or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it - Page 2

post #41 of 165
For those interested here's Apple's proposed jury verdict form:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217312959/Apple-s-proposed-verdict-form
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Um... You do know that this lawsuit is more than just about tablets, right? Did you read Hauser's testimony? Any clue what device it dealt with? 1rolleyes.gif

The Tab was the one of the primary subjects of the first lawsuit. I was referring to the damages assessed for the first lawsuit.

post #43 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

I did not say, "outsold".


Remember, Perception is Reality!

Fair enough. Perception doesn't pay as much tho. 1biggrin.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 6:11am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Um... You do know that this lawsuit is more than just about tablets, right? Did you read Hauser's testimony? Any clue what device it dealt with? 1rolleyes.gif
The Tab was the one of the primary subjects of the first lawsuit. I was referring to the damages assessed for the first lawsuit.

NEWS FLASH! The first lawsuit is over. You guys Samsung lost. TWICE. Get over it.
post #45 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

For those interested here's Apple's proposed jury verdict form:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217312959/Apple-s-proposed-verdict-form
...and here's what Samsung would rather the jury use.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217313220/Samsung-s-Proposed-Verdict-Form

One big difference that's immediately obvious: Samsung wants it noted when Apple advised them that they were infringing on the pertinent Apple patent. Another major one is they want the jury's opinion on whether Apple has proved that accused components used in Samsung devices were inherently infringing and if not whether it was clear that supplying them for a finished Samsung device would have led to infringement. (Item 5&6 on Apple's form and 3, 8 and 13 on Samsung's)

Sammy also want a question answered by the jury on the OS itself.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 7:42am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


NEWS FLASH! The first lawsuit is over. You guys Samsung lost. TWICE. Get over it.

The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?

post #47 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


If Sammy wasn't selling those Tabs they certainly wouldn't have been taking sales away from Apple. 1hmm.gif It does seem to be a very odd piece of evidence if it was Apple that wanted it entered.

 

 

It will be interesting to watch where they go with it, and all the opportunities for counterarguments it begs for.  Samsung tablets stunk in 2011.  These were pre Ice Cream Sandwich and had few apps- and they sold commensurate with their crappiness.  Not many sales at all.  Hardware-wise these were as 'iPad' clone as it gets.

 

The landscape is quite different in 2013, so what has changed?  The design/shape of the tablet hasn't changed all that much, and if anything it is less like the iPad, so what's the real driver of their success?  The software and ecosystem....?   Samsung: "Hey Apple, go sue Google.  Good luck with that."

post #48 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The article doesn't say who is presenting the evidence, Apple or Samsung. Apple, however, can use the information to show Samsung was copying Apple because it was desperate for sales.

Except that is this trial is software patents that were on Samsung tablets from the very beginning not added because sales were slow.

It's going to be difficult for Apple to prove lost sales especially since Samsung sold so little.
"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 #49 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

The point still stands. Where did the money from the lost Apple sales claimed in that trial go? Was Samsung wildly profitable with garbage-bin devices like the Galaxy Ace?

What point? Unless you're claiming that the judge and the jury in the previous TWO trials (both of which Samsung lost) didn't take into account the actual numbers, AND unless you have a calculation that suggests a different number? If you do, please share. Otherwise, please stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
post #50 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
1bugeye.gif Reminds me of someone I haven't seen here for a long time. . .

...anonymouse
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?
1bugeye.gif Reminds me of someone I haven't seen here for a long time. . .

...anonymouse

Do you have a different number? Or just your lazy insinuations?
post #52 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


What point? Unless you're claiming that the judge and the jury in the previous TWO trials (both of which Samsung lost) didn't take into account the actual numbers, AND unless you have a calculation that suggests a different number? If you do, please share. Otherwise, please stop the lazy insinuations -- a la Gatorguy -- and move along?

The Galaxy Tab was accused of copying the literal look and feel of Apple's devices, not just some underlying software functions. If the Tab was not able to steal Apple's customers even with that level of copying, then doesn't that undermine the credibility of the damage estimates from either that trial or this one?

post #53 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

The Galaxy Tab was accused of copying the literal look and feel of Apple's devices, not just some underlying software functions. If the Tab was not able to steal Apple's customers even with that level of copying, then doesn't that undermine the credibility of the damage estimates from either that trial or this one?

No.
post #54 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post


This documentation illustrates the initial conditions under which, I'm betting, Apple will now go on to show how Samsung then scrambled to copy elements of iOS in an effort to close the gap with the iPad. Patience, patience. We'll get to that point soon enough.

