or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung rests it case, says Apple could owe nearly $422M in royalties
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung rests it case, says Apple could owe nearly $422M in royalties

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Samsung on Thursday rested its case in the Apple v. Samsung trial, concluding its phase of the trial with a pair of expert witnesses who believe Apple could owe $421.8 million in royalties over five patents owned by the South Korean company.

Samsung called to the stand damages expert Vincent O'Brien, who testified that his calculations show Apple owes the Galaxy maker $22.8 million based on three patent infringement claims, reports Bloomberg. The patents in question were presented on Tuesday and cover mobile device usability features regarding photos, email attachments and playing music in the background

O'Brien arrived at the $22.8 million figure by estimating reasonable royalty rates based in part on previous Apple payouts. Samsung can't claim it lost sales to the alleged infringement so royalties are the only avenue of calculating damages.

In a follow-up to O'Brien's testimony, University of California, Berkeley professor David Teece said Apple's alleged infringement of two separate Samsung patents relating to standards-essential UMTS patents could bring damages in the range of $290 million to $399 million. The royalty rates were calculated as 2 percent and 2.75 percent, though how Samsung arrived at those numbers is unclear.

In cross-examination, Teece was presented with a letter from Samsung dated July 25, 2011, in which the company proposed Apple pay a 2.4 percent royalty rate to license technology from any of 86 patents. Because the Samsung patents in question are deemed standards-essential, they should be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but the 2.4 percent rate was never before levied to a licensee.

David Teece
Expert witness David Teece. | Source: Wikipedia


Apple's lawyer was able to get Teece to admit he didn't know how Samsung arrived at the proposed royalty rate, which the Cupertino company claimed was ?unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory? in a pre-trial filing. In a subsequent Samsung filing, the electronics giant noted it offered a fair and reasonable rate to ?virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry," but Apple rejected the terms and "to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple?s use of Samsung?s standards-essential technology.?

Apple v. Samsung continues on Thursday with testimony from Apple witnesses intended to rebut the arguments Samsung asserted over the week. Apple is looking to squeeze in over 20 witnesses in the brief time it has left, a move that earned the ire of presiding Judge Lucy Koh earlier today.
post #2 of 39
Samsung is definitely smoking crack.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #3 of 39
Are those Apple witnesses appearing on groundhog day? Might recheck your last paragraph....
post #4 of 39

Apple claims rounded rectangular.

Apple claims samsung devices would be mistaken for the their because customers are not clever.

Apple demand 2.5 billion dollars.

Samsung claims essential telecommunication patent.
Samsung demand 0.4 billion dollars

Samsung’s demand is very reasonable and legitimate than Apple’s.

post #5 of 39

This whole thing, on both sides IMO, is ridiculous.  It seems like this should have been settled between the parties.  I can sort of understand why the judge is unhappy.

post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032 View Post

Apple claims rounded rectangular.

Apple claims samsung devices would be mistaken for the their because customers are not clever.

Apple demand 2.5 billion dollars.

Samsung claims essential telecommunication patent.
Samsung demand 0.4 billion dollars

Samsung’s demand is very reasonable and legitimate than Apple’s.

 

Troll joins Apple focused forum.

Troll makes posts taking sides against Apple at every opportunity.

Trolls hopes that people take him/her seriously.

Other forum members realization that he/she is a troll is reasonable, and it is legitimate to ignore the troll's posts.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #7 of 39

One step closer to the end of the circus sideshow.

 

I wish the end of the political elections was going to come as soon as the end of this trial.

post #8 of 39
Maybe I'm wrong here, but did Qualcomm and the other chipmakers pay thee royalties for the use of Samsung patents in their chipsets? If so, then Samsung is double dipping and trying to make more money. I would think that if it's a patent for how 3G works, then the chips that handle that should license from the patent holder and not Apple.

Or maybe I'm smoking crack...
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Maybe I'm wrong here, but did Qualcomm and the other chipmakers pay thee royalties for the use of Samsung patents in their chipsets? If so, then Samsung is double dipping and trying to make more money. I would think that if it's a patent for how 3G works, then the chips that handle that should license from the patent holder and not Apple.
Or maybe I'm smoking crack...

