It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.
One point that I just cannot get past is that Apple is asking for basically all the profits from Samsung regarding these devices. So, how does Apple PROVE that for each sale Samsung made, Apple loses a sale at a 1:1 ratio? I know many people who would simply buy a different Android or Windows Phone before buying an iPhone or iPad (and vice versa - for the rabid Apple fans to cool their jets). There is simply NO WAY Apple can prove this unless Apple truly wishes to be the SOLE SUPPLIER of smartphones in the U.S. (and beyond our borders too?).
UPDATE: All Things D reports that Apple has now lost its bid to keep the market research secret and Samsung [B][U]will[/U][/B] be allowed to use it as evidence in the trial.
You're probably correct in assuming that Samsung will turn around and release them to the press. After the first ruling, any thing not allowed in the courtroom will just be sent to the press, who are always looking for things to fill their pages ( kind of like AI sometimes).
Well, this stuff is definitely not in the same category as the documents they released in violation of Koh's order earlier this week.
If they release these documents to the press they would be facing serious criminal charges and probably the collapse of the whole trial in Apple's favour. This isn't just some old screenshots that they didn't get evaluated on time, this is serious, private, highly sensitive information. The eventual damages to Samsung would be in the multiple billions from that one act, in addition to already biting the bullet on 2.5 billion if the current trial collapses.
Samsung has nothing to prove.
The burden of proof entirely lies with Apple. And Apple trying to facilitate its task, files motion after motion so as to try and have Samsung with no shield to defend itself.
I kinda go along with your assertion.
Opaqueness shields Samsung. Remove it and you can finally assess the magnitude of its core problem: Samsung can design limbs, central nervous systems, and organs galore that can be qualified as engineered marvels. Unfortunately, they're stuck on figuring the mind as perfectly equated with the brain. A verse, a song, a portrait, ...a smile equated with their organs of origin...
Full transparency would reveal the missing link to their hegemony aspirations. Inspiration. Borne out of passionate humility towards not what is known, ...but towards what lies beyond. The mind, humanity pulled out of its familiar organic setting and thrusted by design...soul on...into the 'rather unsettling'.
Full transparency would reveal mindless Google 'ful'filling with soluble karma Korea's age old inferiority complex. Growing more pronounced as it becomes more and more compensated, ...and insulated... by corporate culture and foreign exploitation, namely Google's 'be-free/freebee' ideological straight-jacket import.
Full transparency would, at long last, reveal what is already known...
1. It wasn't a press release; it was a statement in response to multiple questions from the media (see them in Exhibit A). "Samsung?s brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility (incorporated by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 11-4) and legal authorities regarding attorneys? communications with the press. California Rule of Professional Responsibility 5-120(B)(2) specifically permits attorneys involved in litigation to disclose “information in a public record.” As shown above, all of the information disclosed was contained in public records. Further, Rule 5-120(C) specifically provides that “a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client.”
2. There was no court order saying he couldn't do what he did, so he wasn't flouting any court order or violate any legal or ethical standards.
...
Except you are forgetting that the judge did issue a very specific order the next day requiring Quinn to tell her who approved it and so forth and he violated *that* order. So he could still easily be found in contempt.
You also forget or ignore the fact that a contempt ruling in a court of law needn't actually be based on anything at all. It's basically judges discretion. if the judge makes a spurious contempt order it *may* be overturned on appeal, but the judge can literally just take a disliking to something a lawyer says and find them in contempt on the spot.
Apple has stated on the record that they do not use market research, which has now been proven to be untrue (a lie). They do use market research and now it has been brought out and will be used against them. Pretty simple, Apple seems to low ball their projections and then crush the street with their overly glowing numbers. If this were to show that in fact they are manipulating their companies value it could be embarrassing for them and a potential point of litigation.
Beyond that I look forward to this trial coming to a conclusion and the technology race continuing on and the next iPhone coming out or at least being announced in 40+ days so I can make plans to get one.
Apple has stated on the record that they do not use market research, which has now been proven to be untrue (a lie). They do use market research and now it has been brought out and will be used against them.
… Come on. Come on, really? Come ON.
Pretty simple, Apple seems to low ball their projections and then crush the street with their overly glowing numbers. If this were to show that in fact they are manipulating their companies value it could be embarrassing for them and a potential point of litigation.
No other company on the face of the planet in the history of human civilization has ever done this.
…the technology race continuing on and the next iPhone coming out or at least being announced in 40+ days so I can make plans to get one.
It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.
Besides the obvious fact that this is just a wild assumption on your part, if true, what you say is entirely irrelevant to the case.
It doesn't matter a whit if Apple made four football stadiums full of cash on the iPhone. If Samsung can be proven to have taken away the extra four football fields of money by means of the market share they took away through the copying of Apple's products, then they still have to pay up.
