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 3

post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeiP5 View Post

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.

You've written something in English here... I simply cannot make heads or tails of what you're talking about.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

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).

1biggrin.gif You're right I don't work for Apple. Not anyone else either for that matter.

Oddly enough I get up every morning shortly after 5am, and go to work every weekday (haven't missed a single workday in over 30 years) without anyone being able to fire me if I don't. If you have the self-motivation (most people don't) there's nothing better than working for yourself IMO. So I'm pretty happy with my life which perhaps is one of the reasons I don't feel any need to belittle others in an effort to make myself feel better about who I am. I'm good with me. 1cool.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #83 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.

This is not a trial about allegations so why address it? It's solely about damages.
"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 #84 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.

If they appeal, this statement should play very well to the jury indeed!

post #85 of 107

If Samsung now admits they stole Apple patents and made a profit off them, doesn't that mean they perjured themselves if they denied it during trial? No legal ramifications at this point?

 

I'd be pretty pissed if I were judge Koh…being lied to in my own courtroom.

post #86 of 107

From the get-go this case should have been a slam dunk. Samsung sees a phone they are helping to manufacture on their assembly lines, they feverishly build a new version of their own phone to match it, going from a blackberry-like interface to a "gee, that accidentally looks like an iPhone, and we even have a flower on the photo app." And then they hire an outside company to go through and not just "improve" their app, but to document how it differs from the iPhone so they can change the functionality in Android to match.

 

Copyright and IP are out of control, granted, but it was designed just for a situation where someone rides on another's coattails and does not innovate.

 

Samsung made tens of billions from this design and so far, their penalty is a cost of business -- not a deterrent.

 

If they don't get thrown to the floor on this issue, why do we even bother with patents and copyright?

post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazerCT View Post
 

If Samsung now admits they stole Apple patents and made a profit off them, doesn't that mean they perjured themselves if they denied it during trial? No legal ramifications at this point?

 

I'd be pretty pissed if I were judge Koh…being lied to in my own courtroom.

 

Corporations ARE people -- where it benefits them. It seems the courts only notices Perjury for individuals, not for corporations. Something like 80% of our Judges are corporate appointed now, so not punishing corporations for lying is probably more an issue of habit, rather than judicial practice.

 

On the other hand, Samsung would still be lying if they were penalized now for coming forward. I suppose they just want this over and done with so they can move on.

post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Corporations ARE people -- where it benefits them. It seems the courts only notices Perjury for individuals, not for corporations. Something like 80% of our Judges are corporate appointed now, so not punishing corporations for lying is probably more an issue of habit, rather than judicial practice.

On the other hand, Samsung would still be lying if they were penalized now for coming forward. I suppose they just want this over and done with so they can move on.

Corporations don't testify, people do.
post #89 of 107

I seriously don't get the whole "It's OK for Samsung to admit guilt here since this is about damages" argument.  There is a way to contest the damages without stating straight up that the client is guilty.  Saying, "While our client was found guilty by the court for infringement, we vehemently contest Apple's stated amount for damages."  That would bypass an admission of guilt without ticking the jury off.  Is the plan on appeal to contest the validity of the patent themselves?  Even with a technicality that grants appeal, surely this admission would hurt them.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #90 of 107
They didn't say that they aren't disputing it, they say that they are not talking about it. It's not the same thing.
post #91 of 107

I really don't see how people can see that Samsung is admitting anything. They are not unfortunately, but that's expected. The point of this retrial is not to find if they did copy or not, the attorney rightly said so.

post #92 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I seriously don't get the whole "It's OK for Samsung to admit guilt here since this is about damages" argument.  There is a way to contest the damages without stating straight up that the client is guilty.  Saying, "While our client was found guilty by the court for infringement, we vehemently contest Apple's stated amount for damages."  That would bypass an admission of guilt without ticking the jury off.  Is the plan on appeal to contest the validity of the patent themselves?  Even with a technicality that grants appeal, surely this admission would hurt them.

It's not about admitting guilt. Samsung is playing for jury sympathy by (feigning) contrition for the problem they created. They're so sorry if they've caused any harm to Apple and want to be seen as reasonable and fair by offering Apple's the entire profit they made from those devices: The "huge sum" of $52 million. We'll see if the jury buys it.

My personal guess based on nothing more than some reading here and there is the jury coming back with a figure closer to $150 million or so rather than Apple's requested $380M+.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 107
Samsung's attorney has to admit patent infringement. Not surprising, since they lost on the judgment side, and Samsung cannot argue otherwise. On appeal, Samsung will argue patent law again, but this is not an appellate argument. Now is the trial on damages.
post #94 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichS View Post

"Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "And that, he says, is what Apple should get in damages," Mintz reported."

Damages should not based on what Samsung did earn, but what Apple could have earned with those sales. It is well documented that Apple makes the highest profit per unit of any manufacturer, and shouldn't be penalized by Samsung's low-ball pricing.

If allowed, I wouldn't be surprised if the jury tacks-on a large dollar amount for damages.

The purpose of damages is to make the victim monetarily whole. Thus, Samsung's profits are not relevant. Apple will argue profits, loss of customers. What might be interesting to compare is Samsung's profit (paid by Apple) to build Apple phone components, and Samsung's profits from building their own patent-infringing devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung made less money stealing from Apple than they would have made building the iPhones that Apple would have sold but for Samsung's misdeeds. 

post #95 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I can't imagine that [the Rockstar patent suit] 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.

