or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple explains $2.2B damages claim against Samsung from lost profits, royalties
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple explains $2.2B damages claim against Samsung from lost profits, royalties

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
During testimony in the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial on Tuesday, an Apple damages expert revealed the full damages claim stands at $2.19 billion for lost profits and reasonable royalty fees on five alleged infringed patents.

Samsung Design Europe 2009 iPhone copy doc


According to in-court reports from Re/code, Apple damages expert and Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained economist Chris Vellturo said the company is seeking $2.19 billion for patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of the 2013 calendar year.

"It's a very large market and Samsung has made a lot of sales into that market," Vellturo said. "It's a particularly significant period for Samsung to have been infringing."

Part of the claim is based on alleged lost profits due to customers buying Samsung products instead of the iPhone, while another portion was calculated on proposed royalties on more than 37 million accused infringing devices.

Earlier in the day, Apple expert witness John Hauser, also a professor from MIT, presented a revised version of a smartphone consumer demand surveys previously used -- unsuccessfully -- to win an injunction against Samsung products, reports Bloomberg.

Whereas the original surveys included only consumer willingness to pay for Apple's patented technology like "slide-to-unlock," the revised edition takes into account a supposed decrease in demand for Samsung products that do not have the same features.

During direct examination, Hauser testified that he saw a five percent drop in consumer willingness to buy a device that did not offer universal search, a software function that provides a system-wide search mechanism. The surveys covered 966 Samsung device owners, split between 507 phone users and 459 tablet users.

Hauser's methodology uses so-called conjoint surveys, which add in "distraction" questions to the survey's main focus to achieve a more accurate result. For example, the smartphone survey included 21 questions about features not relevant to the trial, like three-way calling and screen size, reports The Verge.

The expert determined that users would spend between $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's alleged infringed patents.

For its part, Samsung maintains Apple's estimated damages are a "gross exaggeration" of its patents' worth.

Samsung counsel Bill Price, on cross-examination, argued that consumer demand is driven in large part by branding. Further, Samsung's marketing prowess and overall brand sway were to thank for the uptick in sales, not reliance on Apple-patented features.

Price asked whether Hauser designed a study to measure brand impact, to which the expert responded, "No, I did not."

The Apple v. Samsung patent trial will continue on Friday with Apple wrapping up its case before Samsung goes after the validity of two patents-in-suit.
post #2 of 68

Not 22? Because 22 is even too low.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #3 of 68
Samsung argues brand impact lessens damages attributed to a feature yet pleads internally to improve it's brand impact by slavishly copying key features which it's own survey participants found important in Apple products yet missing in their own products.

Yeah, par for Samsung. Talk out of both sides of the mouth. I wonder, did the lawyer move his lips?
post #4 of 68
It's looking to me like Samsung's lawyers are doing a better job. I hope it proves more nuanced in the courtroom (unlike in the media) and the jury see Samsung for the shameful IP ripoff artists they are. I saw someone taking a photo using a Sammy smartphone about a 2 years ago and it literally looked like Samesong didn't merely copy the design, but literally had the actual photo button image file from an iPhone 4s on their phone. It was beyond uncanny. It was the exact same button! The level of their unoriginality is embarrassing. I hope for the sake of all things good Apple get the full $2B this time.
Edited by Ireland - 4/8/14 at 4:47pm
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 #5 of 68
Microsoft announced it would spend $1B marketing Windows 8 and Surface, and again for 8.1 & Surface 2. Yet all those billions in brand marketing didn%u2019t result in blockbuster sales.

So for Samsung to claim that its pilfered features aren%u2019t attracting customers and that it%u2019s all brand advertising driving its sales is kind of nuts.
post #6 of 68
In 2012, one of the years in contention, Samsung's brand value rose 40% according to Interbrand.
http://www.interbrand.com/it/best-global-brands/previous-years/2012/Samsung

I don't particularly care for Samsung as a company but I don't think their argument that brand recognition drove much of their sales increase is without merit.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

It's looking to me like Samsung's lawyers are doing a better job. I hope it proves more nuanced in the courtroom (unlike in the media) and the jury see Samsung for the shameful IP ripoff artists they are. I saw someone taking a photo using a Sammy smartphone about a 2 years ago and it literally looked like Samesong didn't merely copy the design, but literally had the actual photo button image file from an iPhone 4s on their phone. It was beyond uncanny. It was the exact same button! The level of their unoriginality is embarrassing. I hope for the sake of all things good Apple get the full $2B this time.

