or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial

post #1 of 132
Thread Starter 
During the Apple v. Samsung trial on Friday, Samsung continued its defense by calling on a number of expert witnesses who asserted Apple has grossly exaggerated the value assigned to each of its patents-in-suit.

Samsung Design Europe 2009 iPhone copy doc


According to in-court reports, Samsung spent most of the day trying to dismantle Apple's patent valuation arguments that put damages in the case at nearly $2.2 billion on lost profits and royalties. The Korean company calls the number a "gross exaggeration" of the patents' worth.

Apple is seeking damages on five patents, including the so-called "slide-to-unlock" feature made popular by the original iPhone, unified search, data identifiers, background syncing and word input prediction.

In Friday's proceedings, Samsung brought up New York University professor Tulin Erdem who blames the inflated damages claim on an allegedly flawed study presented by Apple expert John Hauser, reports Re/code.

Earlier in the case Hauser, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that his conjoint survey found smartphone users willing to spend between $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's patents.

Erdem argued that Hauser's study created "demand artifacts" by teaching consumers about features most were not aware of and did not already value.

"You are elevating artificially the importance, the value of these things," Erdem said. "They are not even in the radar screen of consumers. These are very granular...and they wouldn't drive demand."

Samsung Amethyst 2010 iPhone copy doc


As noted by Re/code, the statement was slightly different from her deposition, in which Erdem said Apple's patents covered features that only a "weird" or "crazy person" or a "techno-whatever" would see as valuable.

According to CNET, Erdem offered specifics of her own studies that used eye-tracking technology to discover what consumers look for in a smartphone.

"As a group, the minor things didn't drive demand," Erdem said. "It was the major things that drive demand."

Included among these "minor" features are processors, an on-screen keyboard, and GPS. She went on to say that extras like a secondary camera also do not impact consumer desire. However, Erdem failed to include the features described by Apple's patents in her study, saying it wouldn't be in line with consumer review and comparison websites.

Samsung Behold 2010 iPhone copy doc


Apple pointed out that Erdem's testimony ran counter to that of Samsung expert David Reibstein, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. Reibstein also disagreed with the results of Hauser's study, in part because it did not include the very features Erdem omitted.

"You're trying to predict what it is people will buy, and if you just focus on smaller aspects and a couple major factors, you're going to miss what would drive sales and why people would buy your products," Reibstein said of Hauser's survey.

Reibstein said using the study is similar to determining what car consumers would buy by asking which cup holder they like rather than noting an auto company's brand, CNET reports.

Friday's proceedings wrapped up week three of the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh said the testimony phase of the trial should be completed by next Friday with closing arguments to be heard on Apr. 28.
post #2 of 132
Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things, which are far greater than their pathetic patent bashing on Apple.

Samsung. We would love to reach the height of Apple, but were just not tall enough.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #3 of 132
Samsung copied the patents and now there admitting it. They copied and now they must pay. For a large company they should actually stop copying everyone, even some of there fredge models were copied.
post #4 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things, which are far greater than their pathetic patent bashing on Apple.

Samsung. We would love to reach the height of Apple, but were just not tall enough.

It seems it's in blood of Korean companies. Look at Samsung or Hyundai in their respective category. No doubt, they have better copy machine engineers to make replica at lower cost with quality HW, but not capable of any innovation on SW.  

post #5 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by shahhet2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things, which are far greater than their pathetic patent bashing on Apple.


Samsung. We would love to reach the height of Apple, but were just not tall enough.
It seems it's in blood of Korean companies. Look at Samsung or Hyundai in their respective category. No doubt, they have better copy machine engineers to make replica at lower cost with quality HW, but not capable of any innovation on SW.  

I agree. Plus I think they actually are proud of copying the works of others. And that isn't limited to Korea either.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #6 of 132
It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.
post #7 of 132

That TV is not really valuable, I'll just take it, here's 5 bucks.

