or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures'

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
After Apple asked the court to bar the sales of eight Samsung smartphones found to have violated Apple's patents, Samsung has vowed to fight back and keep some of its best selling products on the market.

Samsung will combat Apple's attempt to ban the sales of eight smartphones with "all necessary measures," the company said in a statement issued to The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. Among the options available to Samsung are filing to stop the injunction, appealing if the injunction is granted by Judge Lucy Koh, and modifying its products to circumvent any bans.

Citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter, Tuesday's report also indicated that officials from Samsung have begun talking to wireless partners about "removing or modifying infringing features to keep products on the market if the injunctions are granted."

In a filing on Monday, Apple asked the court to bar the sale of 8 Samsung smartphones, including the company's U.S. Galaxy S II lineup. In all, the phones Apple wishes to bar from sale accounted for $1.3 billion of Samsung's U.S. sales during the first six months of 2012, documents disclosed in Samsung's lawsuit with Apple have revealed.

The eight smartphones Apple hopes to ban accounted for the lion's share of Samsung's American profits in the first half of the year. A total of 28 devices were included in the Apple-Samsung case, which earned a collective $1.5 billion in U.S. sales in the first six months of 2012.

Injunction


As noted by AppleInsider on Monday, Apple's requests for injunctions target Samsung's best selling and more lucrative smartphones. However, the trial did not include Samsung's newly released flagship handset, the Galaxy S III. The iPhone maker has filed a separate complaint attempting to block sales of that device.

A jury determined last week that Samsung's products have infringed upon Apple's patented inventions. The jury awarded Apple nearly $1.05 billion in damages from Samsung as well.
post #2 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter, Tuesday's report also indicated that officials from Samsung have begun talking to wireless partners about "removing or modifying infringing features to keep products on the market if the injunctions are granted."

And that's why so many people are so disgusted with Samsung.

There's a court decision that says that Samsung infringed Apple's patents. It's also pretty obvious to anyone that they did so. Whether the injunction is granted or not is irrelevant. They need to modify their products to stop the infringement.

But Samsung apparently doesn't see it that way. They think it's OK to be blatantly copying Apple's products as long as there's no injunction in place.

I can't wait to see Apple hammer them with the rest of the pending law suits. I'd also love to see Rule 50 put in place for the Tab and damages to be trebled.
"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 #3 of 73

Maybe they could hurry up and copy something... I mean, if they are going to use all "necessary measures possible", this seems like it would be their first choice.

post #4 of 73

With "all necessary measures" .... LOL sounds like paying the judge off is on the table too LOL

post #5 of 73
I can't wait for Apple to reallocate its supply chain.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #6 of 73

Samsung should be humble. I take off their lawyer shoes... snubbing and not paying attention to the American jury system will never work.   They should sit down quickly and work out something with Apple then being aggressive after being found guilty. Far cheaper to do a deal with Apple then survive in their own chaos.

 

Samsung's Board and legal team has done a terrible time to cover-up and battle.

post #7 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

After Apple asked the court to bar the sales of eight Samsung smartphones found to have violated Apple's patents, Samsung has vowed to fight back and keep some of its best selling products on the market. ...

 

Translation: Samsung is still really mad and still not willing to admit defeat (even though they've been defeated). 

 

In other words this is all bluster and means nothing at all.  They are talking trash *after* the fight is already over.  Lame.  

post #8 of 73
Samsung still doesnt get it. Looking forward to the injunctions of their phones and triple damages.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #9 of 73

Samsung has real issues. I'm still wondering how much of their yearly revenue comes from Apple's chips.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

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

Samsung has real issues. I'm still wondering how much of their yearly revenue comes from Apple's chips.

Between chips, screens, memory, and other components, Apple is around 7-8% of Samsung's revenue.
"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 #11 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Translation: Samsung is still really mad and still not willing to admit defeat (even though they've been defeated). 

 

In other words this is all bluster and means nothing at all.  They are talking trash *after* the fight is already over.  Lame.  

 

Samsung's five stages of grief.

 

Denial:  "The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs."   

 

Anger:  "Samsung will combat Apple's attempt to ban the sales of eight smartphones with "all necessary measures," the company said in a statement issued to The Wall Street Journal.

