or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung expert says Apple patents worth $38.4M, not $2.2B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung expert says Apple patents worth $38.4M, not $2.2B

post #1 of 91
Thread Starter 
In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent trial in California on Monday, a Samsung damages expert said Apple should be granted $38.4 million for all five alleged-infringed patents, far from the $2.19 billion Apple is seeking.

Samsung Design Europe 2009 iPhone copy doc


Samsung expert witness Judith Chevalier, an economics and finance professor at Yale University, said her calculations of reasonable royalty rates came out to 35 cents per patent per infringing device, reports CNET. If a lump sum payment were to be doled out to Apple, Samsung would pay around $38.4 million for more than 37 million devices.

"My analysis compensates Apple through a reasonable royalty and...I have determined Apple has not lost sales as a result of Samsung's practice of the patents," Chevalier said, explaining why she did not include damages for lost profits.

The number is leagues away from Apple's patent valuation arguments that put total damages at $2.19 billion for patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of 2013. That equates to an average $40 per infringing Samsung device.

"We have to conclude that the differences in profitability across these products is being driven by something else other than the practice of these patents," Chevalier said. "The value created by these products is really negligible."

On cross-examination, Apple attorney Bill Lee went after Chevalier's methods. In her evaluation, the Yale professor incorporated reviews from customers, one of which came from an iPhone user who claimed "Seerei" shot him with a gun.

Apple is asserting five patents against various Samsung products running Google's Android operating system, including "swipe-to-unlock," data detectors and universal search.

For its part, Samsung calls Apple's patent damages claims a "gross exaggeration" of their actual worth and has been presenting testimony in line with that thinking. Last week, Samsung experts presented studies that sought to prove Apple was "elevating artificially the importance" of certain features covered by the five patents.

Following Chevalier's testimony, Samsung rested its defense case and proceeded to call witnesses for a countersuit against Apple. The Korean company is leveraging two patents against a number of Apple products.
post #2 of 91

“We din do nuffin’!"

“No, you did.”
“Okay, we did it, but what we did wasn’t wrong because they can’t protect it!”
“No, they can.”
“Okay, they can, but what we did isn’t as bad as what they said!”

 

Yes. It is.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #3 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“We din do nuffin’!"
“No, you did.”

“Okay, we did it, but what we did wasn’t wrong because they can’t protect it!”

“No, they can.”

“Okay, they can, but what we did isn’t as bad as what they said!”

Yes. It is.

It's how all crime drama interrogations unfold with the less intelligent criminals.

First they claim to have no idea what the detectives are talking about. Then once they are caught they finally admit they did know or see whatever was previously mentioned but that they didn't know them that well or see much of anything. The only part that is different is when they get pinned for the murder (usually) they finally come clean about some other bad crime they were committing that is less than murder.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #4 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“We din do nuffin’!"
“No, you did.”

“Okay, we did it, but what we did wasn’t wrong because they can’t protect it!”

“No, they can.”

“Okay, they can, but what we did isn’t as bad as what they said!”

Yes. It is.

It's how all crime drama interrogations unfold with the less intelligent criminals.

First they claim to have no idea what the detectives are talking about. Then once they are caught they finally admit they did know or see whatever was previously mentioned but that they didn't know them that well or see much of anything. The only part that is different is when they get pinned for the murder (usually) they finally come clean about some other bad crime they were committing that is less than murder.

They are waiting for the plea bargaining phase.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #5 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

They are waiting for the plea bargaining phase.

Maybe Samsung will turns state's witness against Sony. 1wink.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It's how all crime drama interrogations unfold with the less intelligent criminals.

First they claim to have no idea what the detectives are talking about. Then once they are caught they finally admit they did know or see whatever was previously mentioned but that they didn't know them that well or see much of anything. The only part that is different is when they get pinned for the murder (usually) they finally come clean about some other bad crime they were committing that is less than murder.