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 #8 of 132

Besides those patents Shamesung copied more than 1000 things from Apple and whole world knows that, even now recently they copied Apple'iPhone features with their S5: Fingerprint Scanner, Gold obtion color, Camera located on Locked Screen, Slow Mo 720p at 128 fps (Depth of field), fast autofocus, SHealth + Heartrate sensor (M7 + Nike app), TouchWizz (iOS 7 look)...i don't understand why Shamesung doesnt atleast pay for that 5 patents for what Apple is asking.

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #9 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things, which are far greater than their pathetic patent bashing on Apple.

Samsung. We would love to reach the height of Apple, but were just not tall enough.

If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #10 of 132
Even the name S5 is an inversion of 5S. That's how innovative they are.
post #11 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaba View Post

Even the name S5 is an inversion of 5S. That's how innovative they are.


I hope you're being sarcastic on that one, considering the use of S through S4.

post #12 of 132
Why they bring in these morons dwelling in the ivory tower instead of their paid DOJ, journalists, data firms and analysts as expert witnesses .oops, they are liars too...I think they should just pay and hire some creative engineers...live with self respect and dignity...sammi boy
post #13 of 132
I bought my first car based on the cup holder. Seriously. I would not have given my 2001 Chevy Malibu a second look had it not been for the left handed cup holder. Because of that small feature, my interest was piqued towards it. After doing comparisons with others, I decided it was down to two models, and the cup holder again tipped me in the direction of the Malibu.

While it wasn't the sole reason for the car, it was a feature that was definitely a plus.
post #14 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


I hope you're being sarcastic on that one, considering the use of S through S4.
Sorry, forgot about that... Here it is... S4 is an inversion of 4S.
post #15 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaba View Post


Sorry, forgot about that... Here it is... S4 is an inversion of 4S.

 

Okay I'll keep in mind that you're just another troll. The line goes back to S. S, S2, S3, S4....  What's after 4 Mr. Troll?

post #16 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaba View Post

Even the name S5 is an inversion of 5S. That's how innovative they are.
innovation now is naming.. wow just wow
post #17 of 132

Samsung's defense is like a carjacker stealing a car and after getting busted claiming that they should be let off the hook because they think it was an inexpensive car, "it was only a Ford and not a Mercedes." So the thief gets to assert the value of what they steal? I think a four year old cookie jar thief could come up with a better defense than this. Very pathetic, but with a jury trial you never know how lame of a defense will play to the emotions of the jury members.

 

Also, if all those Apple patented features have "no value" then Samsung should have no problem at all and not suffer any business losses by promptly removing all those "non valuable" features from all of their infringing products. That seems like a reasonable and equitable remedy. Oh, by the way that's exactly what Apple has been asking them and the Android community to do all along, "quit copying our stuff." Only after most of them collectively thumbed their noses and flipped off Apple did the lawyers have to get called in. Now it's all ugly and messy and stupid.

 

I wouldn't lump Samsung's sleazeball business practices and customer contempt (Apple was their biggest customer) with the ethics and morality of an entire nation of incredibly hard working, highly moral, and extremely dedicated people. The USA has had more than it's fair share of sleazeballs (e.g. Enron, most of the companies involved in the subprime mortgage crisis/crash of 2008) so no nation has exclusivity on morality or immorality. It's individuals and individual organizations like Samsung in its dealings with Apple that make you think that the whole system is broken, but it's not. Most people and most organizations play by the rules and respect their customers.

 

I'm still in shock that the greater Samsung organization would jeopardize its global reputation, public image,business relationships, and trustworthiness as a business partner by publicly violating their biggest customer. Being defiant and resorting to further denigration of their business partner and customer, not to mention their customer's customers, is not a way to save face. I hope that Samsung can rescue themselves from this moral crisis and get someone in the chief leadership position who can restore their reputation as a trusted business partner. Even if Samsung "wins" some of these tiny battles in court due to clueless and befuddled juries they'll never be able to get rid of the stink that they've attached to themselves as a trusted business partner. If Apple didn't have so many supply channel dependencies on Samsung they would have jettisoned them at the onset of this situation. No doubt that Apple is trying to exorcise the Samsung dependencies as quickly as they can. This should be a big red flag for all other product vendors looking to source components from Samsung. If you think you're dealing with a trusted business partner or even just a reliable supplier: think again - and watch your back.

post #18 of 132
Investors in Apple or Samsung will be winners
post #19 of 132
I sincerely hope Apple will continue to file new lawsuits to cover all of their infringed patents, so many of which were ordered to be dropped by Judge Koh to... tighten up the case (?)... Justice isn't done until the full measure of Samsung's thievery is punished.

