or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple seeks $2.5 billion from Samsung in patent infringement case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple seeks $2.5 billion from Samsung in patent infringement case

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
Apple seeks to recover $2.5 billion in damages and more than $30 per device sold by Samsung for alleged patent infringement, new court filings reveal.

Apple's claims for damages are revealed in its initial trial brief, filed in court this week ahead of the company's July 30 trial start date with Samsung. As noted by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Apple believes Samsung's alleged infringement has cost Apple $500 million in profits and $25 million in "reasonable royalty damages."

The redacted document also argues that Samsung has been "unjustly enriched" by an undisclosed amount, but that number is presumably $2 billion, which is how Apple arrived at a combined total of $2.525 billion in damages.

The largest part of those damages is related to Samsung's alleged infringement of Apple's design patents. The iPhone maker has asserted that it is entitled to $24 per Samsung device that violates Apple's design patents or trade dress rights.

In comparison, Apple seeks significantly less for its technical software-based patents. The filings reveal Apple believes it is entitled to $2.02 per unit in royalties for the "overscroll bounce" patent, $3.10 for the "scrolling API" patent, and $2.02 for "tap to zoom and navigate."

Samsung Suit


The trial brief also suggests that Apple would rather not collect these royalty payments from Samsung, but would instead prefer that the Korean device maker simply work around Apple's patented inventions.

"Apple looks forward to a trial that will vindicate its intellectual property rights," the filing reads. "Samsung must play by the rules. It must invent its own stuff. Its flagrant and massive infringement must stop."

Mueller, an intellectual property expert, believes that Apple and Samsung will eventually settle their differences out of court. Apple's filing also revealed that the company has offered Samsung a half-cent per standard-essential patent.

"The price for Samsung to pay will be a significant per-unit royalty rate, and it will have to accept restrictions in terms of which Apple patents it's allowed to use and in which ways," he wrote. "Samsung will ultimately get paid for its (standards-essential patents), but the amount will be tiny compared to what Samsung owes Apple if it chooses to license its non-SEPs. That's because Apple's patents make the difference between a $50 phone and a $500 device, while Samsung's patents cover a small part of what a $10 component of such products provides."

In a last-ditch effort to resolve their dispute before the trial begins, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook met with Samsung Vice Chairman Choi Gee-Sung last week. However, the two sides couldn't come to an agreement on patent worth, and the talks were said to have gone nowhere.
post #2 of 73

This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design infringement, etc. And this figure is not even one month of Samsung's  investment expenditure. And final agreed figure will  most certainly be much lesser.

 

It seems Apple is not very serious about damage part. 

post #3 of 73
Samsung. Time to pay the piper.
post #4 of 73

...have a feeling this isn’t about the billions. Rather it seems like the phase #1 of the Samsung distruction....

post #5 of 73

That's it? They've had anemic sales, but Apple could easily get 10x that.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #6 of 73

400

post #7 of 73

That amount should cover the cost to Apple for Samsung's 3G FRAND patents incurred thus far and possibly for the next few years.

post #8 of 73

Remember when Oracle wanted 6 billion for their 'slam dunk' case? ...And ended up with nothing and paying for part of Google's court costs? Yeah, you can ask for anything, whether you get it or not is something else entirely. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #9 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

This amount seems quite less esp considering that it would assume all points in favour of Apple like court ruling all their IP being infringed, Samsung foregoing all their profits from sales of all 19 products which Apple is accusing for design infringement, etc. And this figure is not even one month of Samsung's  investment expenditure. And final agreed figure will  most certainly be much lesser.

 

It seems Apple is not very serious about damage part. 

That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward.  Substantial.

 

I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines.  Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits.   This is a shot at the Android collective... If the strongest can be made to succumb to a a $1Billion+ verdict and sets the price into the 25-50 dollar per device royalty, that pretty much drives the cost of a smartphone/tablet out of the ballpark for the others.  At that point (plus all the Microsoft Royalties Android is burdened with), Windows 8 may be less expensive, and I think that's all Apple is trying to do... Make Android a substantial cost to deliver,  fracturing the potential mass of Android with Win8, and making Apple's ecosystem more valuable.

post #10 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward.  Substantial.