As I remember, Samsung told Qualcomm, after the the chips were licensed, that any chips they sold to Apple would not be licensed.  If they sold them to anyone else the licensing still remained in effect.  They tried to pull the rug out from under Apple's feet.  Doesn't seem quite fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. If I'm wrong, someone will surely correct me shortly.  

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #10 of 39

I was surprised to see that the Fidler tablet did make it into the record. for some reason I thought Judge Koh had rejected it, so I'm obviously mistaken. Mr. Fidler declined to appear in person reportedly due to his ongoing relationship with Apple. I have no idea what that relationship is and don't know that it's even been specified anywhere. In any case:

 

 

"We were eager to get other companies to make it," Fidler told the Tribune. "We wanted to be the content providers. … We assumed there would be a number of companies making tablets. My role, I felt, was to be an evangelist for the concept, anticipating that such a device would be a logical development as an alternative to ink on paper."

Fidler's video testimony was shown to the jury on Tuesday, the Chronicle reported, and he also provided written comments that were recorded during a deposition in Columbia. Samsung had asked him to testify in person, but Fidler said he did not think it would be appropriate. He and colleagues at MU's Reynolds Journalism Institute have ongoing partnerships with Apple and did not want to jeopardize those relationships.

He also stressed that he merely provided facts.

"I have nothing against Apple," Fidler said. "I'm a fan of Apple products, and all along I've not made any claims to be the inventor of iPad or that my ideas were stolen by Apple. The tablet I created in 1994 and the video we created, it is what it is. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not what we produced in 1994 would have any influence on invalidating the Apple patent."

Asked whether he thinks the idea should have been patented, Fidler said the iPad has unique characteristics but that the patent itself is vague.

"I've seen the patent, and based on the drawings that were included, I think the concept was not a unique concept," he said. "Very little detail was provided in that patent other than providing a shape, a rectangle with round corners, that is flat and appeared to be something relatively thin. That in itself, I think, was not sufficient to justify a patent."

http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/16/jurors-in-apple-suit-hear-fidlers-tablet-story/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 39

 

"Berkeley professor Teece, notorious for abetting FRAND abuse, to testify for Samsung on Friday"  - Foss Patents


Edited by sennen - 8/16/12 at 6:44pm
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I was surprised to see that the Fidler tablet did make it into the record. for some reason I thought Judge Koh had rejected it, so I'm obviously mistaken. Mr. Fidler declined to appear in person reportedly due to his ongoing relationship with Apple. I have no idea what that relationship is and don't know that it's even been specified anywhere. In any case:


"We were eager to get other companies to make it," Fidler told the Tribune. "We wanted to be the content providers. … We assumed there would be a number of companies making tablets. My role, I felt, was to be an evangelist for the concept, anticipating that such a device would be a logical development as an alternative to ink on paper."



Fidler's video testimony was shown to the jury on Tuesday, the Chronicle reported, and he also provided written comments that were recorded during a deposition in Columbia. Samsung had asked him to testify in person, but Fidler said he did not think it would be appropriate. He and colleagues at MU's Reynolds Journalism Institute have ongoing partnerships with Apple and did not want to jeopardize those relationships.



He also stressed that he merely provided facts.



"I have nothing against Apple," Fidler said. "I'm a fan of Apple products, and all along I've not made any claims to be the inventor of iPad or that my ideas were stolen by Apple. The tablet I created in 1994 and the video we created, it is what it is. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not what we produced in 1994 would have any influence on invalidating the Apple patent."



Asked whether he thinks the idea should have been patented, Fidler said the iPad has unique characteristics but that the patent itself is vague.



"I've seen the patent, and based on the drawings that were included, I think the concept was not a unique concept," he said. "Very little detail was provided in that patent other than providing a shape, a rectangle with round corners, that is flat and appeared to be something relatively thin. That in itself, I think, was not sufficient to justify a patent."



http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/16/jurors-in-apple-suit-hear-fidlers-tablet-story/



I wonder what makes you think that your repeated citation of that silly video is relevant. There's nothing in that video that looks even a little bit like pinch-to-zoom or bounce back -- no matter how many times you bring it up.
"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 #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

 

Troll joins Apple focused forum.

Troll makes posts taking sides against Apple at every opportunity.

Trolls hopes that people take him/her seriously.

Other forum members realization that he/she is a troll is reasonable, and it is legitimate to ignore the troll's posts.