The copied elements of iOS disputed in this trial were there from the very beginning. If anything, Android has only gotten less similar from iOS since the first trial. They replaced the bouncy scrolling with their own overscroll animation, they replaced the iOS style sliding bar with their own implementation of slide-to-unlock, etc.

post #55 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

The Tab was the one of the primary subjects of the first lawsuit. I was referring to the damages assessed for the first lawsuit.

The Tab was found as not infringing in the first trial so no damages were awarded for that. We'll soon see if it's found to infringe in this trial.
"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 #56 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


No.

I should have been more clear. Is that not empirical evidence against either of the two damage estimates? If I claimed that tablet A will cost me a billion dollars by ripping off my look and feel, and that later turns out to not happen, would someone be as convinced if I repeat the claim later?

post #57 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The Tab was found as not infringing in the first trial so no damages were awarded for that. We'll soon see if it's found to infringe in this trial.

Ah, I misremembered the facts then. Also, this trial concerns a newer version of Galaxy Tab than is referred to by this article.

post #58 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

yada yada
Numbers for what? There were none from the first trial AFAIK as it wasn't infringing (EDIT: Thanks Dansanman for finding a citation!) . As for the overall sales numbers cited again by DED I already linked the original 2 year old AI article on this very same subject several posts back.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 7:27am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

It just goes to show what we all already know, Apple rocks! The rest are just business hacks.
Exactly! I always knew Samsung was a liar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supafly View Post

Well done DED. Its time someone called out Samsungs lies!
yes it is
post #60 of 165
Regardless of how much $$$ Apple gets, the real value of these trials are seeing the internal documents to understand how both companies work (and just how bad Samsung really is).

Samsung has been caught price fixing several times and has paid hundreds of millions in fines. They have had several employees criminally convicted for everything from tax evasion to supplying traders with inside information (going all the way up the the CEO). They even hire bloggers to spread false information about their products (and competitors).

And this is just the stuff we KNOW about. Imagine how much other crap they've been up to.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #61 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Ah, I misremembered the facts then. Also, this trial concerns a newer version of Galaxy Tab than is referred to by this article.

I believe it's still the same ones. That they weren't found to infringe in the first case doesn't mean that they aren't infringing in this one. It's a different set of patents.
"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 #62 of 165
This is why I despise Samsung. I always knew they were liars. They need to get out of the US. Let (honest) Apple handle smartphones... Bunch of lying baboons.
post #63 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6051 View Post

If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.
Given that the markets have only just opened, and given that it is a blog news report, it may take a while for markets to react. If regulators here and elsewhere do go after Samsung, and can prove the assertion of lying to investors and regulators, the company may well wish that they had never seen an iPhone.

But, given the criminal legal history of one exec at Samsung, they may feel bullet proof. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/business/global/30samsung.html?_r=0). Fortunately, since they are listed on many nation's stock markets, being bullet proof could be a false feeling.

But, my money is on the concept that they will have a designated scapegoat far enough down the line that no high executive will ever have a problem. It's a shame there is no other way to punish the company legally for lying to investors.
post #64 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

yada yada
Numbers for what? There were none from the first trial as it wasn't infringing. As for the overall sales numbers cited again by DED I already linked the original 2 year old AI article on this very same subject several posts back.

Are you having trouble processing simple questions this morning?
post #65 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

If regulators here and elsewhere do go after Samsung, and can prove the assertion of lying to investors and regulators, the company may well wish that they had never seen an iPhone. . .

You may have missed a previous thread post on whether Samsung lied about 2M unit sales or misled investors by failing to specify what that number represented.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178163/exclusive-apple-vs-samsung-docs-reveal-galaxy-tab-was-a-flop-and-samsung-knew-it#post_2514508
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Are you having trouble processing simple questions this morning?

No, but you seem to have trouble reading the answers. There were no tablet numbers in the previous trial that I'm aware of. Did you have some I had missed?

If you have information and/or facts to add to the discussion as I have done several times so far please do. There's honestly no shortage of snarkiness and insulting posts from others in the forums so why add to it? A long time and generally respected member such as yourself should be above that IMO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You may have missed a previous thread post on whether Samsung lied about 2M unit sales or misled investors by failing to specify what that number represented.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178163/exclusive-apple-vs-samsung-docs-reveal-galaxy-tab-was-a-flop-and-samsung-knew-it#post_2514508
No. I did not miss it. Did you miss the point where I said "if"?
post #68 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

No. I did not miss it. Did you miss the point where I said "if"?

Well obviously there's no "if" since Samsung clarified what the numbers concerned in a public statement published by leading news media and distributed to millions of readers.

