or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
As the Apple v. Samsung trial continues in San Jose, California, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller testified on Thursday, explaining the risks involved in developing and bringing to market a new device like the iPhone.

GPS
Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller revealing the first-generation iPad mini.


According to multiple in-court reports from various publications, Thursday's Apple v. Samsung proceedings were quite dry, with little information coming to light that had not already aired in the landmark jury trial last year.

Apple and Samsung are disputing roughly $400 million in damages U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh vacated in March after finding inaccuracies in the jury's award calculations. The current trial pertains to these damages, with Apple seeking some $380 million, while Samsung claims the correct amount is closer to $52 million.

As for Schiller's testimony, CNET reports the Apple executive took the stand near the end of Thursday's session, with only minutes to introduce himself and quickly describe the importance of the iPhone.

"There were huge risks," Schiller said about the original iPhone. "We had a saying inside the company that it was a 'bet-the-company' product. We were starting to do well again in iPod. Then here we're going to invest all these resources, financial as well as people, in creating this product."

He went on to say that now "almost everyone" at Apple works on the iPhone project in some capacity.

Apple argues, as it did in the 2012 jury trial, that Samsung infringed on certain utility and design patents with its smartphone and tablet lineup. In the retrial, Apple is asserting five patents against 13 Samsung devices. It will be up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded to the Cupertino company.

The case continues tomorrow and is scheduled to run into next week, with deliberations to follow.
post #2 of 68

can't litigate my ass!

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #3 of 68
Whether it's 50 million or 400 million, it's pocket change to both these companies. They probably spent more fighting the case than that. What I would like to know is what happens going forward (other than Apple winning the right to brand it's biggest competitor a convicted thief). Will there be royalties or licensing involved or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #4 of 68

Even at 400 million that is like a speeding ticket for these companies.

post #5 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Whether it's 50 million or 400 million, it's pocket change to both these companies. They probably spent more fighting the case than that. What I would like to know is what happens going forward (other than Apple winning the right to brand it's biggest competitor a convicted thief). Will there be royalties or licensing involved or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?

 

I don't see why Apple should license anything, especially to a company that stole from them.

"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 #6 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

... or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?

Hahaha. Seems like that has indeed happened.

"We're surrounded by anonymous, poorly made objects. It's tempting to think it's because the people who use them don't care -- just like the people who make them." - Jony Ive, 2014
Reply
"We're surrounded by anonymous, poorly made objects. It's tempting to think it's because the people who use them don't care -- just like the people who make them." - Jony Ive, 2014
Reply
post #7 of 68
The jury would be quite a dummy if it decides to listen to samsungs proposal of a 50 million payout. They were found guilty already and they even admitted it recently to the court. They're in no position to negotiate what they owe, samsung as a company clearly only cares about money, Apple was never about that and they're just trying to protect their intellectual property Samsung has been making billions of dollars off of.
post #8 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As the Apple v. Samsung trial continues in San Jose, California, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller testified on Thursday, explaining the risks involved in developing and bringing to market a new device like the iPhone.

GPS

That's one freaking big iPhone! Yes, yes, caption. But the case is about the iPhone; I'd use a different picture. But that's just me.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #9 of 68

I hope someday soon Apple can get away from Scamscum entirely.  I'm sick of Scamsum. I will NEVER buy a product they sell with their name on it.  EVER.  Their products are banned from my home.  

post #10 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I hope someday soon Apple can get away from Scamscum entirely.  I'm sick of Scamsum. I will NEVER buy a product they sell with their name on it.  EVER.  Their products are banned from my home.  
So no more iPhones & iPads for you then?
post #11 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post


So no more iPhones & iPads for you then?

Did you not finish school and learn how to read?   re-read what i said. I'm not going to buy a Samsung product with their name on it.  If I buy an iPhone or IPad, it's got Apple's name on it.  Not Samsung's.   

post #12 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


That's one freaking big iPhone! Yes, yes, caption. But the case is about the iPhone; I'd use a different picture. But that's just me.

 

I agree. Without reading anything, I might have guessed that was Samsung's latest phablet!!

post #13 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

So no more iPhones & iPads for you then?

Yes, I'm afraid you've revealed your poor comprehension skills there:

Product - an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

Component - a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary.

What does the "Lord" stand for in your name? "Lord, he's incredibly uneducated!" or "Lord, he's desperately grasping at straws"

If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?

Or why we can't buy them when we walk into a Samsung store?
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?

They probably wanted an apple bit it was already taken. By the the son, of the Lord.

(very subtle bit in here as well)
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #15 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple argues, as it did in the 2012 jury trial, that Samsung infringed on certain utility and design patents with its smartphone and tablet lineup. It will be up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded to the Cupertino company.