 

I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines.  Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits.   This is a shot at the Android collective...

 

Uhm, no, want they want is for Google, et al. to stop stealing their work and to go invent their own damn smartphone.

post #11 of 73

Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.

post #12 of 73
Likely Won't Happen.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #13 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward.  Substantial.

 

I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines.  Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits.   This is a shot at the Android collective... If the strongest can be made to succumb to a a $1Billion+ verdict and sets the price into the 25-50 dollar per device royalty, that pretty much drives the cost of a smartphone/tablet out of the ballpark for the others.  At that point (plus all the Microsoft Royalties Android is burdened with), Windows 8 may be less expensive, and I think that's all Apple is trying to do... Make Android a substantial cost to deliver,  fracturing the potential mass of Android with Win8, and making Apple's ecosystem more valuable.

 

Especially if Apple are awarded triple damages if Samsung is found to have wilfully infringed.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #14 of 73

Not much money for all the trouble.

Isn´t it?

post #15 of 73

I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 

 

 

If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 


Wow, how cutting edge!

post #16 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBalmer View Post
Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.

 

If your username is any indication, you've never created anything ever, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #17 of 73

"... On the customer side of things, Verizon says that it added 1.2 million retail net customers in the second quarter, 888,000 of which were postpaid. The helped Verizon see a 4.9 percent year over year increase in customers, finishing Q2 with 94.4 million retail customers. ..."

 

"... AT&T announced on Tuesday that it added 1.3 million total wireless net additional customers, and that it saw gains in every customer category. Sales of tablets and tethering plans saw 496,000 net additions, reaching a total of 6.3 million — up more than 50 percent from a year ago. ...105.2 million customers"

 

Not sure Apples to Apples comparison, but AT&T seems to be on a net higher growth path and had a greater sales and per cent share of iPhones.  Of course, AT&T is beneficiary of $0 iPhone 3GS as well as 4 and 4S.  This advantage should evaporate in Sept.

 

My guess this won't hold with anticipate summer slump of iPhones but an explosion in fall 2012.

 

post #18 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBalmer View Post

Ehhhh who still gives a hoot about this copyright infringement nonsense? What a waste of time.

 

 

Yeah!

 

For people who survive copying others it is a Waste indeed.

For those whose survival is dependent on their creativity IT is vital!

post #19 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by airnerd View Post

I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 

 

 

If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 


Wow, how cutting edge!

 

 

Please, lets be grown up here.

Apple has the right to protect its creations.

It´s easy to create, Just DO your work.

Microsoft is doing it.

Why Samsung wouldNOT?

post #20 of 73

google's business model is based on selling your data to people, do you think they'll be original and invent their own operating system without copying off of apple?

post #21 of 73

Am I the only one that thinks $30 per device sounds excessive? And they're only offering half of one penny back? I realize this is non-standards essential and they can basically charge whatever they want. Then again, maybe they're aiming high with the thought it will probably get bumped down a bit through this whole process anyway.

post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyourownthing View Post
google's business model is based on selling your data to people, do you think they'll be original and invent their own operating system without copying off of apple?

 

Does Chrome OS copy anything from OS X or Windows?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #23 of 73

Forget the mediation just get on with the court case so we can settle this once and for all.

 

If Samsung loses I suggest they immediately stop supplying Apple with any components whatsoever and just leave Apple to it.

post #24 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Forget the mediation just get on with the court case so we can settle this once and for all.

 

If Samsung loses I suggest they immediately stop supplying Apple with any components whatsoever and just leave Apple to it.

 

So that Apple can sue them for breach of contract and Samsung can cut off a major revenue stream? Now that's some pretty fancy thinkin' you're doin' there.

post #25 of 73
$25 billion sounds more reasonable to me look at their designs and their profits from those designs.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #26 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

$25 billion sounds more reasonable to me look at their designs and their profits from those designs.

Way too low.  Try 250 Billion.

post #27 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by airnerd View Post

I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 

 

 

If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 

 

Coke didn't invent the bottle, but no one else can use the curved bottle. No other car company can produce a design like the Mustang. Again, at the time the iPhone was released (and patented), it was very different than every other phone available and not by just the rectangular shape.