It's just faulty logic to assume that because they are making lots of money that they didn't in fact deserve to make lots more money.
Also, you are wrong about the profit margins. Apple tries to make a very standard 30-40% margin on their products. Most retail products are initially sold at roughly 100% margin which diminishes as the product goes down the chain to various re-sellers with the people at the bottom making margins closer to 10% or so. The fact that a lot of computer manufacturers and resellers don't make as high a margin is again, completely irrelevant to the question of whether apple's margins are "too high."
They make a "healthy" margin and they have better margins that others do in general, but they most definitely do not have margins that are completely "out of line" or "over the top" or "ludicrous" etc. They are fairly normal, standard, retail margins.
I am aware of that, but when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. Samsung allegedly stole something. Stating otherwise is incorrect. And my question was valid as I would like to know what Samsung allegedly stole from Apple.
I am aware of that, but when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. Samsung allegedly stole something. Stating otherwise is incorrect. And my question was valid as I would like to know what Samsung allegedly stole from Apple.
Except you are forgetting that the judge did issue a very specific order the next day requiring Quinn to tell her who approved it and so forth and he violated *that* order. So he could still easily be found in contempt.
You also forget or ignore the fact that a contempt ruling in a court of law needn't actually be based on anything at all. It's basically judges discretion. if the judge makes a spurious contempt order it *may* be overturned on appeal, but the judge can literally just take a disliking to something a lawyer says and find them in contempt on the spot.
No no and no. She stated it couldn't be used as evidence. Koh was simply pissed that Samsung outmanuvered her in her own courtroom. He cannot be found in contempt since he didn't violate anything...and if the judge tried to make that stick without any reason other than she doesn't like them, she can find herself on the end of a lawsuit, have the lawsuit overturned in an appeal, etc.
That (if true) doesn't change the truth about Apple crazy profit margins. And HOW does this relate to threatening to ban someone?
Don't even bother with Tallest Skil. His posts can be as bad as a 16 year old childs. He'll use vulgar language in a post, make fun of members and even threaten to ban them, if they don't agree with him.
In fact, he'll most likely delete this post and ban me. How this guy became a Moderator is beyond me. He's single handedly turning this site into a joke.
Cannot find anything that Samsung allegedly stole from Apple. There are some potential patent infringments, but that is not theft. Apple claims that Samsung is using Apple's trade and dress...again...that is not theft. So, tell me, what did Samsung allegedly steal from Apple?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.
One point that I just cannot get past is that Apple is asking for basically all the profits from Samsung regarding these devices. So, how does Apple PROVE that for each sale Samsung made, Apple loses a sale at a 1:1 ratio? I know many people who would simply buy a different Android or Windows Phone before buying an iPhone or iPad (and vice versa - for the rabid Apple fans to cool their jets). There is simply NO WAY Apple can prove this unless Apple truly wishes to be the SOLE SUPPLIER of smartphones in the U.S. (and beyond our borders too?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Don't post silly stuff. Copying/stealing is bad, and deserves to be punished. If proved. As it will be.
Please explain what Samsung has "stolen"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
My only question at this point is when we're going to ban you.
Take a gander at the high-end Android phones. Some have even higher margins.
That (if true) doesn't change the truth about Apple crazy profit margins. And HOW does this relate to threatening to ban someone?
Originally Posted by lamewing
Please explain what Samsung has "stolen"
That's the point of the trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd
You're probably correct in assuming that Samsung will turn around and release them to the press. After the first ruling, any thing not allowed in the courtroom will just be sent to the press, who are always looking for things to fill their pages ( kind of like AI sometimes).
Well, this stuff is definitely not in the same category as the documents they released in violation of Koh's order earlier this week.
If they release these documents to the press they would be facing serious criminal charges and probably the collapse of the whole trial in Apple's favour. This isn't just some old screenshots that they didn't get evaluated on time, this is serious, private, highly sensitive information. The eventual damages to Samsung would be in the multiple billions from that one act, in addition to already biting the bullet on 2.5 billion if the current trial collapses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Please explain what Samsung has "stolen"
How lame is that?
I kinda go along with your assertion.
Opaqueness shields Samsung. Remove it and you can finally assess the magnitude of its core problem: Samsung can design limbs, central nervous systems, and organs galore that can be qualified as engineered marvels. Unfortunately, they're stuck on figuring the mind as perfectly equated with the brain. A verse, a song, a portrait, ...a smile equated with their organs of origin...
Full transparency would reveal the missing link to their hegemony aspirations. Inspiration. Borne out of passionate humility towards not what is known, ...but towards what lies beyond. The mind, humanity pulled out of its familiar organic setting and thrusted by design...soul on...into the 'rather unsettling'.