Wha?? Why the heck would there be any argument about that? It's settled case-law at this stage with absolutely zero to be decided about whether infringement happened. For the sake of this limited retrial it's an indisputable fact Samsung infringed, period. Nothing to argue about in this venue other than the dollar damages for it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Wha?? Why the heck would there be any argument about that? It's settled case-law at this stage with absolutely zero to be decided about whether infringement happened. For the sake of this limited retrial it's an indisputable fact Samsung infringed, period. Nothing to argue about in this venue other than the dollar damages for it.

And if it's "up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded" why is the amount being lowered by a judge? Or was that a different case? With all these new iPhones and iPads flying around, I'm losing touch.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #17 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

And if it's "up to the jury to decide what damages should be awarded" why is the amount being lowered by a judge? Or was that a different case? With all these new iPhones and iPads flying around, I'm losing touch.

Clear jury error in calculating damages for those specific phones.

14 phones weren't found by the original jury to infringe on at least one of the patents the others were IIRC but still received the same damage amount (percent). I think one phone may have been added back to the original damages after the fact. Since the jury didn't ascribe damages on a per-patent basis but instead one lump sum there was no way for the court to determine how much to deduct for the non-infringement of that patent. Was there an equal value set by the jury for each of the infringed patents or did they consider some to be more valuable than others? In the jury's opinion was the non-infringed patent the most valuable of the lot or the least? So another jury gets seated to figure out what damages value should be assigned to those remaining 5 patents applied to those 13 (14?) Samsung phones.

In any case it won't be more than Apple was awarded the first time if I'm reading it right. Jury instructions were that the award should be between $52M and $380M, less than the $400+ the first go-round.

EDIT: One somewhat important thing to note is that whatever award is finally set there's interest already accruing on it based on the 52-week Treasury Rate. Should be enough to put a ding in the attorney fees.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/15/13 at 5:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

^ post

There is a count by count overview at WSJ with the design and Utility patents.


Then there's the complete jury form:


Then there's the breakdown of damages awarded, but I'm terrible at searching the internet, and can't find it (quickly). Some list of per patent infringement with the amount of damages, like $3 for this $10 for that.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #19 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

There is a count by count overview [

Then there's the complete jury form:


Then there's the breakdown of damages awarded, but I'm terrible at searching the internet, and can't find it (quickly). Some list of per patent infringement with the amount of damages, like $3 for this $10 for that.

If there was a per-patent dollar breakdown then Judge Koh could have determined how much to adjust the original erroneous damage award by...
but there wasn't which is why you have trouble finding it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If there was a per-patent dollar breakdown then Judge Koh could have determined how much to adjust the original erroneous damage award by...
but there wasn't which is why you have trouble finding it.

Ah, ok, thanks. See, that's the trouble with these search engines; you can search for anything, but you can only find what exists.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #21 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Ah, ok, thanks. See, that's the trouble with these search engines; you can search for anything, but you can only find what exists.

...damn search engines.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...damn search engines.

Someone should build a find engine
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #23 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


(very subtle bit in here as well)

Did you mean bit, or by... I mean, bite? 1wink.gif
post #24 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Someone should build a find engine

That'll be the day Apple goes after Googles core business.
post #25 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

That'll be the day Apple goes after Googles core business.

Ah, you must mean stealing people's personal information to send them ads. /s
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Whether it's 50 million or 400 million, it's pocket change to both these companies. They probably spent more fighting the case than that. What I would like to know is what happens going forward (other than Apple winning the right to brand it's biggest competitor a convicted thief). Will there be royalties or licensing involved or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?

The infringing devices are all old. Apple got what it wanted, Samsung no longer makes iPhone clones and it has paid dividends for them.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #27 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

I don't see why Apple should license anything, especially to a company that stole from them.
Agree, but guess I was thinking of FRAND patents.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #28 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The infringing devices are all old. Apple got what it wanted, Samsung no longer makes iPhone clones and it has paid dividends for them.
One could argue that there is a cascade effect--that they built what they are making now on the foundation of what they stole.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #29 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Did you not finish school and learn how to read?   re-read what i said. I'm not going to buy a Samsung product with their name on it.  If I buy an iPhone or IPad, it's got Apple's name on it.  Not Samsung's.   
"Their products are banned from my home."

Who's the manufacturer of the A7 chip?
post #30 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The infringing devices are all old. Apple got what it wanted, Samsung no longer makes iPhone clones and it has paid dividends for them.

And still the true villain in all this, Google, stay out of the fight. What use would iPhone clones have been without the iOS rip off aka Android?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Yes, I'm afraid you've revealed your poor comprehension skills there:

Product - an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

Component - a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary.

What does the "Lord" stand for in your name? "Lord, he's incredibly uneducated!" or "Lord, he's desperately grasping at straws"

If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?

Or why we can't buy them when we walk into a Samsung store?

