AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing - Page 2

post #41 of 50
8/17/12 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Let's put down the dream pipe.

What you said is closer to what Apple would get if Apple wins (excluding 6, that's totally irrelevant)

Either way, this thing will be appealed, so this trial so far is just pop-corn material.

Not even close. If Apple wins, they could easily win a multibillion dollar judgment and an order for all infringing items to be taken off the market immediately. Furthermore, it would involve great loss of face for Samsung due to being found guilty in a trial. My suggestions are only a fraction of what Samsung might have to pay if they lose, but allow each side to get most of what they want.

#6 is most certainly not irrelevant. The court would not order that as a penalty, but if Samsung and Apple reach an agreement, it is entirely possible that Apple would take at least some of the money as discount on future sales rather than cash. It would be easier on Samsung which means that Samsung would be more willing to agree to it.

Furthermore, note that it's not unprecedented. The amounts I'm talking about for a negotiated settlement are not at all out of line. In the Microsoft/Apple case well over a decade ago, Microsoft agreed to buy $150 M in Apple stock, and the two parties reached cross licensing agreements. And Apple's case against Microsoft didn't appear to be anywhere near as strong as their case against Samsung.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 50
8/17/12 at 9:53am
Jake Smith on Twitter: "Judge Koh is the new Judge Judy. Just thought that was funny. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but I thought is funny.
Edited by logandigges - 8/17/12 at 10:05am

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees
-Michael Steeber

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees
-Michael Steeber

 

Reply
post #43 of 50
8/17/12 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

If Apple wins, how would its stock be affected? If it loses?

 

Not one iota either way. The iHaters say Apple has taken a PR hit by even daring to sue Samsung. Today's stock price would seem to argue against that. But then the iHaters live in some alternate universe where everything Apple does makes them look bad in the eyes of the public at large and will doom the company RSN. 

Reply
Reply
post #44 of 50
8/17/12 at 10:39am

I suppose you all saw the Dog and Pony show yesterday in San Jose where Governor Moonbeam and the SJ Mayor were falling over themselves to get down and kiss the feet of the head of Samsung when he came to town to promise to open a new office. It was a truly disgusting show. Of course the size of the facility and the number of hires is yet to be disclosed, but the local politicos are all in a lather about how wonderful this will be and are making all sorts of promises to Samsung to entice them to come here. 

 

Wonderful coincidence of timing, eh?

Reply
Reply
post #45 of 50
8/17/12 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Not one iota either way. The iHaters say Apple has taken a PR hit by even daring to sue Samsung. Today's stock price would seem to argue against that. But then the iHaters live in some alternate universe where everything Apple does makes them look bad in the eyes of the public at large and will doom the company RSN. 

I disagree. The share price could move, possibly even a few percentage points.

If Apple wins, the judgment will mean that the competitors will have to stop copying Apple and Apple's distinct look and feel will become an even stronger competitive edge. While a few hundred million dollars (or even a billion or two) would have only a modest effect on share price (roughly, a $1 B judgment would theoretically increase share price by around 0.15% if it was actually paid).

If Apple loses, then the competition would feel that they have free rein to make even closer copies of Apple products without repercussions.

In either case, any move in the share price would be tempered by the expectation that any judgment from Koh's court will be appealed, but I would not be surprised to see the share price swing, particularly if the decision is decisive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebergh View Post

I suppose you all saw the Dog and Pony show yesterday in San Jose where Governor Moonbeam and the SJ Mayor were falling over themselves to get down and kiss the feet of the head of Samsung when he came to town to promise to open a new office. It was a truly disgusting show. Of course the size of the facility and the number of hires is yet to be disclosed, but the local politicos are all in a lather about how wonderful this will be and are making all sorts of promises to Samsung to entice them to come here. 

Wonderful coincidence of timing, eh?