Meanwhile, what's the latest with the Rockstar trial?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #20 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

Samsung's defense is like a carjacker stealing a car and after getting busted claiming that they should be let off the hook because they think it was an inexpensive car, "it was only a Ford and not a Mercedes." So the thief gets to assert the value of what they steal? I think a four year old cookie jar thief could come up with a better defense than this. Very pathetic, but with a jury trial you never know how lame of a defense will play to the emotions of the jury members.

Also, if all those Apple patented features have "no value" then Samsung should have no problem at all and not suffer any business losses by promptly removing all those "non valuable" features from all of their infringing products. That seems like a reasonable and equitable remedy. Oh, by the way that's exactly what Apple has been asking them and the Android community to do all along, "quit copying our stuff." Only after most of them collectively thumbed their noses and flipped off Apple did the lawyers have to get called in. Now it's all ugly and messy and stupid.

I wholeheartedly agree if these patents have no value the court should just have Samsung remove these "valueless" features from their OS within three months and from all upgrades to existing phones as upgrades/Patches are released and see how "valueless" customers think they are when they disappear from their phones. I'll bet Samsung changes their tune if that is put on the table. The patents at issue are only a very few (at the request of the judge) of the many blatantly copied in the creation of the Samsung Galaxy and Note lines. Apple chose the most defensible and ones that have already been vindicated in other international jurisdictions.
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #21 of 132
Officer, I know this looks bad, but this car load of stolen items isn't worth very much, honestly. Can't you just let me take it, then?

"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 #22 of 132

Copy American technology. Produce it cheaper.

 

No innovation happens West of the United States or East of Germany.

post #23 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaba View Post


Ok I'll keep in mind that your just another humourless dick splash. :-)

I won't necessarily deny that :-).

post #24 of 132

Whats right is right.....these thieves have to pay.

One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.

They were both wrong.

Reply

One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.

They were both wrong.

Reply
post #25 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by KennMSr View Post

I wholeheartedly agree if these patents have no value the court should just have Samsung remove these "valueless" features from their OS within three months and from all upgrades to existing phones as upgrades/Patches are released and see how "valueless" customers think they are when they disappear from their phones. I'll bet Samsung changes their tune if that is put on the table. The patents at issue are only a very few (at the request of the judge) of the many blatantly copied in the creation of the Samsung Galaxy and Note lines. Apple chose the most defensible and ones that have already been vindicated in other international jurisdictions.

Other than one off-the-cuff remark to Hauser I don't believe Samsungs argument goes so far as to say the patents have no value. They argue they're not as valuable as Apple would like to claim, they also aren't infringed, and in addition some may not even be valid. They're all over the page and trying to cover all the bases but saying the patents have no value at all isn't one of them. I personally disagree with some of the arguments from both sides but doesn't matter as I'm not on the jury.

As an aside the text completion claim Apple is asserting against Samsung is looking like it may well be tossed by the USPTO. Until then Apple is within it's rights to collect royalties and/or damages on it. Seems a bit quirky that you can't get back money already paid when it's determined a patent should never have been granted as written in the first place. You end up paying for something the wasn't actually owned by the claimant, but it is what it is.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by accumulator View Post

"It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic."

No, some of us own stock in the parties to this suit. I'm cheering for Apple not just because they deserve to win, but because a decision that benefits them would increase the value of my investment.

