or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple scrambles to keep Samsung from revealing confidential iPhone, iPad sales documents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple scrambles to keep Samsung from revealing confidential iPhone, iPad sales documents

post #1 of 88
Thread Starter 
Apple rushed to file a last minute request with the court to stop Samsung from making public a series of sensitive sales data documents related to the iPhone and iPad when it cross examines Philip Schiller, Apple?s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, later today.

The judge presiding over the patent case between Apple and Samsung has worked to keep the closely watched trial, and all related evidence, as transparently open as possible, but has allowed both parties to argue in support of sealing specific, confidential evidence on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to sales and marketing data, Apple's various motions to keep evidence private and confidential have also included iOS source code, which the company holds to be particularly sensitive.

Apple has most recently filed two motions related to eight confidential trial exhibits of sales data, which the company's attorneys described as "a particularized, document-by-document showing of good cause and compelling reasons for sealing of Apple?s most competitively sensitive information."

The motions included "declarations from several of its executives attesting to the value of this information, the efforts Apple has undertaken to maintain its secrecy, and the harm that Apple would suffer if it were publicly disclosed."

Apple stated that it had originally filed a motion last week to seal four documents Samsung had said it would use during Schiller's cross examination scheduled for today, but added four more after being notified last night after 9 PM by Samsung that it planned to use another four.

The documents in question include iPhone, iPad and iPod touch sales summaries, an iPad tracking study, and a series of quarterly iPhone buyer surveys conducted over the past two years.

Apple also objected to Samsung's last minute surprise notification of the additional documents it planned to present today, but asked the court that "only excerpted portions of those documents be entered into evidence" if it decided to allow the late filings.

The iPhone maker has proposed using excerpted versions of various sales report and other documents it holds to be confidential, putting only a few specific, relevant pages of the hundreds of pages of the documents in question into evidence in a manner than would become part of the public record.

Apple argued that this "would lessen the burdens on the jury and the Court and would balance the public interest in access to court records and Apple?s interest in maintaining secrecy of its valuable trade secrets," but noted that it was "unable to reach agreement" with Samsung on the matter.



In response to Apple's motion, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh ordered that two exhibits on iPhone, iPad and iPod touch sales summaries would be sealed in part with the redactions Apple requested earlier in the week, and that only the relevant pages of two studies Samsung plans to question Schiller about will be entered into evidence.

The additional four documents Samsung announced it would use today "shall not be used in the examination of Mr. Schiller as they were not timely disclosed," the judge wrote in her response to the motion.
post #2 of 88
Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else. And if anything in those documents relates to upcoming product why shouldn't Apple be allowed to keep it out of the record, especially if it doesn't apply.

And this late filing game needs to stop. Samsung had the papers in enough time to follow the rules. Here's hoping the items don't know turn up in the press.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #3 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else. And if anything in those documents relates to upcoming product why shouldn't Apple be allowed to keep it out of the record, especially if it doesn't apply.
And this late filing game needs to stop. Samsung had the papers in enough time to follow the rules. Here's hoping the items don't know turn up in the press.

 

Part of me believes Samsung is purposely late filing all this crap, so it can't later play the victim role and point to all the things that would have allegedly 'conclusively proven blah blah' that don't get accepted. 

post #4 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else. And if anything in those documents relates to upcoming product why shouldn't Apple be allowed to keep it out of the record, especially if it doesn't apply.
And this late filing game needs to stop. Samsung had the papers in enough time to follow the rules. Here's hoping the items don't know turn up in the press.

You're probably correct in assuming that Samsung will turn around and release them to the press. After the first ruling, any thing not allowed in the courtroom will just be sent to the press, who are always looking for things to fill their pages ( kind of like AI sometimes).

post #5 of 88

In my opinion (a very vague one, I haven't read the whole article and comments carefully), Samsung could be using this as a way to sort of confuse the whole case. Samsung is using the press almost as a "weapon" against Apple. 

I'm sort of starting to think Samsung doesn't have enough reasoning to prove that they didn't copy Apple, and instead is trying to hurt Apple more than win them.Or maybe trying to extract future information so that Samsung themselves can get more "hints" and "copy" more in the future?

Maybe Samsung is trying to see what Apple is upto in the future.

 

Again, these are just vague assumptions I made after quickly reading the article and comments. It's just how I feel in a way.

post #6 of 88
Yeah, this is ridiculous.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #7 of 88

Actually, petty technicalities aside, Samsung has a good case. Something appearing remarkably like the iPad was part of the long-ago film 2001. Samsung did have iPhone-like designs before Apple's design was made public, and Apple did borrow the iPhone's design heavily from a Sony design. It's difficult to see how, in a fair trial, Apple can get what it wants most--a ban on any iPhone or iPad that looks like theirs--particularly if the devices prove as popular as those from Samsung. Apple's now infected with the same 'own the market' bug that hit Microsoft in the early 1990s and is behaving much the same.

 

Personally, I'd love to see Apple's sales data released. That data is the basis of Apple's claims for damages. If this is going to be an open trial, as the judge has claimed, then that sales-to-damages data needs to come out. The fact that Apple doesn't want that data out and fights fiercely to keep it from being public is less than irrelevant, it's a good reason to release the data. There needs to be a downside to all this crazy suing by all the tech giants and having data you don't want out come out is one good way to do that.

 

Those who'd like to follow the legalities of what's going on here from an expert legal perspective rather than the 'he said, she said' of most news coverage should bookmark an excellent website:

 

http://www.groklaw.net

 

If you'd been reading there yesterday, for instance, you'd not only know there wasn't a bat's chance in hell that the judge, angry though she might be, would sanction Samsung for the release but precisely why she couldn't. You can find that here:

 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012080117581118

 

Here's the most relevant part:

 

QUOTE

 

 

Mr. Quinn is one of the best lawyers in the country, if not the world, so what is going on? To understand, let's itemize his main points, because you will see a master at work:

1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung‟s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys‟ communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that “a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client.”

2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.

3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”)

In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's DeclarationExhibits 56, and 8 [PDFs].

4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsung‟s Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).

5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times,Huffington Post and CNET.

6. The media has been reporting "in salacious detail" Apple's allegations of Samsung's "copying". If, then, talking to the media is a problem, he seems to be saying, why is Apple getting away with it? Samsung has a right to correct the public's false impression.

7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsung‟s transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."

8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."

My guess is the Judge Koh is doing reseach. Because in truth, Quinn planned this carefully, and you see he did his research, and so he seems to have boxed her in, if not at this level then surely on appeal. Certainly in the court of public opinion, it makes perfect sense, and looking at it with my paralegal hat on, here's what I think it might mean: that Samsung is totally sick of the media swallowing all the Apple FUD, but that it blames Apple for spreading it, and Samsung is fighting back.

 

END QUOTE

post #8 of 88
Samsung has nothing to prove.

The burden of proof entirely lies with Apple. And Apple trying to facilitate its task, files motion after motion so as to try and have Samsung with no shield to defend itself.
post #9 of 88
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else.

 

"No, you're biased. No, you'd make Samsung do it, so Apple should, too. No, Apple should be forced to release their numbers since they're the only ones that don't. No…"

 

I think that covers it. lol.gif

 

And what IF Samsung leaks Apple's sales numbers to the press? What happens to them? I mean, that's not something intangible like whiny patent complaints, you know.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #10 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Sounds rather reasonable to me. Sales data etc can screw stock value and hurt a company that way if nothing else.