I don't think it's likely to affect the decision. The more frustrating thing for me is that it's yet another example of how people are so ready to fall for hype and empty promises from organizations that have a lot of money. If I were to approach the mayor of San Jose and say I was planning to open a new office, he would want the details - including how much I was going to spend and how many people I planned to hire - before he would even talk to me. If Samsung says they're going to open a new office, they don't need any details. They are simply praised to high heavens from the start.

The same could theoretically apply to Apple, but Apple generally doesn't play that game. Because of secrecy concerns, they tend not to announce anything until all their ducks are in a row and then they announce it all at once.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 50
8/17/12 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Emphasis on the bolded part.
I don't expect Samsung to write Apple a check for $2.5 B or anything even close to that if the two sides settle.
Rather, Apple is going to want an ironclad agreement from Samsung that they will immediately stop using Apple's IP. That will be combined with a payment that is large enough to not be considered a token payment. While it is unlikely that Samsung will agree to admit guilt in a negotiated settlement, a payment in excess of $100 M would be as good as an admission of guilt in the eyes of most observers.
I expect that a negotiated settlement would involve:
1. Cash payment from Samsung to Apple of $100-500 M.
2. Samsung immediately agrees to stop using questioned Apple technologies and designs in future phones and no longer produce any of the existing designs (they may be allowed to sell those which are already in inventory). This will include changing the design of their charger and cable and their packaging (some of which has already been done).
3. Apple MIGHT agree to grant Samsung a license for some (but not all) of the disputed utility patents, and probably none of the design patents.
4. Samsung drops any claims for royalties on items that have already paid royalties (Qualcomm chips, for example).
5. For any items where royalties have not yet been paid, Apple agrees to pay Samsung the lowest royalty rate of anyone before deducting cross-licensing payments (due to Apple's high volume, this is reasonable).
6. A hefty discount on future purchases of Samsung goods by Apple.
If the two sides are able to come to an agreement, I really believe that it would have to be very similar to that.

Some of those are reasonable while others overreach a bit, but a guy needs something to dream about, and stranger things have happened so I wouldn't be surprised if it were very close to those. Another poster called No. 6 as irrelevant but I'd say it's probably the most improbable of the group.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 50
8/17/12 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What do you know about that? lol
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #48 of 50
8/18/12 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Furthermore, note that it's not unprecedented. The amounts I'm talking about for a negotiated settlement are not at all out of line. In the Microsoft/Apple case well over a decade ago, Microsoft agreed to buy $150 M in Apple stock, and the two parties reached cross licensing agreements. And Apple's case against Microsoft didn't appear to be anywhere near as strong as their case against Samsung.

The Apple/ Microsoft case was decided in 1994. with the judge concluding that the operation of  a GUI was pretty much obvious and did not allow for Apple's claims of original design, and that the actual design of individual icons was essentially generic and not a product of Apple's R & D.

 

The purchase by Microsoft of $150M in Apple stock was in 1998 when Microsoft needed backup in its travails versus the US DoJ.

 

Cheers

Reply
Reply
post #49 of 50
8/18/12 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

The Apple/ Microsoft case was decided in 1994. with the judge concluding that the operation of  a GUI was pretty much obvious and did not allow for Apple's claims of original design, and that the actual design of individual icons was essentially generic and not a product of Apple's R & D.

The purchase by Microsoft of $150M in Apple stock was in 1998 when Microsoft needed backup in its travails versus the US DoJ.

Cheers

That's not what happened. In the Microsoft case, the judge decided that the existing license agreement covered Microsoft's use of Apple's IP.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 50
8/20/12 at 3:26am

Just when you think you've got the trial basics down, the court throws in a monkey-wrench. 

 

While Judge Grewel turned down Samsung's request that Apple also be noted to the jury as having destroyed evidence, Judge Koh sees things differently.

 

She agreed with Samsung.

 

The jury will be told:

"Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple's use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."

So what will the jury be told about Apple?

"Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung's use in this litigation after Apple's duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide."

 

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing