again due to the legal ramifications of their patent case with Apple, where a federal jury performed a recalculation on the amount that Samsung needs to pay Apple".
Ars Technica reported how Samsung was insisting that even six percent of what Apple wanted was too much,
" Of course we're pleased that the jury awarded Apple six percent of what they were asking for. But even that can't stand, because Apple kept out all the real world evidence and didn't produce anything to substitute for it, so you have a verdict that's unsupported by evidence—and that's just one of its problems. In post-trial motions and on appeal, we will ask the judge and the federal circuit to cut the six percent verdict to zero, which is where it should end," one un-named Samsung lawyer was reported to be saying.
This would suggest that Samsung would appeal the settlement and the war would continue, something we do not think is that likely. The rest of the evidence from this case seemed to indicate that Samsung had a jury which was on its side and actually listened to the evidence.
Thomas Dunham, a retired IBM supervisor from San Martin who had the only tech and patent expertise on the jury told the Mercury News that the case was decided on the evidence that was presented to it.
Jurors said they went back and forth on the damages claims, and simply did not agree with Apple's view that it was entitled to more than $2 billion for patent violations. Samsung had urged the jurors to award no more than $38 million if they sided with Apple.
"We didn't feel either one was fair and just compensation," Dunham said of Apple and Samsung's vastly different damages figures.
The jury rejected many Apple claims, and decided that no iPad technology was infringed by Samsung's Galaxy tablet. And the jury found that Apple violated one of Samsung's patents, for camera folder technology, and ordered it to pay $158,000 in damages.
For the jury, the deliberations left many unanswered questions, particularly dealing with Google and its central role in the trial.
Dunham said that after Apple revealed that Google had agreed to pay the cost of some of Samsung's legal defence if it lost it "woke us all up".
Dunham said that ultimately it was the consumer who was the loser in all this and he would have liked to see Apple and Samsung find a way to settle. He hoped the verdict encouraged them to pull their fingers out.