Did your Apple stock get a nice bump from the last big win over Samsung?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 132

No, some of us own stock in the parties to this suit. I'm cheering for Apple not just because they deserve to win, but because a decision that benefits them would increase the value of my investment.

post #28 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMember View Post

Besides those patents Shamesung copied more than 1000 things from Apple and whole world knows that, e
ven now recently they copied Apple'iPhone features with their S5: Fingerprint Scanner, Gold obtion color, Camera located on Locked Screen, Slow Mo 720p at 128 fps (Depth of field), fast autofocus, SHealth + Heartrate sensor (M7 + Nike app), TouchWizz (iOS 7 look)...i
 don't understand why Shamesung doesnt atleast pay for that 5 patents for what Apple is asking.
You do know that separate motion sensor, slo Mo video at 720p and Camera on lock screen etc came on Motorola X before iPhones correct?
Edited by shahhet2 - 4/19/14 at 6:58am
post #29 of 132

2 billion more dollars in the bank is 2 billion more dollars in the bank.  If the market does not instantly adjust to reflect that, I can accept the fact that markets operate imperfectly.  The larger question is whether meaningful enforcement serves as an impediment to future infringement, and if it does, then that's a major long term boost to my investment.

post #30 of 132
When Samsung first started shipping products under its own name, rather than as white labelled goods, there was a huge outcry amongst Western manufacturers who had previously been good customers of Samsung who said their designs were being mercilessly copied by the Korean chaibol. Copying is all they know.

These latest questions clearly go not toward saying Samsung are innocent, but in reducing the amount of damages they realise they will inevitably face. And as their internal marketing literature clearly showed recently with regard to US sales being half what was claimed, they are also masters of producing misleading publicity.
post #31 of 132
Poor Samsung! Couldn't find any valuable patents to steal.

Remember Night Court, when the old couple were up for stealing cat food from a grocery store? Dan Fielding asks them: "If you were going to steal anyway, why didn't you steal real food?"

"Oh, that wouldn't have been so...uh..."

"Pathetic?"

"Yeah!"
post #32 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.
So, are you on Samsung's payroll or Google's? Most people dislike seeing blatant wrong doing go unpunished...
post #33 of 132
Screw the damages (in any event, Apple should donate it all to a Korean charity).

I just want these low-lifes to lose this case, and be found guilty. Looks like they're pretty much admitting to it, but just haggling over the price. Reminds me of that old Churchill joke about the lady he was siting next to: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300099-churchill-madam-would-you-sleep-with-me-for-five-million
post #34 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things, 

They did.

That's why we are reading about a trial...

post #35 of 132
So, the vary last Toyota I owned was a Camry from the late 90s, purchased new.

One of the contributing factors to abandoning them as a brand was... the rear cup holder, which my kids were able to destroy inside the first week. Pathetic design.

(I fled to Honda/Acura a year later, and never looked back.)

Quality isn't expensive... it's priceless.

Reply

Quality isn't expensive... it's priceless.

Reply
post #36 of 132

Screw Samsung, they stole and now they have to pay up. And screw any little Samsung apologists who infest this site with their foul odor and their vile presence.

 

The thief doesn't get to decide how much the goods that they stole are worth.

 

If the goods weren't worth much, then the thief wouldn't have stolen them to begin with.

 

Samsung's "experts" will of course claim whatever nonsense that they can.

post #37 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic.

Depending on how much Aapl stock you're holding, it can feel very personal.
post #38 of 132

They are innovating in other areas, though. They even have a new voice interface. It's called Iris.

post #39 of 132
I think Samsung's lawyers just argued that the features they cram into their phones aren't worth very much. Makes a great marketing campaign: Galaxy S5: The Next Not Very Valuable Thing Is Here.

"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 #40 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

If these patents are as worthless as Samsung claims, then why don't they just drop them out of their products? They'd lose nothing of any value, by their logic.

Exactly what I was going to say! If they are not valuable patents then just strip those features out of your phone with your own patented implementation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung experts say Apple's patented features not valuable in trial