 

You can't let competitors piggy back on your designs.

post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

Am I the only one that thinks $30 per device sounds excessive? And they're only offering half of one penny back? I realize this is non-standards essential and they can basically charge whatever they want. Then again, maybe they're aiming high with the thought it will probably get bumped down a bit through this whole process anyway.

Its all relative. Apple would prefer not to have to go there but if Samsung blatantly copies their products Apple can set the value exactly where they want. Personally I don't think it is excessive at all.  

post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

So that Apple can sue them for breach of contract and Samsung can cut off a major revenue stream? Now that's some pretty fancy thinkin' you're doin' there.

 

Ok once the current contract expires then. I'm sure Samsung will find other revenue streams. Apple only buys it's components from Samsung because they presumably are the best and they can't source the same quality elsewhere. Let's see how well the iPad does with second rate screens from LG or whoever. That's what I would do anyway and I think it's what Samsung will do. Why would you continue to sell your industry leading inventions to your arch enemy.

post #30 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by airnerd View Post

I'm so glad Apple didn't invent the car.  They would be suing everyone for things like clear windshield with curve, door handles, 4 tires, and engine under a hood, the colors red or black or white, four doors as well as two, the use of chrome accents anywhere...you get the idea. 

 

 

If it is square and around 10", then it MUST be an exact copy and we must sue.  I'm all for protecting what is yours, but this reeks of "we are out of new ideas so we better protect our old ones".  Rather than leaving the others to copy the old stuff and making something fresh and new, Apple is starting to put out the same stuff with minor differences, so they have to protect the look of the items.  Can't wait for the iPhone 5 to look like a stretched version of the 4/4S. 


Wow, how cutting edge!

People seem to forget that patents have an expiration date.  I actually think that the person who first made the windshield curved could very well have been entitled to a patent, depending on the advantages it affords.  Pneumatic tires, certainly, were a fantastic invention, developed in 1887, and the inventor probably should have been entitled to exclusivity for some amount of time.

Based on your second comment, that Apple is defending its old ideas because it is out of new ones, I think your real gripe is with the term of most patents. (20 years from filing).

post #31 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

Ok once the current contract expires then. I'm sure Samsung will find other revenue streams. Apple only buys it's components from Samsung because they presumably are the best and they can't source the same quality elsewhere. Let's see how well the iPad does with second rate screens from LG or whoever. That's what I would do anyway and I think it's what Samsung will do. Why would you continue to sell your industry leading inventions to your arch enemy.

 

Because no one does (and few can do) contracts like Apple does. e.g. "Here's $10 BILLION cash for all of your capacity from factories A, B, C for the next 5 years". Apple has had massive effects on the world's solid state memory supply. When you're a supplier to a company that has 1/3 of the smartphone market containing your product, cutting them off is hurting yourself. You would rather make money playing both sides of the game. Not everyone wants a GS3 and this is a way to make money off those people too.

post #32 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Way too low.  Try 250 Billion.

This is just silly.  And Judges are starting to consistently dismiss damage requests for amounts that are outrageous.  I haven't done the calculation, but 250 billion might be more than Samsung or Apple have made in their entire existence.  

post #33 of 73

I see that js, dh, suk, taj and pals are out in force.

 

sb's banishment makes up for it somewhat......  lol.gif

post #34 of 73
Apple has been abusing the broken patent system, and I do not appreciate Apple being bully and wasting money and energy in suing less talented competion.

I would rather see Apple donating their existing innovations to its competion, and use the multi-billions of surplus profit and energy for innovating newer technologies because, Apple can afford it and it is good to Apple and non-Apple customers.

Apple, keep up the good work of innovating, and stop worrying about competition ...
Edited by edwardkim - 7/24/12 at 9:18am
post #35 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Forget the mediation just get on with the court case so we can settle this once and for all.

 

If Samsung loses I suggest they immediately stop supplying Apple with any components whatsoever and just leave Apple to it.

