or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money' - Page 2

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Well they were found guilty of infringing so to go up there and act like they still weren't would've been standard Samsung behaviour

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/03/samsung_denies_cheating_on_benchmark_testing_despite_evidence/

Fixed that for you.
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
post #42 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And this is why more jurors need to join the Fully Informed Jury Association. Ignore the judge's instructions and award treble damages because they have admitted willful infringement with the intent to ride Apple's coattails without doing the hard work to create their own products.

http://fija.org

But but but Apple needs competition. Copying is justified. Competition is good for everyone, especially the copiers. /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 107

Lol. Yea that works too.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 107
Wow! Did Samsung just admit to perjury or did they stiff their lawyers out of some fees and now it's payback? LOL
post #45 of 107

Just noting for the record that this is a six day trial.

 

The results of this trial and the Rockstar Consortium trial in the near future will turn Samsung into a quivering blob of goo.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 107
It's terribly frustrating and disappointing that companies like Samsung knowingly break the law, steal intellectual property/cheat etc, Knowing it does not matter because in the end the things they stole are worth so much more than the monetary punishments they face. Although arguably extreme, those top tier business men CEO's etc who make these decisions to break the laws should be faced with criminal charges not just pay money and walk away. Accountability.
Edited by digitol - 11/13/13 at 4:30pm
post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitol View Post

It's terribly frustrating and disappointing that companies like Samsung knowingly break the law, steal intellectual property/cheat etc, Knowing it does not matter because in the end the things they stole are worth so much more than the monetary punishments they face. Although arguably extreme, those top tier business men CEO's etc who make these decisions to break the laws should be faced with criminal charges not just pay money and walk away. Accountability.


I recall reading somewhere a post that said something like "It's like Samsung gets caught stealing $10Million dollars from a bank, paying a fine of $100,000 and getting to keep the rest of the money.".

That pretty much sums-up what Scamsung is doing.

post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes treble damages are off the table. Judge Koh ruled a few months back there was no willfullness.

Confirmed, thanks. I see that the jury originally deemed it willful infringement, but Judge Lucy Koh reversed the jury's finding 5 months later. According to Foss Patents, it was reversed because Samsung "had reasons to believe that what it was doing was legal." However, in my lay opinion, because this is a civil suit, not a criminal trial, it only needs to be more likely than not that Samsung infringed willfully. In other words, willful infringement can be ruled even if some (less than half) of the defendant's thoughts were that it was legal. How the judge figured the preponderance of the evidence was in Samsung's favor, I don't understand--particularly when her actions meant reversing a jury's decision that found it was willful.

 

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/01/judge-overrules-jury-finds-samsungs.html

 

It seems Judge Koh's decision on willful infringement relies completely on Samsung being a poor judge of what's patentable--Samsung thought (or at least said so after the fact! :err:) that Apple's patents would be invalidated. How is that an excuse under the law? Is it excusable just because every Android handset maker was involved in gang banging Apple for its revolutionary, patented technology? Of course, all of these companies couldn't be wrong, could they? Or were they all just desperate?:rolleyes:


Edited by Cpsro - 11/13/13 at 4:55pm
post #49 of 107

This wouldn't even be newsworthy were it not for the crowd frothing at the mouth about ~evil samsung~. The trial to determine whether they copied Apple is over, and the result is that they did. The legal system has decided that they broke the law, and there's no point in them saying otherwise because that's not what this is about. 

 

This trial is about damages. Nothing more, nothing less. 

post #50 of 107
If they admitted the guilt like this, it is not far from 'willfulness', grounds for increasing the penalty.
Why Judge Koh did not 3x the final figure remains a mystery. And a source of debate I think in legal circles.
Can she still do this in this new trial?
post #51 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

If they admitted the guilt like this, it is not far from 'willfulness', grounds for increasing the penalty.
Why Judge Koh did not 3x the final figure remains a mystery. And a source of debate I think in legal circles.
Can she still do this in this new trial?
No.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


What Samsung's statement did was acknowledge that they had already been deemed to infringe so that was no longer at issue. This re-trial only has to do with how much Samsung will owe, not whether the IP was used without permission. That was settled in the first trial so their counsel isn't addressing whether Samsung believes they should have been found guilty or not. That's moot until the expected appeal.

I disagree.  Samsung could have said the same thing they always say when the hammer falls on them.  "We vehemently deny the allegations and will vigorously defend ourselves against them."

But no, they essentially just admitted "Yep, we did it... but...but...but..." and the apologists here are trying to make it out to be something else.

post #53 of 107
Like it or not, based on the amount Samsung profited all these years and the amount it will continue to make, a 400 million verdict or so will seem like a minor price to pay.
post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I disagree.  Samsung could have said the same thing they always say when the hammer falls on them.  "We vehemently deny the allegations and will vigorously defend ourselves against them."


But no, they essentially just admitted "Yep, we did it... but...but...but..." and the apologists here are trying to make it out to be something else.