 

Bargaining:  Samsung to Judge Lucy Koh, "Please, please, please Judge, don't treble the damages.  And, don't grant the injunction that Apple wants.  We will modify our products to obey the law, we promise !!"

 

Depression:  Overheard in Samsung's boardroom, "Oh, why, oh why, did we listen to that rat, Larry Page?  If we had focused only on Windows mobile software, we would have avoided all this headache !!  Now, our brand has been tarnished !!"

 

Acceptance:  Samsung's CEO saying to himself, "Looks like we will have to pay Apple the $3 billion after Judge Koh's ruling, and completely redesign our smartphone product line.  Maybe even dump Android altogether.  Lesson learned.  I don't want to go through this ever again."

post #12 of 73
Samsung seems to be following a Psystar strategy.
post #13 of 73

They are not sorry for what they did, merely angry that they got caught.

post #14 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges View Post

Samsung has real issues. I'm still wondering how much of their yearly revenue comes from Apple's chips.

According to this page, Apple made up just 2.6% of Samsung Electronics' total sales in 2010.  They weren't even Samsung's biggest client, that was Sony.

post #15 of 73

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

 

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
 

post #16 of 73

Samsung's quotes are starting to sound like pronouncements from North Korea LOL!

post #17 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post

According to this page, Apple made up just 2.6% of Samsung Electronics' total sales in 2010.  They weren't even Samsung's biggest client, that was Sony.

You might consider using more recent information. Apple is expected to buy about $11 B from Samsung this year:
http://www.mobot.net/apple-buy-11bn-worth-components-sworn-enemy-samsung-2012-39197

Since Samsung's total sales are around $140 B, that's about 8%. It is, of course, a much larger percentage of the component division's sales.
"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 #18 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

 

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
 

 

Sounds like you've got your own ax to grind.

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

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.

 

You might want to read the interviews with the jurors:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/378000/20120828/apple-samsung-verdict-fallout.htm?

None of the jury members used an iPhone. At least one had a Samsung phone owned by a family member. There is no clear evidence of bias in any respect. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to get a jury disqualified after the close of a trial. Samsung had plenty of opportunity to get biased jurors removed before the trial.

Samsung is simply throwing more FUD. For example, they claim that they're going to appeal on the basis of invalidity of the patents. Sorry, but they can't. The patents have been found in a court of law to be valid. They can appeal IF THAT DECISION WAS REACHED ERRONEOUSLY, but they can't simply argue that the patents are invalid on appeal. They repeatedly keep using stupid arguments and missing the point entirely - which is a large part of the reason that Apple creamed them in court.

I feel sorry for Samsung's lawyers. They presumably know the law, but have to do what Samsung tells them (such as bringing witnesses into the court room in clear violation of a direct court order). They look bad in this case, but much of it is because Samsung didn't have much of a case to start with and has been forcing them to go in unproductive directions.
"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 #20 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.

 

What an idiotic, desperate claim. I suggest you watch last night's interview of Velvin Hogan by Emily Chang of Bloomberg West (google it) -- and report back.

He comes through as careful, measured, dispassionate, and thoughtful. In other words, Samsung's worst nightmare.

He does not own an iPhone, but his wife owns a Samsung phone.

Add: Here's the link to the interview -- http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-jury-foreman-here-s-how-we-reached-a-verdict-RqtqHC25QbOBFg7xrWa5Wg.html
Edited by anantksundaram - 8/28/12 at 8:59am
post #21 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You might consider using more recent information. Apple is expected to buy about $11 B from Samsung this year:
http://www.mobot.net/apple-buy-11bn-worth-components-sworn-enemy-samsung-2012-39197
Since Samsung's total sales are around $140 B, that's about 8%. It is, of course, a much larger percentage of the component division's sales.

I saw that figure before my original post, but seeing as the source is an "unnamed Samsung exec" and confirmed figures won't be available for a long time, I went with the last confirmed numbers.  Obviously its going to be a bigger percentage now as the iPad sales alone would have increased it since 2010.  I think the point I was trying to make was that if Apple and Samsung stopped doing business together (which isn't going to happen), Samsung would still be fine.  Losing <10% of their total sales would not be a fatal blow.

post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80025 View Post

They are not sorry for what they did, merely angry that they got caught.