 

 

i can understand keeping tracking studies and buyer surveys secret because one may be able to glean proposed or upcoming features in Apple products.
 
as for releasing sales data: doesn't Apple already provide sales data in quarterly investor meetings?  i'm curious what's so special about these particular sales data points.
post #11 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Actually, petty technicalities aside, Samsung has a good case. Something appearing remarkably like the iPad was part of the long-ago film 2001. Samsung did have iPhone-like designs before Apple's design was made public, and Apple did borrow the iPhone's design heavily from a Sony design.  ...

 

Apparently you haven't really been following the trial, and don't actually have an inkling, since all of what you mention above has been debunked, and disallowed as evidence. So, if that's what Samsung's case hinges on, stick a fork in them.

post #12 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

 

 

i can understand keeping tracking studies and buyer surveys secret because one may be able to glean proposed or upcoming features in Apple products.
 
as for releasing sales data: doesn't Apple already provide sales data in quarterly investor meetings?  i'm curious what's so special about these particular sales data points.


It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

post #13 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

Don't post silly stuff. Copying/stealing is bad, and deserves to be punished. If proved. As it will be.

post #14 of 88
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post
It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

 

My only question at this point is when we're going to ban you.

 

Take a gander at the high-end Android phones. Some have even higher margins.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #15 of 88
Ahh the censorship http://************/2012/08/03/schiller-forstall-industry-experts-and-samsung-execs-on-the-docket-as-apple-requests-numbers-to-be-withheld/


But anyways this was updated on 9to5 and: Update: the first ruling this morning is that Apple can’t keep its numbers withheld. Samsung can indeed reveal them.
Read more at http://************/#wY7Z23ee1vAXuXWQ.99

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #16 of 88

A part of me says: heck, go ahead and release this data, Apple (perhaps not the source code). Much of it is speculated on by markets anyway, and I have little doubt it will confirm that Apple has had a blockbuster set of products.  

 

It'll be great to hear collective sob in the rest of the tech wastela....er... industry. lol.gif

post #17 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

What utter nonsense! So it's seriously your contention that if you are selling a lot of something no action of another company can have hurt your sales?

post #18 of 88

So Samsung's basically being the bully that threatens to light your favorite stuff on fire because ou won't do what they want. got it.

post #19 of 88
sounds alot like samsung is doing the "scorched earth method" (well.. we can not win...so lets f**k over our best customer... in another division... of samsung)

in other words, why release this. data... how is it going to disprove that samsung did copy apple... is samsung saying that because apple is making SO much money off the iPhone, that it does not matter that Samsung is coping the iPhone... Because there is more than enough money to go around?.

...some times it is better NOT knowing how much money someone is making, because then you don't start thinking they owe you something... (applies more to brothers and sisters... and perhaps executives...)
post #20 of 88
This is guerilla warfare.... If you can't win a conventional.
post #21 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post


Personally, I'd love to see Apple's sales data released. That data is the basis of Apple's claims for damages. If this is going to be an open trial, as the judge has claimed, then that sales-to-damages data needs to come out. The fact that Apple doesn't want that data out and fights fiercely to keep it from being public is less than irrelevant, it's a good reason to release the data. There needs to be a downside to all this crazy suing by all the tech giants and having data you don't want out come out is one good way to do that.

This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

... and This!
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #22 of 88

Koh also warned both sides that any additional "theatrics or sideshows" would not be allowed.

"I will not let any theatrics or sideshows distract us from what we're here to do, which is to fairly and timely decide this case," she said. Koh also ruled before court got underway that Apple cannot withhold results from a consumer research survey that Samsung planned to use in its cross-examination. Apple had sought to keep the survey private, saying it was proprietary information that competitors could see and use to shape their own products."

 

Huh? Didn't Apple's Shiller testify just a couple days back that they don't put much value on surveys?

"We don't use any customer surveys, focus groups, or typical things of that nature," Schiller said. "That plays no role in the creation of the products."

 

EDIT: On another Apple-centric site, they're surmissing that Apple didn't want this survey publicly released because:

"The numbers could reveal to customers that Apple does a bit more tracking than many think—which could upset some." 

 


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/3/12 at 10:46am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

One point that I just cannot get past is that Apple is asking for basically all the profits from Samsung regarding these devices. So, how does Apple PROVE that for each sale Samsung made, Apple loses a sale at a 1:1 ratio? I know many people who would simply buy a different Android or Windows Phone before buying an iPhone or iPad (and vice versa - for the rabid Apple fans to cool their jets). There is simply NO WAY Apple can prove this unless Apple truly wishes to be the SOLE SUPPLIER of smartphones in the U.S. (and beyond our borders too?).

post #24 of 88
UPDATE: All Things D reports that Apple has now lost its bid to keep the market research secret and Samsung will be allowed to use it as evidence in the trial.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #25 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Don't post silly stuff. Copying/stealing is bad, and deserves to be punished. If proved. As it will be.

Please explain what Samsung has "stolen"

post #26 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

My only question at this point is when we're going to ban you.

 

Take a gander at the high-end Android phones. Some have even higher margins.

That (if true) doesn't change the truth about Apple crazy profit margins. And HOW does this relate to threatening to ban someone?

post #27 of 88
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post
Please explain what Samsung has "stolen"

 

That's the point of the trial.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #28 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd View Post

You're probably correct in assuming that Samsung will turn around and release them to the press. After the first ruling, any thing not allowed in the courtroom will just be sent to the press, who are always looking for things to fill their pages ( kind of like AI sometimes).

 

Well, this stuff is definitely not in the same category as the documents they released in violation of Koh's order earlier this week.  

 

If they release these documents to the press they would be facing serious criminal charges and probably the collapse of the whole trial in Apple's favour.  This isn't just some old screenshots that they didn't get evaluated on time, this is serious, private, highly sensitive information.  The eventual damages to Samsung would be in the multiple billions from that one act, in addition to already biting the bullet on 2.5 billion if the current trial collapses.  

post #29 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Please explain what Samsung has "stolen"

How lame is that?

post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Samsung has nothing to prove.
The burden of proof entirely lies with Apple. And Apple trying to facilitate its task, files motion after motion so as to try and have Samsung with no shield to defend itself.

I kinda go along with your assertion.

Opaqueness shields Samsung. Remove it and you can finally assess the magnitude of its core problem: Samsung can design limbs, central nervous systems, and organs galore that can be qualified as engineered marvels. Unfortunately, they're stuck on figuring the mind as perfectly equated with the brain. A verse, a song, a portrait,  ...a smile equated with their organs of origin... 

Full transparency would reveal the missing link to their hegemony aspirations. Inspiration. Borne out of passionate humility towards not what is known, ...but towards what lies beyond. The mind, humanity pulled out of its familiar organic setting and thrusted by design...soul on...into the 'rather unsettling'.

Full transparency would reveal mindless Google 'ful'filling with soluble karma Korea's age old inferiority complex. Growing more pronounced as it becomes more and more compensated, ...and insulated... by corporate culture and foreign exploitation, namely Google's 'be-free/freebee' ideological straight-jacket import.

Full transparency would, at long last, reveal what is already known...
post #31 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling ...

1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung‟s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys‟ communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that “a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client.”

2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.

...

 

Except you are forgetting that the judge did issue a very specific order the next day requiring Quinn to tell her who approved it and so forth and he violated *that* order.  So he could still easily be found in contempt.  

 

You also forget or ignore the fact that a contempt ruling in a court of law needn't actually be based on anything at all.  It's basically judges discretion.  if the judge makes a spurious contempt order it *may* be overturned on appeal, but the judge can literally just take a disliking to something a lawyer says and find them in contempt on the spot.  

post #32 of 88

Apple has stated on the record that they do not use market research, which has now been proven to be untrue (a lie).  They do use market research and now it has been brought out and will be used against them.    Pretty simple, Apple seems to low ball their projections and then crush the street with their overly glowing numbers.  If this were to show that in fact they are manipulating their companies value it could be embarrassing for them and a potential point of litigation.