 

In Apple's favor, they have already set precedence with multiple wins against Samsung. I also hope Apple gets every dollar they are asking for, plus treble damages for willful infringement.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #8 of 68
Before stealing Apple tech, did anyone know they owned a Sammy phone? Branding, my ass.
post #9 of 68
"No, I did not." Apple is doomed.
post #10 of 68

I'm really hoping that Apple wins all these damages and more.

 

Not only do they deserve it, but it might​ almost cover the damages that they could be owing from their portion of the class action, anti-poaching lawsuit!

post #11 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Microsoft announced it would spend $1B marketing Windows 8 and Surface, and again for 8.1 & Surface 2. Yet all those billions in brand marketing didn%u2019t result in blockbuster sales.

So for Samsung to claim that its pilfered features aren%u2019t attracting customers and that it%u2019s all brand advertising driving its sales is kind of nuts.

So why hasn't those same pilfered features helped Motorola and HTC?
"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 #12 of 68
Now we know why Samsung is going after the marketing angle and focusing so much of their attention on Phil Schiller. They want the jury to think Apple really believed it was Samsung's products and advertising that was the reason for lost iPhone sales, not patent infringement.
post #13 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Before stealing Apple tech, did anyone know they owned a Sammy phone? Branding, my ass.
Wait, so it's not Google (Android) that stole, but Samsung?
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

So why hasn't those same pilfered features helped Motorola and HTC?

Because Moto and HTC didn't copy Apple down to the icons.
post #15 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Because Moto and HTC didn't copy Apple down to the icons.

So now icons are swaying people purchase decisions.
"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 #16 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In 2012, one of the years in contention, Samsung's brand value rose 40% according to Interbrand.
http://www.interbrand.com/it/best-global-brands/previous-years/2012/Samsung

I don't particularly care for Samsung as a company but I don't think their argument that brand recognition drove much of their sales increase is without merit.

The causality goes the other way.  By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value.  Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.

post #17 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


So now icons are swaying people purchase decisions.

Don't be/act obtuse. I think his point is that it was a variety of things "...down to the icons".  Not just the icons.

post #18 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

Don't be/act obtuse. I think his point is that it was a variety of things "...down to the icons".  Not just the icons.

Many of which are also in every other non-Samsung Android phone. So why aren't they enjoying a similar level of success? If any phone looks like a iPhone now it's the HTC One. So why aren't they achieving what Samsung has?
"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 #19 of 68
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In 2012, one of the years in contention, Samsung's brand value rose 40% according to Interbrand.
http://www.interbrand.com/it/best-global-brands/previous-years/2012/Samsung

I don't particularly care for Samsung as a company but I don't think their argument that brand recognition drove much of their sales increase is without merit.

And you know that the causality is not the other way? How?

Does Interbrand's methodology address this?

(Just saw Malax's excellent post).
post #20 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Wait, so it's not Google (Android) that stole, but Samsung?

 

I'm trying very hard to figure out how those two things are mutually exclusive, and I'm failing.  Care to explain?

post #21 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Many of which are also in every other non-Samsung Android phone. So why aren't they enjoying a similar level of success? If any phone looks like a iPhone now it's the HTC One. So why aren't they achieving what Samsung has?

When did the One come out and when did the Sammy clone come out? If it's just branding, why did Sammy copy every almost everything about the iPhone. Why didnt Sammy just brand its pre-clone phone?
post #22 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

The causality goes the other way.  By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value.  Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.

But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.
"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 #23 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


And you know that the causality is not the other way? How?

Does Interbrand's methodology address this?

(Just saw Malax's excellent post).

I don't. My claim is that I don't think Samsung's argument is without merit. Can I assume you do?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

The causality goes the other way.  By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value.  Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.

But if you look at the numbers Samsung's fortunes didn't really take off until the S3, which went away from a iPhone clone design. One could argue that it got it's cachet is because they're different from Apple, not because they're similar.

If you're clueless about Interbrand's methodology, best not to say much about it.

post #25 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Wait, so it's not Google (Android) that stole, but Samsung?

I've been saying that all along. It's Goo-thieving-bastards-gle that should be in the dock.
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 #26 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

When did the One come out and when did the Sammy clone come out? If it's just branding, why did Sammy copy every almost everything about the iPhone. Why didnt Sammy just brand its pre-clone phone?