Exactly.  Treble damages.

oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #23 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

 

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
 

Where do you get that from?  Sometimes you end up with jurors who have a working knowledge of the subject matter of the litigation.  Besides, Samsung's lawyers would have questioned him before placing him as a juror.  If they were uncomfortable with him, they could have removed him.  They thought it was OK for him to be a juror. 

oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #24 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Samsung seems to be following a Psystar strategy.

I still wonder who was backing Psystar. They burned through a lot of money in legal fees for what was essentially a doomed cause. They had help.
post #25 of 73

All necessary measures include negotiations and settlement. So let's not make more out of this than it really is.
 

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


I still wonder who was backing Psystar. They burned through a lot of money in legal fees for what was essentially a doomed cause. They had help.


I'm sure someone here believe Psystar is Samsung in Korean.

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


What an idiotic, desperate claim. I suggest you watch last night's interview of Velvin Hogan by Emily Chang of Bloomberg West (google it) -- and report back.
He comes through as careful, measured, dispassionate, and thoughtful. In other words, Samsung's worst nightmare.
He does not own an iPhone, but his wife owns a Samsung phone.
Add: Here's the link to the interview -- http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-jury-foreman-here-s-how-we-reached-a-verdict-RqtqHC25QbOBFg7xrWa5Wg.html


I agree that he sounds intelligent and reasonable. On the other hand, he is talking a bit too much, IMO. To say that they made a decisions without need for jury instructions worries me.

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


You might want to read the interviews with the jurors:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/378000/20120828/apple-samsung-verdict-fallout.htm?
None of the jury members used an iPhone. At least one had a Samsung phone owned by a family member. There is no clear evidence of bias in any respect. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to get a jury disqualified after the close of a trial. Samsung had plenty of opportunity to get biased jurors removed before the trial.
Samsung is simply throwing more FUD. For example, they claim that they're going to appeal on the basis of invalidity of the patents. Sorry, but they can't. The patents have been found in a court of law to be valid. They can appeal IF THAT DECISION WAS REACHED ERRONEOUSLY, but they can't simply argue that the patents are invalid on appeal. They repeatedly keep using stupid arguments and missing the point entirely - which is a large part of the reason that Apple creamed them in court.
I feel sorry for Samsung's lawyers. They presumably know the law, but have to do what Samsung tells them (such as bringing witnesses into the court room in clear violation of a direct court order). They look bad in this case, but much of it is because Samsung didn't have much of a case to start with and has been forcing them to go in unproductive directions.

Actually, read more of the early interviews with the foreman. It is not a question of whether he has an iPhone (or any other Apple product for that matter, but a question of whether he was improperly serving as an expert witness on patents and carried his own motivations based upon prior (presumably bad) experience attempting to enforce a patent of his own. That does not make him a bad person, just not the one who should have been on the jury in the first place (possibly the fault of Samsung's attorneys, presuming that the foreman answered questions during voir dire truthfully), but one who may not have followed the court's instructions.

 

Another misapprehension you have about the case is your belief that Samsung "brought witnesses into the court contrary to the court's instructions. The legal team made public information which the court had ruled inadmissible (according to news reports which should always be viewed carefully).

 

And another thing, shouting about the court's ruling does nothing to bolster you argument. The court ruled, at least preliminarily, that the patents were valid and were to be submitted to the jury. That is not the final action of the trial court, though it would be unusual for a trial court to reverse its stance post jury verdict. Speaking of the jury verdict, there are reports that there are inconsistent findings which raise additional issues. The case is not as simple as you may wish it were.

 

If nothing else, this case illustrates the uncertainty of litigation. In any event, I forsee this case taking a number of years to wind its way through the appellate  courts before anyone can say "it's done". 

post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneof52 View Post

Where do you get that from?  Sometimes you end up with jurors who have a working knowledge of the subject matter of the litigation.  Besides, Samsung's lawyers would have questioned him before placing him as a juror.  If they were uncomfortable with him, they could have removed him.  They thought it was OK for him to be a juror. 

I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.