 

Beyond that I look forward to this trial coming to a conclusion and the technology race continuing on and the next iPhone coming out or at least being announced in 40+ days so I can make plans to get one.

post #33 of 88
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post
Apple has stated on the record that they do not use market research, which has now been proven to be untrue (a lie).  They do use market research and now it has been brought out and will be used against them.

 

… Come on. Come on, really? Come ON.

 

Pretty simple, Apple seems to low ball their projections and then crush the street with their overly glowing numbers.  If this were to show that in fact they are manipulating their companies value it could be embarrassing for them and a potential point of litigation.

 

No other company on the face of the planet in the history of human civilization has ever done this.

 

…the technology race continuing on and the next iPhone coming out or at least being announced in 40+ days so I can make plans to get one.

 

Sure you do.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #34 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post


It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.

 

Besides the obvious fact that this is just a wild assumption on your part, if true, what you say is entirely irrelevant to the case.  

 

It doesn't matter a whit if Apple made four football stadiums full of cash on the iPhone.  If Samsung can be proven to have taken away the extra four football fields of money by means of the market share they took away through the copying of Apple's products, then they still have to pay up.  

 

It's just faulty logic to assume that because they are making lots of money that they didn't in fact deserve to make lots more money.  

 

 

Also, you are wrong about the profit margins.  Apple tries to make a very standard 30-40% margin on their products.  Most retail products are initially sold at roughly 100% margin which diminishes as the product goes down the chain to various re-sellers with the people at the bottom making margins closer to 10% or so.  The fact that a lot of computer manufacturers and resellers don't make as high a margin is again, completely irrelevant to the question of whether apple's margins are "too high."  

 

They make a "healthy" margin and they have better margins that others do in general, but they most definitely do not have margins that are completely "out of line" or "over the top" or "ludicrous" etc. They are fairly normal, standard, retail margins.  

post #35 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That's the point of the trial.

I am aware of that, but when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. Samsung allegedly stole something. Stating otherwise is incorrect. And my question was valid as I would like to know what Samsung allegedly stole from Apple.

post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I am aware of that, but when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. Samsung allegedly stole something. Stating otherwise is incorrect. And my question was valid as I would like to know what Samsung allegedly stole from Apple.

"google" it

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #37 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

How lame is that?

Ad hominem attacks? Really? Also, you didn't answer the question.

post #38 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Except you are forgetting that the judge did issue a very specific order the next day requiring Quinn to tell her who approved it and so forth and he violated *that* order.  So he could still easily be found in contempt.  

 

You also forget or ignore the fact that a contempt ruling in a court of law needn't actually be based on anything at all.  It's basically judges discretion.  if the judge makes a spurious contempt order it *may* be overturned on appeal, but the judge can literally just take a disliking to something a lawyer says and find them in contempt on the spot.  

No no and no. She stated it couldn't be used as evidence. Koh was simply pissed that Samsung outmanuvered her in her own courtroom. He cannot be found in contempt since he didn't violate anything...and if the judge tried to make that stick without any reason other than she doesn't like them, she can find herself on the end of a lawsuit, have the lawsuit overturned in an appeal, etc.

post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

That (if true) doesn't change the truth about Apple crazy profit margins. And HOW does this relate to threatening to ban someone?
Don't even bother with Tallest Skil. His posts can be as bad as a 16 year old childs. He'll use vulgar language in a post, make fun of members and even threaten to ban them, if they don't agree with him.
In fact, he'll most likely delete this post and ban me. How this guy became a Moderator is beyond me. He's single handedly turning this site into a joke.
post #40 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Ad hominem attacks?

So?

 

 

Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Also, you didn't answer the question.

 

Really?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple scrambles to keep Samsung from revealing confidential iPhone, iPad sales documents
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple scrambles to keep Samsung from revealing confidential iPhone, iPad sales documents