EDIT: In the next post Dick found real reasons to look at Samsung as unethical and a poor business neighbor. I probably don't like Samsung as a company any better than you do but with so many verified instances of Samsung executives shortcomings' and the company's proven questionable practices there's no need to create imaginary ones.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/11/14 at 7:16am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6051 View Post

If this the truth, and Samsung fudged the figures to its shareholders, then there is greater at stake. Firstly the stockmarket would collapse the shares, indictments may commence against those who lied and manipulated the figures and shareholders generallly wont be too pleased so a general cleaning of house of upper management would occur. the company would be turned upside down and the stockmarket would take a while to trust the company again. This doesnt really seem to happening so the truth and veracity of all this of it may never be known.

The Samsung CEO is a convicted felon (emphasis mine):
Quote:
SEOUL, South Korea — Lee Kun-hee, the former chairman of Samsung who was convicted of embezzlement and tax evasion, was pardoned by President Lee Myung-bak on Tuesday. The move drew criticism from civic groups that said it was another example of leniency for South Korean tycoons guilty of serious crimes.

The president said he decided to grant a special amnesty to Mr. Lee, who was not imprisoned, so that the businessman could retain his membership at the International Olympic Committee and lead a campaign by the South Korean city of PyeongChang to host the 2018 Winter Olympics.

In a Supreme Court ruling this year, Mr. Lee, 67, received a suspended three-year prison sentence for evading tens of millions of dollars in taxes and embezzling corporate money.

The court case stemmed from allegations from civic groups and Samsung’s former chief legal counsel that Mr. Lee had managed a vast sum of illegal funds and helped his son, Lee Jae-yong, an executive at Samsung Electronics, buy shares of subsidiaries at unfairly low prices in a scheme to hand over control of the conglomerate to the son. Lee Kun-hee resigned as Samsung chairman in April 2008 after he was charged with tax evasion and breach of trust.

Groups like the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy called the pardon another deplorable case of government leniency toward convicted business tycoons in the name of “national interest.”

“The latest pardon reconfirms a common saying in South Korea that Samsung lies above the law and the government,” said Kim Sang-jo, an economist at Hansung University and executive director of Solidarity for Economic Reform, a civic group. “President Lee talked about national interest, but a criminal convict traveling around the world campaigning for South Korea’s Olympic bid will only hurt our national interest and image.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/business/global/30samsung.html?_r=0


And:
Quote:
Lee Kun-hee (Korean pronunciation: [iːɡʌnhi]; born January 9, 1942) is a South Korean business magnate and the Chairman of Samsung Electronics. He had resigned in April 2008, owing to Samsung slush funds scandal, but returned on March 24, 2010. He speaks Korean, English, and Japanese. In 1996, Lee became a member of the International Olympic Committee. With an estimated net worth of $12.6 billion, he and his family rank among the Forbes richest people in the world. He is the third son of Samsung founder Lee Byung-chull.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kun-hee


Aside: I grew up during the Korean War and, later, had friends who had fought in that war to preserve the "freedom" of South Korea. I believe that what has evolved, a corrupt government/industrial complex, is a disservice to all (from many nations) who supported, sacrificed fought and died for that freedom.

Quote:
The Korean War (25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953)[29][a][31] was a war between the Republic of Korea (South Korea), supported by the United Nations, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), at one time supported by China and the Soviet Union. It was primarily the result of the political division of Korea by an agreement of the victorious Allies at the conclusion of the Pacific War at the end of World War II. The Korean Peninsula was ruled by the Empire of Japan from 1910 until the end of World War II. Following the surrender of the Empire of Japan in September 1945, American administrators divided the peninsula along the 38th parallel, with U.S. military forces occupying the southern half and Soviet military forces occupying the northern half.[32]

The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides; the North established a communist government, while the South established a right-wing government. The 38th parallel increasingly became a political border between the two Korean states. Although reunification negotiations continued in the months preceding the war, tension intensified. Cross-border skirmishes and raids at the 38th parallel persisted. The situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.[33] In 1950, the Soviet Union boycotted the United Nations Security Council. In the absence of a veto from the Soviet Union, the United States and other countries passed a Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Korea.