 

-kpluck

What does a turd sound like when it hits a troll at 100 mph?  I will let you know when it hits 845032.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I wonder what makes you think that your repeated citation of that silly video is relevant. There's nothing in that video that looks even a little bit like pinch-to-zoom or bounce back -- no matter how many times you bring it up.

 

Are YOU smoking crack?

 

What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?

 

Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".

 

The video he quotes applies to the former.

 

 

What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Are YOU smoking crack?

What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?

Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".

The video he quotes applies to the former.


What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.

I wonder if we'll ever get rid of the trolls who want to pretend that it's all about a flat rectangle.....

Probably not.
"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 #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

 

"Berkeley professor Teece, notorious for abetting FRAND abuse, to testify for Samsung on Friday"  - Foss Patents

 

It probably doesn't help that the accusation is coming from a paid, anti-Android shill, Florian Mueller?

 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129

post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

 

Are YOU smoking crack?

 

What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?

 

Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".

 

The video he quotes applies to the former.

 

 

What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.

 

Hi Galbi, check this out:-

 

 

 

It's not a rectangle.

 

a does not equal b

 

It is not like Apple's design patent.

 

Good thing Europe doesn't have stupid patents

 

:)

 

Oops.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

It probably doesn't help that the accusation is coming from a paid, anti-Android shill, Florian Mueller?

 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129

 

"It only takes one bullet to kill."

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

As I remember, Samsung told Qualcomm, after the the chips were licensed, that any chips they sold to Apple would not be licensed.  If they sold them to anyone else the licensing still remained in effect.  They tried to pull the rug out from under Apple's feet.  Doesn't seem quite fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. If I'm wrong, someone will surely correct me shortly.  


I read this claim a lot. But the only item relating on Qualcomm and Samsung this story pertaining to their case in Australia.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/

 

Samsung claims they terminated an agreement not to sue Qualcomm or any its customers. Anyways nearly a month as gone by and I would think there would at least be something from Apple characterizing what you stated in some fashion. Yet the only thing that comes up is Apple insisting that the rate that Samsung wants is not fair.

 

Even in the current trial, I haven't read Apple bring it up.  I believe Samsung is bring up their 3G patents.  It seems it would be a good time to bring it up and point out to the jury,  Samsung's action of refusing just to apple is discriminatory.

post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ufwa View Post


I read this claim a lot. But the only item relating on Qualcomm and Samsung this story pertaining to their case in Australia.

http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/

Samsung claims they terminated an agreement not to sue Qualcomm or any its customers. Anyways nearly a month as gone by and I would think there would at least be something from Apple characterizing what you stated in some fashion. Yet the only thing that comes up is Apple insisting that the rate that Samsung wants is not fair.

Even in the current trial, I haven't read Apple bring it up.  I believe Samsung is bring up their 3G patents.  It seems it would be a good time to bring it up and point out to the jury,  Samsung's action of refusing just to apple is discriminatory.

Samsung's 3G patents are largely irrelevant in this case and just more mud that they're slinging and hoping something sticks. They are being accused of violating Apple's patents. Either they did or they didn't and Apple's behavior is mostly irrelevant.

However, it's not hard at all to find the information. Just enter 'apple qualcomm samsung license' into your search engine. With Bing, the first result is:

http://www.slashgear.com/apple-samsung-cheated-in-3g-standardization-26182731/

"There’s also the accusation that Samsung changed its licensing with Qualcomm to specifically exclude business with Apple, "


More info:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/10/11/apple.sees.qualcomm.as.key.to.samsung.patent.exit/
"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 #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post

Samsung is definitely smoking crack.

So if Apple calculates that Samsung owes Apple $2.8 Billion and Samsung thinks that Apple owes Samsung around $440 Million.

 

then the bill goes to Samsung for around $2.4 Billion.

 

That's fair and reasonable.  And Samsung can foot the bill for attorney's fees and court costs since they owe money to Apple.

post #22 of 39

I think Samsung is getting scared because Apple is going with other suppliers of technology, which Samsung loses that competitive knowledge, they lose revenue and then they have to wait until Apple releases a product, before they can copy them.  

post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I think Samsung is getting scared because Apple is going with other suppliers of technology, which Samsung loses that competitive knowledge, they lose revenue and then they have to wait until Apple releases a product, before they can copy them.  