Again I ask, who manufacturers the A7 chip? Designed in every way by Apple yes but the end manufacturer is Samsung so until Apple completely removes Samsung as a component builder for their products , their products will always have Samsung in them.
post #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

Again I ask, who manufacturers the A7 chip? Designed in every way by Apple yes but the end manufacturer is Samsung so until Apple completely removes Samsung as a component builder for their products , their products will always have Samsung in them.

The same way a triple crown winner always has the saddle maker in it.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

And still the true villain in all this, Google, stay out of the fight. What use would iPhone clones have been without the iOS rip off aka Android?

It's really common business practice to copy what the competition is doing. Google isn't the only company to do it. Phillips was the first company to introduce the flat panel TV to consumers and the other manufacturers quickly followed suit. Most cars look very similar. Whenever a company comes up with the new 'it' thing it is simply going to be copied in some fashion.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #34 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post


"Their products are banned from my home."

Who's the manufacturer of the A7 chip?

 

Samsung makes TVs, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stereo equipment (which is debatable one can call them a REAL stereo), vacuum cleaners, smartphones, tablets, computers.  Anything that has Samsung's name on the OUTSIDE of the product.  I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension.

 

Did you finish high school, yet? If so, you might want to go back to your English teacher and explain to them that you are incapable of reading something without twisting the statement to suit your own personal problems.   Seriously.   I didn't say I banned Samsung components INSIDE another company's product.


Or maybe i need to be more explicit for the "reading challenged" people such as yourself.

 

Or, better yet. go back to and tell your last English teacher you need to have more training in the art of reading comprehension.

post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Yes, I'm afraid you've revealed your poor comprehension skills there:

Product - an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

Component - a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary.

What does the "Lord" stand for in your name? "Lord, he's incredibly uneducated!" or "Lord, he's desperately grasping at straws"

If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?

Or why we can't buy them when we walk into a Samsung store?

But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #36 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.

Well, where on the ARM chips that Apple designs and has Samsung make them have Samsung's name on it?  It doesn't.  Did you not read my post?

Apple only has Samsung mfg arm processors and some panels right now, but I haven't even seen the Samsung name on their panels.

 

iPhones, iPads, and other Apple products have the name APPLE on the outside, not Samsung.

post #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Clear jury error in calculating damages for those specific phones.

14 phones weren't found by the original jury to infringe on at least one of the patents the others were IIRC but still received the same damage amount (percent). I think one phone may have been added back to the original damages after the fact. Since the jury didn't ascribe damages on a per-patent basis but instead one lump sum there was no way for the court to determine how much to deduct for the non-infringement of that patent. Was there an equal value set by the jury for each of the infringed patents or did they consider some to be more valuable than others? In the jury's opinion was the non-infringed patent the most valuable of the lot or the least? So another jury gets seated to figure out what damages value should be assigned to those remaining 5 patents applied to those 13 (14?) Samsung phones.

In any case it won't be more than Apple was awarded the first time if I'm reading it right. Jury instructions were that the award should be between $52M and $380M, less than the $400+ the first go-round.

EDIT: One somewhat important thing to note is that whatever award is finally set there's interest already accruing on it based on the 52-week Treasury Rate. Should be enough to put a ding in the attorney fees.

Well, they should pay a Kagillion because those phones are not banned are they?  Plus, Samsung is dragging this out even further and trying some real stupid tactics.  They now ADMIT they were guilty, when that's all they had to say at the beginning of the trial, but NO, Samsung wanted to see how much BS they could get away.  I wonder what the judge would have said if Samsung came out in the opening statement and said "we are guilty, we just can't figure out how much we should be paying Apple.".  Probably a TOTALLY different set of circumstances. That's why Samsung should pay the original amount since they like to cover things up and try to get away with bad business practices.

post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Samsung makes TVs, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stereo equipment (which is debatable one can call them a REAL stereo), vacuum cleaners, smartphones, tablets, computers.  Anything that has Samsung's name on the OUTSIDE of the product.  I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension.

Did you finish high school, yet? If so, you might want to go back to your English teacher and explain to them that you are incapable of reading something without twisting the statement to suit your own personal problems.   Seriously.   I didn't say I banned Samsung components INSIDE another company's product.


Or maybe i need to be more explicit for the "reading challenged" people such as yourself.

Or, better yet. go back to and tell your last English teacher you need to have more training in the art of reading comprehension.
What you said was "Their products are banned from my home." so my question to you still stands:

Will you be giving up your iPhones & iPads that have Samsung components in them?
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Well, where on the ARM chips that Apple designs and has Samsung make them have Samsung's name on it?  It doesn't.  Did you not read my post?


Apple only has Samsung mfg arm processors and some panels right now, but I haven't even seen the Samsung name on their panels.

iPhones, iPads, and other Apple products have the name APPLE on the outside, not Samsung.

That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #40 of 68

Does this trial continue today, or on Monday?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Schiller takes stand in Apple v. Samsung retrial, says iPhone was 'bet-the-company' product