Every criminal needs to watch The Usual Suspects to learn how to deal with interrogations. 1wink.gif
"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 #7 of 91

She is an Yale professor?  Does she know the smartphone history?  There are smartphones before 2007 iPhone.  To start a phone you press a button.  Jobs and teams designed iPhone so it operates with full screen multi-touch methods.  In order to begin use the phone user has to swipe to unlock it.  So this method is a standard for multi-touch full screen smartphone.  Apple patented this.  Since this standard no reviewer or user ever cared to mentioned it.  Her argument is naive and stupid. 

post #8 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

They are waiting for the plea bargaining phase.

Maybe Samsung will turns state's witness against Sony. 1wink.gif

They already tried something similar against Google in this trial.   "You got the wrong guys. They did it, not us, we just reused their stuff.  We are not innovators, we are just a marketing company. Its not about features. We will prove it to you, we will bring in Google and they will tell you that we just copied from them, we are not innovators. You got to believe us!!! The NeXT big thing is other people's stuff. We were just protecting ourselves from the evil iPhone tsunami. Apple hates Google.  They are doing this to us because they hate Google. Protect us, we are weak and innocent."


Edited by snova - 4/21/14 at 5:23pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #9 of 91
This is the most ridiculous defense ever. I think that the quick links is well with what Apple is asking along with the other patents. The first time I showed it to a Shamsung customer, they were like, "wow!" I think I could've flipped them on just that feature if they hadn't just upgraded to a far more inferior phone.
post #10 of 91

Of course, Apple's intellectual property is completely worthless! It's so obvious! /s

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 91
SamDung thugs
post #12 of 91

I think jury will be so confused with Samsung's continued changes in strategy (we didn't do it, Google did it, if we did do it, then it's not worth much. Did we mention Google and Samsung works very hard?)  that the jury will just do this complex formula.

 

judgement to Apple:

($2.2B - $0.038B)/2

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #13 of 91
35 cents? You serious? But I did like that Siri shot someone. I guess other testimonials were paid by Sammy.
post #14 of 91

Hey, jurors... Don't forget to treble the damages.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 91

Just pay the F up.

post #16 of 91

I can't help but wonder what would really happen if Apple decided to make a line of cheap plastic iPhones (maybe call them something else for the low-end market) to utterly gut Samsung's worldwide position as "top Android phone."

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #17 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

I can't help but wonder what would really happen if Apple decided to make a line of cheap plastic iPhones (maybe call them something else for the low-end market) to utterly gut Samsung's worldwide position as "top Android phone."

rumor has it, Amazon will have that covered.

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #18 of 91

"My analysis compensates Apple through a reasonable royalty and...I have determined Apple has not lost sales as a result of Samsung's practice of the patents,"

 

Doesn't that work the other way - if Apple has not lost sales then wouldn't it follow that Samsung will not lose sales by ceasing to practice those patents?

post #19 of 91
Well at least they're admitting that they stole/copied from Apple - let's face it, it was obvious to everyone - but now they're going into damage control, while they continue to profit from stolen IP.
post #20 of 91
**** you samsung
post #21 of 91
I am not to buy any samsung galaxy phones.
post #22 of 91
So if the patented techs have so little value, they would add little value to Samsung's products. So Samsung should have no objection to removing those functions, right?

Samsuing?

t
post #23 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I can't help but wonder what would really happen if Apple decided to make a line of cheap plastic iPhones (maybe call them something else for the low-end market) to utterly gut Samsung's worldwide position as "top Android phone."

China will take care of the low end. Squeeze Sammy at both ends.
post #24 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

China will take care of the low end. Squeeze Sammy at both ends.
I don't like samsung company no more
post #25 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“We din do nuffin’!"
“No, you did.”

“Okay, we did it, but what we did wasn’t wrong because they can’t protect it!”

“No, they can.”

“Okay, they can, but what we did isn’t as bad as what they said!”

Yes. It is.