 

I think Apple should pay a visit to Sharp, every day they are getting more and more desperate for money and are ripe for a buyout.

 

If Apple want to stay at arm's length and don't want to do it maybe they could suggest it to Foxconn and pay enough cash in advance for components to make it viable.

 

The money Apple currently spend with Samsung would easily cover this.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

It probably doesn't help that the accusation is coming from a paid, anti-Android shill, Florian Mueller?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129

I've been reading groklaw for the past two months and even though sj isn't paid by anyone involved, she has clear bias and many times admits it. The comments on that website are pure fandroids. Of course you expect apple fans on a website called AppleInsider.

On Groklaw "Digging for Truth" website I would expect something unbiased which clearly isn't so. Many of the groklaw articles are personal attacks on FM @ Fosspatents, contrary to the approach he takes of not pointing a finger at SJ. Who's acting more professional?
post #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I wonder if we'll ever get rid of the trolls who want to pretend that it's all about a flat rectangle.....
Probably not.

If this forum gets rid of trolls, hardly anyone will remain. Maybe 10% of current members.

There are people here usually very inspired to call out trolls, but it so often takes a troll to see a troll in others.

Just my humble observation.
post #26 of 39
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post
If this forum gets rid of trolls, hardly anyone will remain. Maybe 10% of current members.

 

I'd be fine with that, but that's (only) me. As long as people aren't lying through their teeth in discussion, it has to be an improvement.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #27 of 39

I think a lot of "trolls" come into these articles because it has more trial coverage. At least in my case, android news feed has far fewer articles than AI.  Also, since there is always going to be a bias from AI and the Apple community, the bait is much stronger.  So you have more troll bait and its extra delicious.  Mystery solved 

post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Are YOU smoking crack?

What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?

Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".

The video he quotes applies to the former.


What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.

I wonder if we'll ever get rid of the trolls who want to pretend that it's all about a flat rectangle.....

Probably not.

Probably not, as long as there are codependents who feel compelled to engage every single troll.  If those people could be persuaded to just put the trolls on their ignore list,

the trolls would not feel rewarded by posting here and would go somewhere else.

post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

It probably doesn't help that the accusation is coming from a paid, anti-Android shill, Florian Mueller?

 

And you quote groklaw. Hilarious. Mueller was the darling of the anti-Apple posters on here until he started to say things they didn't like.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #30 of 39

You scumbag Samsung fellows. Being a conglomerate, cant even design indigenously. 

You made billions dollars of business with stolen ideas and want to pay back peanuts. You buggers! 

 

Hate Samsung.   But you wish to earn Apple's cult status.  My foot you get. My foot.

 

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40bn in the bank to right this wrong," - Steve Jobs

post #31 of 39

I believe the correct response is, "LOL, Samsung!"

 24" Aluminium iMac (early 2008) 2.8Ghz 4GB RAM 1TB HD
 Mac OS X Mountain Lion 10.8
 5G iPod video 30GB Black & WD 1TB MyBook Studio

Reply

 24" Aluminium iMac (early 2008) 2.8Ghz 4GB RAM 1TB HD
 Mac OS X Mountain Lion 10.8
 5G iPod video 30GB Black & WD 1TB MyBook Studio

Reply
post #32 of 39

 

He's wearing a white coat, so you know he's smart and knows what he's talking about...

Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I wonder what makes you think that your repeated citation of that silly video is relevant. There's nothing in that video that looks even a little bit like pinch-to-zoom or bounce back -- no matter how many times you bring it up.

You're right, it had nothing to do with any utility patents like pinch-to-zoom and bounce back. If you didn't realize it had to do with the design patents then you're just skimming thru and not paying much attention as you do.

 

I've no idea what the video testimony showed. I've not seen it, and doubt you have either. Simply another piece of courtroom testimony that you and others likely weren't aware of as it wasn't reported yet on AI.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

So if Apple calculates that Samsung owes Apple $2.8 Billion and Samsung thinks that Apple owes Samsung around $440 Million.

then the bill goes to Samsung for around $2.4 Billion.

That's fair and reasonable.  And Samsung can foot the bill for attorney's fees and court costs since they owe money to Apple.