Deny what allegations? There aren't any to deny. This is a limited retrial concerning only damages.

And repeating for those that think I sympathize with Sammy: I don't. I think they knew exactly what they were doing and just willing to roll the dice in spite of it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/13/13 at 5:44pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #55 of 107

Can American Losers (Patent Judges) now issue a Ban on all New Future Samsung Products because of such act? Let them get reviewed first and if they are not found guilty after thorough review by US Companies, release them!

 

So by Default---> Ban Shamesung Products! US People should show a middle finger to that whole Country who needs US help in every other way from Military help to Money (by Cheating)!

post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Deny what allegations? There aren't any to deny. This is a limited retrial concerning only damages.

And repeating for those that think I sympathize with Sammy: I don't. I think they knew exactly what they were doing and just willing to roll the dice in spite of it.

 

Yes, a foolish risk on their part. One which will be revisited once the 'Rockstar' trial starts.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #57 of 107

Pretty sure Apple will get a huge sum of money from Samsung.

post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Yes, a foolish risk on their part. One which will be revisited once the 'Rockstar' trial starts.

I can't imagine that one would cost Samsung anymore than a few hundred million at worst. Rockstar can't claim lost profits. They don't have any practicing products. Even showing willful infringement is probably next to impossible.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

I'm pretty sure apple would have sold just a BIT more than 360,000 phones extra were it not for Samsung's knockoff products.

 


Apple is the one that came up with this number.
post #60 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And they are the only Android phone maker that is allegedly making a profit! Wow, what a loser of a game to be in for these manufacturers. Google is the only one reaping a benefit.

These companies would've been better off forming a joint consortium to develop a phone OS to compete with iPhone than get tangled up in Android.

And there is the real missing element in all this. Scamsung could have made an identical looking phone to an iPhone but it would only have been a paper weight if not for the fact it ran yet another equally ripped off IP of Apple's, Android OS itself. I hope we see Google swinging in the wind one day.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #61 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


What Samsung's statement did was acknowledge that they had already been deemed to infringe so that was no longer at issue. This re-trial only has to do with how much Samsung will owe, not whether the IP was used without permission. That was settled in the first trial so their counsel isn't addressing whether Samsung believes they should have been found guilty or not. That's moot until the expected appeal.

 

No, that's not what was said.

"This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property,

He didn't say the jury has decided & we will abide by their decision. He said there is no dispute that these phones contained some elements of Apple's property. I have no idea why you think you can spin that.

post #62 of 107
"Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing products. Samsung, the company that broke the law, took in $3.5 billion. You will decide how much of that $3.5 billion will be returned to Apple."

Apple is seeking $113 million in lost profits for 360,000 iPhones the company believes it could have sold without competing against its own work, another $231 million in improper profits collected by Samsung on its own sales, and $34 million in patent royalties for the intellectual property Samsung infringed, a total of $379 million."

Is the Apple lawyer nuts? They're only asking for $21.59 per infringing product?!? That's $231M in profits on 10.7M in infringing products. And those 10.7M of infringing products only displaced 360,000 iPhones?!? Seems to me that the Apple lawyers are asking for way too little.
post #63 of 107

My jaw is dropped so far, that I am speechless. I don't know what say or think. Is this venality? Stupidity? Chutzpah? Shamelessness? Crassness? Naivete? All of the above?

 

What is the strategy here? Seeking Tim Cook's forgiveness?!

post #64 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

No, that's not what was said.
"This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property,
He didn't say the jury has decided & we will abide by their decision. He said there is no dispute that these phones contained some elements of Apple's property. I have no idea why you think you can spin that.
It's not spin. It's simple legal fact. Of course they wouldn't dispute something that's not at issue with this court and won't be considered nor addressed by the judge now. That's a settled case and Samsung is guilty....

until the almost certain appeal may reopen some of the issues.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/13/13 at 6:55pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

If they admitted the guilt like this, it is not far from 'willfulness', grounds for increasing the penalty.
Why Judge Koh did not 3x the final figure remains a mystery. And a source of debate I think in legal circles.
Can she still do this in this new trial?
No.

What are you, an IP lawyer?

 

Care to explain why "no"?

post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC View Post



Is the Apple lawyer nuts? They're only asking for $21.59 per infringing product?!? That's $231M in profits on 10.7M in infringing products. And those 10.7M of infringing products only displaced 360,000 iPhones?!? Seems to me that the Apple lawyers are asking for way too little.

 

Why not look up the breakdown of it? How it sounds doesn't really matter. Each of those numbers is calculated from a number of factors. It shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.

post #67 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

No, that's not what was said.
"This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property,
He didn't say the jury has decided & we will abide by their decision. He said there is no dispute that these phones contained some elements of Apple's property. I have no idea why you think you can spin that.
It's not spin. It's simple legal fact. Of course they wouldn't dispute something that's not at issue with this court and won't be considered nor addressed by the judge now. That's settled already and Samsung is guilty....

until the almost certain appeal may reopen some of the issues.