Too bad Johnnie Cochran's no longer with us. Samsung could use his defense strategy:

"If the patent's not void, you must blame Android."
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #26 of 91

Hopefully, the jury is smart enough to see the smokescreens Samsung is trying, as mentioned by snova:

 

1.)  We didn't do it

2.)  Our sales are the result of our massive advertising budget, not slavishly copying the iPhone

3.)  Google did it

4.)  If you think we're guilty, we owe far less $

post #27 of 91
Whole stupid samsung smartphones are bullshit with stupid google software. So I don't like google and samsung company with lousy employees. So I feel like going to running from the California of United States. So I don't like my homes state of California with lousy samsung business.
post #28 of 91
I wonder how I'd go in the Samsung experience store if I ripped off one of their TV's and gave them $4.85 because that's all I think it's worth.
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 #29 of 91

So basically Samsung is claiming Apple's patents are actually worth 1.7% of what Apple has assessed them at? What a bunch of thieving, shameless fucktards. 

post #30 of 91

All Samsung had to do was agree to not copy Apple designs--just as Nokia and HTC did--and they could have licensed these patents for much less. The patents are nonessential--Samsung didn't have to infringe--so Apple can charge whatever they wish under whatever terms they wish. Samsung of course doesn't have to accept those terms... and hasn't. Let them suffer the consequences.

post #31 of 91

“We the jury find the defendant guilty of all charges. Again.”

Samsung: “Well, that’s to be expected. Let’s hear it; what’s the damage?”
“They are to be made to pay the plaintiff damages in the order of thirty-eight point four…”

Samsung: “YES!”

“…billion dollars.”

Samsung: *Homer shriek*

“To be paid in full by the end of this calendar year under penalty of doubling.”

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #32 of 91

they would also have to a agree not to rip off apple designs and future innovation ..and they said they would not agree to that..it says it all.

 

throw the book at them...even 2 billion wont dent them.

post #33 of 91

Expert witness my ass.

 

Sounds more like paid liar.

post #34 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Expert witness my ass.

Sounds more like paid liar.

Speaking of, last night's Cosmos episode was excellent.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #35 of 91

Samsung may be digging a hole here. Everytime they come up with a new defense they lose a bit of credibility. I'm shocked they are trying to have multiple defenses. It's like well you've admitted you're guilty. However, given the number of defenses it hurts your credibility when you say billions of dollars worth of IP is only really worth 38.4million. 

post #36 of 91
So someone breaks into my house, violates me and steals my possessions and when he is caught, he gets to tell me how much my stuff is worth?
post #37 of 91
This is what it sounds is happening...

Apple bought a really nice car, like a Porsche. Drove it for a year and the Samsung steals the car and disassembles it for parts. Samsung was caught stealing the car (although the judge only allows certain pieces if the car to be evaluated) and now the theif is trying not to pay for the whole car. So there defense is to belittle the price of the part.

"Oh see, most people you ask don't see why this shifter knob is all that important or worth what Apple is asking for it. Really it's just a polished piece of mahogany. I can build that in my worship over the weekend..."

The point is that the pieces combined make for a VERY enticing and expensive product that works great... But they are attempting to devalue the worth if the whole by making the parts seem trivial.

Sorry Samsung, but I hope they throw the book at you and sue you into oblivion so you learn a lesson.

PS: I will never but a Samsung branded anything. I can't support their terrible acts.
post #38 of 91

I doubt this is going to work out well for Apple. A trial like this has nothing to do with the truth it has to do with what the jury can understand. A valuation argument explained by two experts at MIT could very well be more than the jury can digest. It's also hard for a jury to see a company this  big and profitable as a victim. 

 

In the US something like this is seen as victimless crime, stealing an idea falls on the same level as downloading a song or a movie over a P2P network. Apple is a massive company worth billions a jury may have a hard time seeing how they were actually hurt by Samsung. Unlike a criminal trial in civil court the bar is proof by preponderance of evidence, more likely true than not. 

 

The fact that Apple went on to have record sales and earnings time and time again after the crime was committed it may be hard for a jury to see massivel damage. A royalty was honestly a brilliant way for Samsung to go. 

 

It will all come down to who can prove their augment is more likely true than not. 

post #39 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by shard View Post

So someone breaks into my house, violates me and steals my possessions and when he is caught, he gets to tell me how much my stuff is worth?

That would be a criminal case but this is a civil case so the rules are different.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #40 of 91
And they think we'll belive then 😂 They should stick to making screens not even TVs just screens.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung expert says Apple patents worth $38.4M, not $2.2B