You forgot one thing. Triple damages for willful infringement, so triple your figures. I suspect Apple would be happy with that - as long as the order also tells Samsung to stop copying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I think Samsung is getting scared because Apple is going with other suppliers of technology, which Samsung loses that competitive knowledge, they lose revenue and then they have to wait until Apple releases a product, before they can copy them.  

This could be the largest repercussion of the whole trial. If you're a manufacturer of proprietary products, it's clear that Samsung can not be trusted, so you should be looking for another supplier.

Of course, most of the industry is simply copying, Apple, anyway, so there's nothing for Samsung to steal, but SOMEONE besides Apple must be innovating and they'd be crazy to depend on Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

I've been reading groklaw for the past two months and even though sj isn't paid by anyone involved, she has clear bias and many times admits it. The comments on that website are pure fandroids. Of course you expect apple fans on a website called AppleInsider.
On Groklaw "Digging for Truth" website I would expect something unbiased which clearly isn't so. Many of the groklaw articles are personal attacks on FM @ Fosspatents, contrary to the approach he takes of not pointing a finger at SJ. Who's acting more professional?

Really? Please show us where she has admitted a clear bias that affects the facts.

That's the thing that gets lost here. When a reporter has a bias and admits it, but faithfully reports the facts, there's no real harm. OTOH, if their bias causes them to mis-report the facts, it's a serious problem. Mueller, at least, generally states his biases and is usually pretty careful to separate fact from conjecture or opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

And you quote groklaw. Hilarious. Mueller was the darling of the anti-Apple posters on here until he started to say things they didn't like.

Yes, that's pretty funny. When Mueller was expressing an OPINION that software patents shouldn't exist, the Apple-hating trolls were eating it up. But when he publicizes facts, they can't stand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post



He's wearing a white coat, so you know he's smart and knows what he's talking about...

Well done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're right, it had nothing to do with any utility patents like pinch-to-zoom and bounce back. If you didn't realize it had to do with the design patents then you're just skimming thru and not paying much attention as you do.

I've no idea what the video testimony showed. I've not seen it, and doubt you have either. Simply another piece of courtroom testimony that you and others likely weren't aware of as it wasn't reported yet on AI.

Irrelevant, again. The video shows nothing that looks like Apple's design patents, either. Or are you saying that you can't tell the difference between a table and a tablet? After all, it's only one letter difference, right? /s
"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 #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Irrelevant, again. The video shows nothing that looks like Apple's design patents, either. Or are you saying that you can't tell the difference between a table and a tablet? After all, it's only one letter difference, right? /s

Ah, so you really aren't paying attention. The Fidler tablet was intended to be just what is says in it's name: A tablet. You've become confused with another video from the case having to do with touch events. Not the same at all sir. This is the Fidler tablet as proposed. Plainly not even close to a table.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

 

Your last two comments directed to me are completely irrelevant since you're not even talking about the same device. It doesn't bother you to act like a smart-aleck only to find find out you've no idea what you're even commenting on? 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 39

My FRAND solution:

 

  • Offer patent for FRAND
  • Declare trigger point for royalty
  • Declare royalty amount
  • Patent considered for FRAND
  • Accept / Reject as a standard

 

No more litigation.............

post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Samsung on Thursday rested its case in the Apple v. Samsung trial, concluding its phase of the trial with a pair of expert witnesses who believe Apple could owe $421.8 million in royalties over five patents owned by the South Korean company.

 

And teddybears could be responsible for all wars over the last few centuries too!

Isn't it wonderful that in America, anyone can say whatever ridiculous crap that happens to bubble up in their tiny little brains?

post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ah, so you really aren't paying attention. The Fidler tablet was intended to be just what is says in it's name: A tablet. You've become confused with another video from the case having to do with touch events. Not the same at all sir. This is the Fidler tablet as proposed. Plainly not even close to a table.   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

And plainly not even close to the iPad.

Once again, all you trolls are pretending that Apple wants to claim every rectangle as their property - which isn't the case. They are claiming very specific design features - you know, the ones copied by Samsung in making a tablet that's so close that their own attorneys can't tell the difference from 10 feet.

The Fidler tablet is easily distinguishable from the iPad and is therefore irrelevant.
"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 #39 of 39
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

 

*Beaker steps off the stand*

 

Koh: Boy, that guy sure was narcissistic, wasn't he? 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung rests it case, says Apple could owe nearly $422M in royalties