Let me ask you this Gatorguy -- know that I believe you when you say you're not siding with Samsung -- but do you think that the massive success of subsequent Samsung touch-based smartphones (e.g., SG II, III, IV) might have had a lot to do with the initial, even if limited success, of the '.....13 phones that contain some elements of Apple's property'?

 

If the answer is 'yes,' what has that been worth to Samsung's shareholders?

post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What are you, an IP lawyer?

Care to explain why "no"?

Because the willfulness is not at question anymore than infringement is. That was settled in conjunction with the finding of infringement months ago. The only remaining issue (and holdup before the appeals from both parties) is the final dollar figure for the non-willful infringement as previously decided by Judge Koh. You shouldn't need a legal degree to figure that out. Just do some reading. It's all been explained .
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/13/13 at 6:52pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Let me ask you this Gatorguy -- know that I believe you when you say you're not siding with Samsung -- but do you think that the massive success of subsequent Samsung touch-based smartphones (e.g., SG II, III, IV) might have had a lot to do with the initial, even if limited success, of the '.....13 phones that contain some elements of Apple's property'?

If the answer is 'yes,' what has that been worth to Samsung's shareholders?

I hadn't even thought about it but the quick answer would be yes. To what degree I've not the slightest. If Apple wants to now go after newer Samsung devices I say have at it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Because the willfulness is not at question anymore than infringement is. That was settled in conjunction with the finding of infringement months ago. The only remaining issue (and holdup before the appeals from both parties) is the final dollar figure for the non-willful infringement as previously decided by Judge Koh. You shouldn't need a legal degree to figure that out. Just do some reading. It's all been explained .

Can you suggest a reading -- given your statement that it is quite obvious, I am sure you should have no trouble -- that explains it all?

post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Can you suggest a reading -- given your statement that it is quite obvious, I am sure you should have no trouble -- that explains it all?

Sure.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/the-truth-is-neither-court-nor-parties.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

My jaw is dropped so far, that I am speechless. I don't know what say or think. Is this venality? Stupidity? Chutzpah? Shamelessness? Crassness? Naivete? All of the above?

 

What is the strategy here? Seeking Tim Cook's forgiveness?!

 

This isn't a trial to determine guilt or innocence.  Samsung is guilty.  Period.

 

The jury's job is to determine the amount of damages owed and that's it.  The original jury came up with an amount that was calculated incorrectly.  This was caught after the jury had long gone home.  The judge can't just simply 'tweak' the amount to fix it- so they had to vacate the portion of the original settlement that was done incorrectly and the new jurors' task is simply to calculate that amount using the correct method.

 

Samsung is going to pay Apple a big chunk of dough.  That is a given.  Samsung's lawyers don't want the jury discussing innocence or guilt- because that can lead to passion which can lead to higher damages.  They're just defusing the whole need for an argument by saying, yep we're guilty and we're not disputing the verdict that can't be changed in this trial anyway.  From the subset of phones found to infringe we profited 52 million and that huge sum is what we owe Apple.

 

Apple's lawyers want as much passion as possible in the trial and to make the focus on things like 'theft', 'crime', and 'making Apple whole again'  They want 370ish million instead.

 

Samsung will pay Apple somewhere between those two numbers.  This particular trial isn't about guilt or innocence, it is about lawyers arguing over money.

post #73 of 107

Samsung = Donkey

 

'Nuff said.

post #74 of 107

Fair enough. 

 

Let's see what happens.

post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

Why not look up the breakdown of it? How it sounds doesn't really matter. Each of those numbers is calculated from a number of factors. It shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.

Oh, thanks for the advice! Math calculations?!? Never heard of them.

post #76 of 107

Can anyone confirm if this is still connected to the 2012 trial?

 

What are the Samsung phone models involved in this?

post #77 of 107
It is true at this stage that the defense, Samsung, must no longer dispute facts in evidence, I.e. Samsung stole Apple's ideas. The jury has spoken, so don't chide the attorneys for agreeing, they really have no choice but to agree, and plead mercy.

This is a civil case, so it's just about money. I like round numbers!

$2 billion, small bills preferred...
post #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC View Post
 

Oh, thanks for the advice! Math calculations?!? Never heard of them.


There is always some basis of valuation. Note that the amount being re-evaluated relates to a mistake on the part of the jury. Part of the original problem was the ambiguity. Note the link.  The original trial had a matrix of claims. It wasn't just all patents against every device. I am unsure how the jury ended up with such ridiculous forms to determine infringement and damages.

post #79 of 107

Gatorguy behaves like a shill in my opinion... and doesn't work for Apple!

 

fyi: Jurors don't often know this, but attorneys can say almost anything they want in opening and closing statements. What matters is sworn testimony (which the opening/closing statements are not).

post #80 of 107
I now a person that has a Galaxy Ace and someone else just said that that things a iPhone 4 knock off. Samsung should just sell them selves cause there gonna end up in a jack loud of dept.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'