Full transparency would reveal mindless Google 'ful'filling with soluble karma Korea's age old inferiority complex. Growing more pronounced as it becomes more and more compensated, ...and insulated... by corporate culture and foreign exploitation, namely Google's 'be-free/freebee' ideological straight-jacket import.
Full transparency would, at long last, reveal what is already known...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling ...
Except you are forgetting that the judge did issue a very specific order the next day requiring Quinn to tell her who approved it and so forth and he violated *that* order. So he could still easily be found in contempt.
You also forget or ignore the fact that a contempt ruling in a court of law needn't actually be based on anything at all. It's basically judges discretion. if the judge makes a spurious contempt order it *may* be overturned on appeal, but the judge can literally just take a disliking to something a lawyer says and find them in contempt on the spot.
Apple has stated on the record that they do not use market research, which has now been proven to be untrue (a lie). They do use market research and now it has been brought out and will be used against them. Pretty simple, Apple seems to low ball their projections and then crush the street with their overly glowing numbers. If this were to show that in fact they are manipulating their companies value it could be embarrassing for them and a potential point of litigation.
Beyond that I look forward to this trial coming to a conclusion and the technology race continuing on and the next iPhone coming out or at least being announced in 40+ days so I can make plans to get one.
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7
Apple has stated on the record that they do not use market research, which has now been proven to be untrue (a lie). They do use market research and now it has been brought out and will be used against them.
… Come on. Come on, really? Come ON.
Pretty simple, Apple seems to low ball their projections and then crush the street with their overly glowing numbers. If this were to show that in fact they are manipulating their companies value it could be embarrassing for them and a potential point of litigation.
No other company on the face of the planet in the history of human civilization has ever done this.
…the technology race continuing on and the next iPhone coming out or at least being announced in 40+ days so I can make plans to get one.
Sure you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
It points that despite Apple's allegation that Samsung's copying Iphone and thus hurting Apple's market and its bottom line, Apple sales still continue to break records, and Iphone continue to enjoy one of the most ludicrous profit margin of any hardware ever introduced in human history for 4 YEARS RUNNING. Since numbers don't lie, then Apple is lying.
Besides the obvious fact that this is just a wild assumption on your part, if true, what you say is entirely irrelevant to the case.
It doesn't matter a whit if Apple made four football stadiums full of cash on the iPhone. If Samsung can be proven to have taken away the extra four football fields of money by means of the market share they took away through the copying of Apple's products, then they still have to pay up.
It's just faulty logic to assume that because they are making lots of money that they didn't in fact deserve to make lots more money.
Also, you are wrong about the profit margins. Apple tries to make a very standard 30-40% margin on their products. Most retail products are initially sold at roughly 100% margin which diminishes as the product goes down the chain to various re-sellers with the people at the bottom making margins closer to 10% or so. The fact that a lot of computer manufacturers and resellers don't make as high a margin is again, completely irrelevant to the question of whether apple's margins are "too high."
They make a "healthy" margin and they have better margins that others do in general, but they most definitely do not have margins that are completely "out of line" or "over the top" or "ludicrous" etc. They are fairly normal, standard, retail margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's the point of the trial.
I am aware of that, but when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. Samsung allegedly stole something. Stating otherwise is incorrect. And my question was valid as I would like to know what Samsung allegedly stole from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
I am aware of that, but when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. Samsung allegedly stole something. Stating otherwise is incorrect. And my question was valid as I would like to know what Samsung allegedly stole from Apple.
"google" it
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
How lame is that?
Ad hominem attacks? Really? Also, you didn't answer the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Except you are forgetting that the judge did issue a very specific order the next day requiring Quinn to tell her who approved it and so forth and he violated *that* order. So he could still easily be found in contempt.
You also forget or ignore the fact that a contempt ruling in a court of law needn't actually be based on anything at all. It's basically judges discretion. if the judge makes a spurious contempt order it *may* be overturned on appeal, but the judge can literally just take a disliking to something a lawyer says and find them in contempt on the spot.
No no and no. She stated it couldn't be used as evidence. Koh was simply pissed that Samsung outmanuvered her in her own courtroom. He cannot be found in contempt since he didn't violate anything...and if the judge tried to make that stick without any reason other than she doesn't like them, she can find herself on the end of a lawsuit, have the lawsuit overturned in an appeal, etc.
In fact, he'll most likely delete this post and ban me. How this guy became a Moderator is beyond me. He's single handedly turning this site into a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
Ad hominem attacks?
So?
Originally Posted by lamewing
Also, you didn't answer the question.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
"google" it
Cannot find anything that Samsung allegedly stole from Apple. There are some potential patent infringments, but that is not theft. Apple claims that Samsung is using Apple's trade and dress...again...that is not theft. So, tell me, what did Samsung allegedly steal from Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
... when someone here states that Samsung "stole" something they are wrong. ....
What part of the "if proven" in my original post did you have trouble translating?