or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jurors credit CPA witness for Apple's $290M victory in Samsung patent retrial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jurors credit CPA witness for Apple's $290M victory in Samsung patent retrial

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
Apple's expert witness on damages, a certified public accountant from Chicago, was the person who sealed the iPhone maker's victory in its patent infringement retrial against rival Samsung, according to members of the eight-person jury.

Bressler Testimony
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Jury forewoman Colleen Allen spoke with Bloomberg after the trial concluded on Thursday, and revealed that it was CPA Julie L. Davis who provided the strongest evidence to justify a $290 million payout to Apple from Samsung. Allen called Davis a "superstar witness," saying she was "on it" and steady when cross examined.

Allen's thoughts were echoed by fellow juror Barry Goldman-Hall, who said that it was Davis who helped determine exactly how much money Apple should be awarded.

A major point of contention for the jury was a sum of $178 million that Samsung felt should be subtracted from profits of more than $230 million attributable to the South Korean company's infringing products. Allen felt none of the money should come out, but other jurors disagreed, and the group compromised by cutting the sum in half.Damages expert Julie L. Davis was a "superstar witness" who helped Apple win $290 million from Samsung, according to the jury forewoman.

After two days of deliberation, the jury decided to award Apple $290 million in damages from Samsung, in return for its copying of patented software and hardware. The decision is viewed as a major win for Apple, which was seeking to collect up to $380 million in the retrial. Samsung felt it owed just $53 million.

To date, Apple has won more than $900 million in damages from Samsung over the infringement of five patents related to the iPhone and iPad. Key evidence from Apple showed how Samsung's smartphone and tablet designs changed radically to mimic Apple after the launch of the first iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010.

Though the jury's decision has been made, legal squabbles between Samsung and Apple are far from over, with the two companies set to appear before Judge Lucy Koh once again in March. At that hearing, the two sides will argue over accusations of patent infringement in newer smartphone models, including the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III.

Samsung has also unsurprisingly vowed to appeal the $290 million decision made this week. A spokeswoman for the company told Bloomberg that Samsung plans to "continue to innovate" as it moves forward with the appeal process.
post #2 of 69
When you can't innovate in product you innovate in court.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #3 of 69
Continues to innovate like the 80K units selling Galaxy Gear "smart" watch.
post #4 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Continues to innovate like the 80K units selling Galaxy Gear "smart" watch.

800k.
post #5 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

When you can't innovate in product you innovate in court.
When you can't innovate in your R&D lab, you innovate by copying.

Fixed it for ya.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #6 of 69
Gotta feel sorry for Colleen Allen as the jury foreperson. I don't think she has a clue what's coming her way. Losers/trolls/shills everywhere are going to dig into her personal life for anything they can find to paint her as biased. Just like they did with Koh and Hogan before and with anyone else who rules in Apple's favor.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #7 of 69

Great job!

 

She should be included on quarterly earnings calls to explain the financials also.  Seems like Oppenheimer always messes up when explaining Gross Margin.  For example look what happenned at the last call in Oct.  It took an analysis to notice that the deferred revenue increased from previous Qtrs thus the Gross Margin was lower.  Its ridiculous that Opeenheimer did not point this out himself.

post #8 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

800k.
Shipped
"Being in power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." - Margaret Thatcher
Reply
"Being in power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." - Margaret Thatcher
Reply
post #9 of 69

Samsung innovate?  That's a joke!  Samsung and "innovate" don't belong together.  There is a chasm between the two which could only be filled by words/phrases like "failed to" and "doesn't," etc...

post #10 of 69

I hope Dyson wins big against Samsung. 

post #11 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


800k.

 

That explains why I see them everywhere. Oh, wait. Nevermind. Maybe it's that Samsung is full of shit.  Unfortunately, no one is going to sue them for copying when they created that piece of crap so we won't have a chance to get the real sales numbers like we need for their tablets...when it was revealed that hardly anyone really was buying them, and those that were returned them quickly because they were crap.

post #12 of 69
ummm, even with 900m in damages, isn't this just a "cost of doing business" for Samsung? There profits from copied tech over these years probably dwarf this? If anyone has numbers, chime in.
post #13 of 69
Funny I thought I just heard samsung and innovative in the same sentence? The trial was because there so called "innovative" designs where copied from Apple and samsung sucks lost. So they going to do a dumb ass move and copy Apple again? Innovative from samsung sucks. I'm sorry I have to laugh.😄😂😭
post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by msalganik View Post

ummm, even with 900m in damages, isn't this just a "cost of doing business" for Samsung? There profits from copied tech over these years probably dwarf this? If anyone has numbers, chime in.

Yup, it is.

 

The big trial will be the 2014 one, which is about current products (although they won't be as current anymore).

post #15 of 69

Florian Mueller from Foss patents gave these Samsung statements regarding the verdict a nice touch 

Quote:
 ... Maybe Samsung will again be able to reverse-engineer a jury verdict.
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


800k.