Samsung's partner making an offer of Pi billion dollars for the portfolio is a sign of willful infringement and flouting the law.

post #96 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


1biggrin.gif You're right I don't work for Apple. Not anyone else either for that matter.

Oddly enough I get up every morning shortly after 5am, and go to work every weekday (haven't missed a single workday in over 30 years) without anyone being able to fire me if I don't. If you have the self-motivation (most people don't) there's nothing better than working for yourself IMO. So I'm pretty happy with my life which perhaps is one of the reasons I don't feel any need to belittle others in an effort to make myself feel better about who I am. I'm good with me. 1cool.gif

Personal investor

post #97 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Samsung's partner making an offer of Pi billion dollars for the portfolio is a sign of willful infringement and flouting the law.

Then perhaps a judge and a jury can be as easily convinced. 1rolleyes.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #98 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Personal investor

Nope. No stock at all in any tech except for a few shares of Qualcomm bought "back in the day". Probably the best investment I ever made too!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 107
Hey wait a minute what about google they should get poked as a partner in crime
post #100 of 107

First does anyone think that Samsung 

 

Quote:
"Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "

That are saying that only made $5 per phone sold. if that is true then all the profits they are claiming now are over in flatted. They must be making all those billions doing something else, Maybe they are laundering money for Walter White.

post #101 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

First does anyone think that Samsung 

That are saying that only made $5 per phone sold. if that is true then all the profits they are claiming now are over in flatted. They must be making all those billions doing something else, Maybe they are laundering money for Walter White.

They can't claim profit that they didn't make. That's illegal. If only part of the phone is infringing why should they pay the total profit? Take for instance the guy that invented intermittent wipers, and that Ford used without licensing the technology. Should have Ford paid him the entire profit for every car sold that had intermittent wipers?
"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 #102 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Nope. No stock at all in any tech except for a few shares of Qualcomm bought "back in the day". Probably the best investment I ever made too!

If you're not a personal investor (and not independently wealthy), then you do work for someone--clients, customers--even if you would like to think of yourself as "the boss."

post #103 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then perhaps a judge and a jury can be as easily convinced. 1rolleyes.gif

I can smell a rat just like you can, and there's no telling what discovery will dig up, so I don't see how you can say any particular outcome is more likely than not.

post #104 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

The purpose of damages is to make the victim monetarily whole. Thus, Samsung's profits are not relevant. Apple will argue profits, loss of customers. What might be interesting to compare is Samsung's profit (paid by Apple) to build Apple phone components, and Samsung's profits from building their own patent-infringing devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung made less money stealing from Apple than they would have made building the iPhones that Apple would have sold but for Samsung's misdeeds. 
Hmmm, but the profit made by Samsung is attributed (at least partly) by intellectual property owned by apple so had apple been given the opportunity to license that property to samsung, it would have earned money. Since Apple wasn't even given that opportunity, I would think apple could argue for damages on samsung's profits as well.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #105 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


They can't claim profit that they didn't make. That's illegal. If only part of the phone is infringing why should they pay the total profit? Take for instance the guy that invented intermittent wipers, and that Ford used without licensing the technology. Should have Ford paid him the entire profit for every car sold that had intermittent wipers?

Agree, but profits are what is used to determine how much damages you pay. If ford was able to sell more cars because of that feature and made lots of profits than that is what is used. To your example, if Ford made $100 profit on ever car sold with that feature and they were some how able to determine that the wiper feature was only $0.02 of the profit then the patent holder can only collect damages on the $0.02 times the number of cars sold. It does not work that way, and that is not what Samsung Lawyer is saying he is claiming in the statement that Samsung only made $5 profit on every phone in total. They can not say that software and design elements of their phone which the patents infringed only represented $5 of the total profits. I would like to see the calculation on that one especially when you are talking about rounded corners.

 

IF you sell something and make lots of profits on what you sell and you infringe on someone IP they can claim damages against the total profits of what you sold not just the feature unless you can show that feature is separately priced and sold, even then if that feature enables the total sales they they are all inconsideration. 


Edited by Maestro64 - 11/14/13 at 3:26pm
post #106 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

I can smell a rat just like you can, and there's no telling what discovery will dig up, so I don't see how you can say any particular outcome is more likely than not.

Apple failed to prove it to a court despite all the discussions Apple and Samsung had well before it was decided a lawsuit was the only way to settle it. Yet you think it's a even or better chance that Rockstar, who's asserting IP that Samsung was highly unlikely to have been aware of before they may have used it in a product, will be more successful at proving willfulness? That's how I can say I believe a particular outcome is more likely than not.

Litigants attempt to claim willfullness in nearly every patent infringement case I've read. Perhaps every one of them I've seen, dunno for certain as I didn't pay that close attention. Proving it sure doesn't happen often and it's recently become harder than ever.

That's because the rules have changed First there has to be convincing proof that the infringer was using the claimed IP despite “an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” That's a simple question of fact and can be decided by a jury.

Then assuming that bridge gets crossed here's the part that changed and is no longer in a jury's hands. The owner of the patent has to show that subjectively the infringer was well aware of a high risk to using that IP (that it was “either known or so obvious that it should have been known”) and their defense for using it is unreasonable. For that a judge has to determine the defendants rationale at the time of infringement, how they arrived at their choice and what went into the decision.

So my opinion is willful infringement ain't gonna happen with any of these current Rockstar defendants. The odds are on my side that I'm right.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/14/13 at 2:59pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #107 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko1357 View Post

Hey wait a minute what about google they should get poked as a partner in crime

 

Rest assured, they will see the inside of a courtroom during the Rockstar Consortium infringement trial.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
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'