 

I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)

 

Cheers

post #30 of 73

The first thing to do, when you have dug yourself into a deep hole, is to stop digging.

post #31 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Actually, read more of the early interviews with the foreman. It is not a question of whether he has an iPhone (or any other Apple product for that matter, but a question of whether he was improperly serving as an expert witness on patents and carried his own motivations based upon prior (presumably bad) experience attempting to enforce a patent of his own. That does not make him a bad person, just not the one who should have been on the jury in the first place (possibly the fault of Samsung's attorneys, presuming that the foreman answered questions during voir dire truthfully), but one who may not have followed the court's instructions.

Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?

Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things 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 #32 of 73
Originally Posted by quinney View Post
The first thing to do, when you have dug yourself into a deep hole, is to stop digging.

 

I thought it was "dig yourself a second shaft for air in case of cave-ins".

 

And here come the jokes about Samsung getting shafted twice… 

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 #33 of 73
Samsung vows to keep fighting?

It looks like they copied that, as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

It's just a flesh wound.
"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 #34 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

I get it from his own words. When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong.

I certainly wonder just how far Samsung's attorneys went into the foreman's background with respect to patents during their examination of him prior to actually selecting the jury. While there is a lot of strategy used in the exercise of challenges ("strikes") in selecting a jury, hindsight would suggest that the man who ultimately became the foreman was not a favorable selection for Samsung. There is also the possibility that the Samsung team simply ran out of peremptory challenges before they got to this guy. (It's a little like draft picks, but in reverse.)

Cheers

This, of course, begs the question. There's absolutely no knowledge that the foreman did what you suggest.

More importantly, the speed of the verdict pretty much confirms that they jury didn't need any convincing. They apparently were unanimous from the start that Samsung was guilty and most of the time was spent figuring out the details.
"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 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


This, of course, begs the question. There's absolutely no knowledge that the foreman did what you suggest.
More importantly, the speed of the verdict pretty much confirms that they jury didn't need any convincing. They apparently were unanimous from the start that Samsung was guilty and most of the time was spent figuring out the details.

No. Go read things again.

post #36 of 73

post #37 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Nonsense. Where did the foreman claim to be an expert witness?
Hint: You know that you don't have much of an argument when you have to make things up.

You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words. 

post #38 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Another misapprehension you have about the case is your belief that Samsung "brought witnesses into the court contrary to the court's instructions. The legal team made public information which the court had ruled inadmissible (according to news reports which should always be viewed carefully).

You are wrong, again. They did what you described (making information public), but they also brought witnesses into the court room (while the room was empty) in direct violation of the court's orders.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/samsung_shows_courtroom_to_witnesses_breaks_court_rules/

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

You are the uninformed one. I reference the man's own words. 

Then tell us the exact words where he claims to be an expert witness and cite a reference.

More importantly, show us the exact words where he did the following as you claimed:
"When a juror substitutes their own knowledge/expertise for that of the witnesses and evidence presented in court and the instructions of the court as to the law that is wrong."

I'm not interested in your interpretation, I want to see the exact words where he substituted his knowledge/expertise for the judge's instructions and where he used is knowledge/expertise to substitute for the testimony and evidence presented in the trial.
"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 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Someone ought to investigate the jury foreman's patent experiences. The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests that he had a bad experience attempting to enforce a patent of his and was on a vendetta. It strongly suggests the possibility of a personal motivation in the outcome of the case rather than a dispassionate juror reviewing the facts and applying them to the instructions given by the court.

 

This case may well drag out for the better part of a decade before it is resolved with finality.
 

 

 

It no longer makes a difference. 

 

It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area. 

 

Just accept it. 

post #40 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


It no longer makes a difference. 

It's over. Samsung's best efforts came up short. And they are still totally clueless as to why. That alone doesn't bode well for any future claim from them in this area. 

Just accept it. 

And the bolded is the key.

Even if Samsung somehow manages to get this verdict thrown out on a technicality (no matter how unlikely), they still have the problem that there's a strong perception that they simply copied from Apple and are unable to do anything unique. A group of average citizens who saw the evidence unanimously agreed that Samsung was a shameless copycat and did so intentionally.

Samsung's "we'll only change it if the court issues an injunction" is not only a slap at the entire U.S. legal system, but indicates that they don't mind being seen as a shameless copycat who is incapable of creating anything original. If I were a Samsung shareholder, I'd dump the stock on that basis, even if there was no other reason to do so.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung to fight injunctions sought by Apple with 'all necessary measures'