 

You lose all credibility when you make a statement like this. This is not common sense thinking of someone who understands business - this is the mentality of a 5 year old "If you don't play my way I'm taking my ball and going home."

 

Samsung Semi gets over $10 billion a year from Apple for parts. Do you think Samsung Semi is going to throw away $10 billion in sales because Samsung Mobile loses a case and might have to pay Apple a tiny portion of that business? Do you think any company is going to want to rely on Samsung to supply components if they think Samsung might "turn off the tap" whenever they feel like it?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #36 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I see that js, dh, suk, taj and pals are out in force.

 

sb's banishment makes up for it somewhat......  lol.gif

sb?

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #37 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Ok once the current contract expires then. I'm sure Samsung will find other revenue streams.

What a silly statement.

Where is Samsung going to find another $10 B in revenue? And if there's $10 B in revenue lying around waiting to be gobbled up, why doesn't Samsung have it today?

You don't simply walk away from contracts at that level. The execs would face shareholder lawsuits and the stock would plummet. Not to mention, of course, that every single one of their customers would probably start looking for a new supplier since Samsung would appear unreliable.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

You lose all credibility when you make a statement like this. This is not common sense thinking of someone who understands business - this is the mentality of a 5 year old "If you don't play my way I'm taking my ball and going home."

 

Samsung Semi gets over $10 billion a year from Apple for parts. Do you think Samsung Semi is going to throw away $10 billion in sales because Samsung Mobile loses a case and might have to pay Apple a tiny portion of that business? Do you think any company is going to want to rely on Samsung to supply components if they think Samsung might "turn off the tap" whenever they feel like it?

 

Seemingly you know even less than me. Without Samsung components Apple's iOS devices would not be as good as they are today which puts Samsung in a strong bargaining position which makes good business sense to me. Samsung could simply stop supplying components tomorrow. $10Bn is nothing to Samsung. They would make that up in added Galaxy sales.

 

My point is you can't buy from someone and then slag them off right left and centre. If I was Samsung I would take the revenue hit and tell Apple to go f*** themselves re components. I wonder how many iOS devices Apple could shift without any Samsung components.

 

If Apple doesn't like Samsung then fair enough - Apple should source it's components elsewhere even if they are inferior to the Samsung components.

 

Apple are only suing Samsung because they don't have the balls to go after the real culprit which is Google.

 

Business is not just about the money. There is also honour, reputation and integrity as well. That's something Japanese and Korean companies consider to very important.

 

Personally I would never be a supplier to Apple no matter how much money was involved because I think they are an arrogant bully.

post #39 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I see that js, dh, suk, taj and pals are out in force.

 

sb's banishment makes up for it somewhat......  lol.gif

By all means, tell me what was wrong with my point.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #40 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

That would be a 2.5Billion write off in a coming quarter, and effectively a royalty on everything going forward.  Substantial.

 

I think Apple is serious about narrowing the field of cheap knock offs... This will effectively drive the competition up to the 300-500 device range, forcing the Android Also Rans to the sidelines.  Apple doesn't want to risk a monopoly here... they just want everyone selling devices at about the same price, and they assume they can stay ahead on innovation, thus making their fair share of profits.   This is a shot at the Android collective... If the strongest can be made to succumb to a a $1Billion+ verdict and sets the price into the 25-50 dollar per device royalty, that pretty much drives the cost of a smartphone/tablet out of the ballpark for the others.  At that point (plus all the Microsoft Royalties Android is burdened with), Windows 8 may be less expensive, and I think that's all Apple is trying to do... Make Android a substantial cost to deliver,  fracturing the potential mass of Android with Win8, and making Apple's ecosystem more valuable.

 

Except Apple has already said that it doesn't want to licence it's patents and it has a long long history of doing exactly that.  Despite the focus on money in this article, this isn't actually about making Samsung "pay" it's about making them stop using the IP.  

 

Even with Tim Cook at the helm and even with his on the record remarks about not being as interested in "punishing" Google and Samsung as Steve Jobs was, you will definitely not ever see Apple licensing their stuff to Samsung for money.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple seeks $2.5 billion from Samsung in patent infringement case