80K sold, 800k Shipped. Any one can ship a crappy product. It's another thing to get people to buy it. We'll soon see this craptastic product in bargain bins. Maybe free with a Samsung Tablet?

post #17 of 69
Uh-oh. I expect Samsung to file a motion for mistrial over this revelation by the jurors. /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 #18 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Gotta feel sorry for Colleen Allen as the jury foreperson. I don't think she has a clue what's coming her way. Losers/trolls/shills everywhere are going to dig into her personal life for anything they can find to paint her as biased. Just like they did with Koh and Hogan before and with anyone else who rules in Apple's favor.

Imagine the horror if she's caught owning any Apple products. An iPod? Mistrial!

"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 #19 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

I hope Dyson wins big against Samsung. 

If I owned a company that SamScum copied their Gear from, I'd be embarrassed to sue for such ugly, useless product.
post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

That explains why I see them everywhere. Oh, wait. Nevermind. Maybe it's that Samsung is full of shit.  Unfortunately, no one is going to sue them for copying when they created that piece of crap so we won't have a chance to get the real sales numbers like we need for their tablets...when it was revealed that hardly anyone really was buying them, and those that were returned them quickly because they were crap.

If I owned a company that SamScum copied their Gear from, I'd be embarrassed to sue for such ugly, useless product.
post #21 of 69

I'm glad Apple won. I will not buy anything Samsung! (I know, there are Samsung parts in Apple stuff!)

 

I hope Dyson wins, too! :)


Edited by christopher126 - 11/22/13 at 7:50am
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteo View Post
 

80K sold, 800k Shipped. Any one can ship a crappy product. It's another thing to get people to buy it. We'll soon see this craptastic product in bargain bins. Maybe free with a Samsung Tablet?

Maybe the Irish will buy them?

 

OK, that was mean! Sorry.

post #23 of 69
[A spokeswoman for the company told Bloomberg that Samsung plans to "continue to innovate"]

I wonder if everyone got a good laugh when she said this.
post #24 of 69
Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by msalganik View Post

ummm, even with 900m in damages, isn't this just a "cost of doing business" for Samsung? There profits from copied tech over these years probably dwarf this? If anyone has numbers, chime in.

Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteo View Post

80K sold, 800k Shipped. Any one can ship a crappy product. It's another thing to get people to buy it. We'll soon see this craptastic product in bargain bins. Maybe free with a Samsung Tablet?

Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #26 of 69
I'd love to sue one of my business partners and still continue to do business with them.
post #27 of 69
Credibility matters.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

[A spokeswoman for the company told Bloomberg that Samsung plans to "continue to innovate"]

I wonder if everyone got a good laugh when she said this.

LOL yes. You're supposed to start innovating before you can continue!

post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by rameshjha View Post

Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.

Yeah, nevermind the stealing. Poor Samsung, they only wanted to be liked, that's why they copied Apple's design.

I'm sure you are correct that a "learned judge" will throw out the verdict after TWO juries agreed with Apple. It's all a conspiracy against Samsung isn't it?
Maybe they should have had the trial in Seoul to be fair right?
post #30 of 69
Originally Posted by rameshjha View Post
Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.

 

Some Seoul food should help wipe the tears away, Sammy.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #31 of 69

When was the last time you heard a group of people were captivated by and accountant. It is going be interesting to see if Samsung ever pays up...


Edited by Maestro64 - 12/2/13 at 2:52pm
post #32 of 69
LOL @ Samsung vowing to "continue to innovate."
I'm certain they will innovate a thousand more ways to be weasels.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.

Who says all the retailers paid for them? also look @ the return #, those go back to samsung to refurbish

post #34 of 69

How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?

 

Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."

post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.


We should probably quote Samsungs "trial accounting figures" whenever someone tries to say how they dominate the market. Are they GIVING these phones away, or are they just making up stuff based on where it suites their interests.

 

>> that was TRICK question by the way.

post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.

Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
Who says all the retailers paid for them? also look @ the return #, those go back to samsung to refurbish

Retailers paying them is what I understood from @Gatorguy, hopefully corrrectly. He will no doubt have a link if you'd like.

Returned items is a very good point, and as I understand it, a large portion were returned.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?

Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."

Damages are still almost $900 MM. This was for the miscalculated $400 MM part of the original amount.
post #38 of 69

"what if we make a manufacture a few of those A7 chips for you for free and call it even?"

 

"OK, how about 15 million of them?"

post #39 of 69

If I could turn a near-$40bn/yr profit out of copying someone, I'd happily pay them $900mn every year! I don't know why Samsung would be complaining. They should just go away, pretending to have their tail between their legs, and think themselves lucky.

 

Reprehensible a-holes.

post #40 of 69
Oh no. According to samdung internal documents, Julie L. Davis has never ever bought any product from samdung because she believes they make shity products.

Therefore, samdung is going to ask for retrial again!!!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jurors credit CPA witness for Apple's $290M victory in Samsung patent retrial