The U.S. provided 88% of the 341,000 international soldiers which aided South Korean forces, with twenty other countries of the United Nations offering assistance. Suffering severe casualties within the first two months, the defenders were pushed back to the Pusan perimeter. A rapid U.N. counter-offensive then drove the North Koreans past the 38th parallel and almost to the Yalu River, when China entered the war on the side of North Korea.[33] Chinese intervention forced the Southern-allied forces to retreat behind the 38th parallel. While not directly committing forces to the conflict, the Soviet Union provided material aid to both the North Korean and Chinese armies. The fighting ended on 27 July 1953, when the armistice agreement was signed. The agreement restored the border between the Koreas near the 38th Parallel and created the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), a 2.5-mile (4.0 km)-wide fortified buffer zone between the two Korean nations. Minor incidents still continue today.

From a military science perspective, the Korean War combined strategies and tactics of World War I and World War II: it began with a mobile campaign of swift infantry attacks followed by air bombing raids, but became a static trench war by July 1951.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #70 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No, but you seem to have trouble reading the answers. There were no tablet numbers in the previous trial that I'm aware of. Did you have some I had missed?

If you have information and/or facts to add to the discussion as I have done several times so far please do. There's honestly no shortage of snarkiness and insulting posts from others in the forums so why add to it? A long time and generally respected member such as yourself should be above that IMO.

Actually there were sales numbers given in the first trial.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151854/quite-smooth-samsung-actually-sold-1-10-of-the-2-million-galaxy-tabs-it-claimed-in-2010
"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 #71 of 165

"How can an OS with that much share have such low usage numbers?"

 

Simple, by counting all those cheap 'picutre frame' tablets that use Android to display the photos people have on the SD cards that they pull from their point and shoot cameras; by counting all the cheap 'game tablets' found at Toys-R-Us; and by counting all the new Android based gaming and ordering terminals found on the dining tables of restaurants that have no connection to the Internet whatsoever. 

post #72 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAMETA View Post

THEY'RE ALL LACKAYS OF VILLAIN !
....
They're ALL Working FOR THE SAKE OF VILLAIN !

Look at THIS !
.... [deleted]

 

I wish I could make sense of your post. It seems you have something to say, I'm just not sure what it is.  In the future, instead of all the "shouting" and charts and such, why don't you just make a simple, declarative statement of your opinion?  I understand English is not your first language, and I'm sure I would fare badly if I tried to communicate in your native tongue as well. As such, sarcasm, humor, and irony are much more difficult to convey.  So just keep it simple.  :)

post #73 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

I wish I could make sense of your post. It seems you have something to say, I'm just not sure what it is.  In the future, instead of all the "shouting" and charts and such, why don't you just make a simple, declarative statement of your opinion?  I understand English is not your first language, and I'm sure I would fare badly if I tried to communicate in your native tongue as well. As such, sarcasm, humor, and irony are much more difficult to convey.  So just keep it simple.  1smile.gif

I think he said the analytic companies excluded Japan in the charts to show Android was "winning" everywhere but the US.
post #74 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Well obviously there's no "if" since Samsung clarified what the numbers concerned in a public statement published by leading news media and distributed to millions of readers.
No. It's not obvious. It depends on the laws of the countries where their stock is traded. It depends on what they put in the filings with the various stock exchanges.

In case you haven't noticed, their ability to tell the truth and operate ethically is questionable at best. Their chief executive has a criminal record.
post #75 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Actually there were sales numbers given in the first trial.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151854/quite-smooth-samsung-actually-sold-1-10-of-the-2-million-galaxy-tabs-it-claimed-in-2010

Thanks! That's a good example of a helpful and informative post . 1smile.gif

So there's really no new "top secret sales data revealed" in this article. As DED would have said, we've seen all this before... and reported right here at AI.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

No. It's not obvious. It depends on the laws of the countries where their stock is traded. It depends on what they put in the filings with the various stock exchanges.

In case you haven't noticed, their ability to tell the truth and operate ethically is questionable at best. Their chief executive has a criminal record.

Nope didn't miss it. I pointed it out as a matter of fact, highlighting Dick Applebaum's followup post.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner1954 View Post

......all those cheap 'picutre frame' tablets that use Android......

That's a new one. I'm unaware of those. A quick search didn't turn up any. Do you have links of any such devices?
"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 #78 of 165
How is Samsung not being sued by investors for misleading there shareholders. Or why has Koreas version of the SEC not investigated this?
post #79 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I think he said the analytic companies excluded Japan in the charts to show Android was "winning" everywhere but the US.

 

Aaah, okay.  

post #80 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmey267 View Post

How is Samsung not being sued by investors for misleading there shareholders. Or why has Koreas version of the SEC not investigated this?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178163/exclusive-apple-vs-samsung-docs-reveal-galaxy-tab-was-a-flop-and-samsung-knew-it#post_2514508
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple vs. Samsung docs reveal Galaxy Tab was a flop and Samsung knew it