The HTC One came out in 2013, and the SGS 2 in 2011. I don't understand your branding question. All Samsung phones I've ever seen are branded including the SGS 2.
"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 #27 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't. My claim is that I don't think Samsung's argument is without merit. Can I assume you do?

Anything could be with or without merit. That's  an utterly vacuous statement.

 

What's your point, other than predictably showing up again to take the side of Samsung/Google/Android on AI?

 

(Despite what you claim, your posts speak louder than your claims about yourself).

post #28 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I'm trying very hard to figure out how those two things are mutually exclusive, and I'm failing.  Care to explain?

What's worse ...? The thief or the receiver of stolen goods?
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 #29 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In 2012...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

So why ....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

So now icons ....

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Many of which are also ....

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But if you look at the numbers .....

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't. My claim is that ....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The HTC One came .....

Ah, our two apologists are out in full force again, since the topic is Samsung/Android.

 

This thread is headed south....

post #30 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


What's worse ...? The thief or the receiver of stolen goods?

 

Heh. :)

post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If you're clueless about Interbrand's methodology, best not to say much about it.

Lemme see, Samsung had a meteoric rise in 2012, the very same year they released the SGS 3, and the Note which went away from using the iPhone's design. Seems like it proves my point.
"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 #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Lemme see, Samsung had a meteoric rise in 2012, the very same year they released the SGS 3, and the Note which went away from using the iPhone's design. Seems like it proves my point.

Yeah, it sure does. Brilliant. Case closed.

post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post










Ah, our two apologists are out in full force again, since the topic is Samsung/Android.

This thread is headed south....

I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.

My answer is effective marketing. Corrections would have you believe that spending money on marketing should automatically get one results, but all the money in the world can't help ineffective marketing.
Edited by dasanman69 - 4/8/14 at 8:12pm
"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 #34 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Anything could be with or without merit.

Then if you don't disagree with what I wrote what was the point of your post??1oyvey.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.

 

Well, it's simple.  Just because not everyone is successful at engaging in a particular act doesn't mean that engaging in that act can't lead to success.  In other words, just because Samsung is better (and has way more money to market their products) at selling smartphones than HTC or Moto doesn't, in and of itself, somehow negate the argument that Apple is making.

 

Just because most strippers don't make much money doesn't mean that Julia Ann and Janine didn't make $35k a night as "Blondage" years ago.

post #36 of 68
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Then if you don't disagree with what I wrote what was the point of your post??1oyvey.gif

Lol. Do you seriously think I did not disagree?lol.gif

As usual, it's totally pointless.... Carry on...
post #37 of 68
Price asked whether Hauser designed a study to measure brand impact, to which the expert responded, "No, I did not."

He should have responded Samsung would have nothing to market and brand if they had not stolen from Apple.
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful?

 

"violate the very same patents"

 

Stop already. Please show me where HTC, Motorola and all the others violated Apple's design patents the way Samsung did. Samsungs huge marketing budget PLUS making a phone that was a complete rip of the iPhone is what got the ball rolling for Samsung. And once rolling there was no turning back.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'm no Samsung apologist, and I honestly don't like them. They're getting exactly what they deserve. Now if you took logic in school than you know it doesn't change. If something works for one thing it works for the another. The other manufacturers violate the very same patents Samsung did. So why is Samsung the only one that's successful? If you don't know the answer then say so, but don't resort childish name calling, because I know you're better than that.

My answer is effective marketing. Corrections would have you believe that spending money on marketing should automatically get one results, but all the money in the world can't help ineffective marketing.

The design patents aren't at issue in this case.

Most of your pots have been irrelevant sidetracks.

This case is about Samsung's phones working the same as iPhones.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #40 of 68
War, terrible war. Widows, orphans, a motherless child. This was the uprising that rocked our land. Thirteen districts rebelled against the country that fed them, loved them, protected them. Brother turned on brother until nothing remained. And then came the peace, hard fought, sorely won. A people rose up from the ashes and a new era was born. But freedom has a cost. When the traitors were defeated, we swore as a nation we would never know this treason again. And so it was decreed, that each year, the various districts of Panem would offer up in tribute, one young man and woman, to fight to the death in a pageant of honor, courage and sacrifice. The lone victor, bathed in riches, would serve as a reminder of our generosity and our forgiveness. This is how we remember our past. This is how we safeguard our future.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple explains $2.2B damages claim against Samsung from lost profits, royalties