Wait, what?! Samsung choose a witness who claims Samsung is guilty... but at a lower rte than Apple claims?
Yes. SAMSCUM know they are guilty,all they are doing now is the business equivalent of pleading insanity hoping that the Korean-American Judge Lucy KOhREA will play along with their pathetic courtroom theatrics.
samSCUM (corea) vs apple (USA) I STILL cannot believe that a kOREAN american judge is sitting this case.
. If i was an American citizen I would try to get this "woman" impeached if samsung is found innocent on all counts because it is obvious that she is taking bribes from korea.
Subsidies have nothing to do with it. Even when a phone goes down in price the full retail price stays the same or doesn't go down much.
The subsidies matter because between a "$200" iPhone and a $200 anything else, Apple is getting more money for their device than the competitor is. You can compare retail prices though, and the iPhone costs more 99% of the time.
Even if 12% were Samsung's true profit margin (and that's debatable), Apple sees a measurable increase in profit for their other products (Macs, Apple TVs, iOS apps, etc.) as a result of the halo-effect from iPhone/iPad purchases. So I don't think the 12% profit just from smartphone/tablet sales is a sufficient measurement of any damages to Apple if that becomes the ruling.
The subsidies matter because between a "$200" iPhone and a $200 anything else, Apple is getting more money for their device than the competitor is. You can compare retail prices though, and the iPhone costs more 99% of the time.
Or so it seems. Apple is upfront on on its financials than anyone else. We don't know how much it costs Samsung to manufacture a device versus how much they sell it for?
Less profit means less damages. It's that simple. The offended party will be awarded whatever profit the offender got not what profit that was missed out on.
What makes you think that? Apple is seeking to recover their lost revenue, not take Samsungs. Why should Apple suffer because Samsung can not get as good of deals with Samsung as Apple can.
Aside from "cooked books" and other earnings anomalies..
35% margin is absurdly high for consumer electronics. Maybe if you're controlling the supply chain and have a market lock (like Apple), you'll pull that type of rake. Otherwise, seems pretty dang high.
Controlling the market? What about all the analyst reports claiming Samsung is outselling Apple nearly 2:1 in the smartphone market. When you consider Apple buys many of their components from Samsung, this whole thing becomes even more absurd.
I’m so glad I live in The UK. A British judge saying anything approaching such an outrageous remark would be forced by the independent judicial council, her peers and by the bar associations to resign immediately and a mistrial declared. I guess The American judiciary system don’t care if the administration of justice falls into dispute!
I have posted before that judge Lucy KoREA who is of korean-american heritage is taking bribes and is working for the multi billion south-korean conglomerate samscum, she is going to do everything in her power to discredit apple And screw America.
Less profit means less damages. It's that simple. The offended party will be awarded whatever profit the offender got not what profit that was missed out on.
No, it's not that simple. Lost profits is only one of the elements that Apple could collect on. There are plenty of other sources of damages:
- Damage to their reputation and brand image
- Punitive damages
- Loss of future profits due to Samsung gaining a foothold.
What makes you think that? Apple is seeking to recover their lost revenue, not take Samsungs. Why should Apple suffer because Samsung can not get as good of deals with Samsung as Apple can.
P.S Please let me clarify that I am British and live in the UK.
Where you were born and where you live mean nothing. All that matters is what you say and nothing I've seen you write is worthwhile of being taken seriously. You come across as bigoted and spastic. If you had a valid point it was completely lost because of that.
I'm guessing the IRS would be interested in Samsung's NINE different versions of their financials. I believe there's only one accounting method that they should be using.
Quote:
Under U.S. law, Apple can demand all of Samsung's profits on offending devices if the company is found to have infringed upon its design patents. In contrast, infringement of technical patents can only result in a demand for actual damages.
Wagner also noted that his version of Samsung's profits assumed a period beginning April 2011, as opposed to Musika's which started its profit analysis the middle of 2010, a period twice as long.
This is why the poor guy was given such little time to do his calculations (to refute Apple's expert's calculations). Notice that he also used a much shorter period of time for his calculations so, if extended to match, they would be closer (perhaps 1 billion vs 2.5 billion?). I wonder how the jury is going to (or is supposed to) sort this out. Somewhere in there is the truth, but who knows where.
I'm guessing the IRS would be interested in Samsung's NINE different versions of their financials. I believe there's only one accounting method that they should be using.
Not necessarily. There are lots of reasons for having different versions of the financials. For example, it is quite common to use different books for taxes as for SEC reporting.
No, it's not that simple. Lost profits is only one of the elements that Apple could collect on. There are plenty of other sources of damages:
- Damage to their reputation and brand image
- Punitive damages
- Loss of future profits due to Samsung gaining a foothold.
Apple covered a portion of that in their own suggested breakdown of damages. What I found silly was more the all or nothing assumption when different claims were clearly stated.
This is why the poor guy was given such little time to do his calculations (to refute Apple's expert's calculations). Notice that he also used a much shorter period of time for his calculations so, if extended to match, they would be closer (perhaps 1 billion vs 2.5 billion?). I wonder how the jury is going to (or is supposed to) sort this out. Somewhere in there is the truth, but who knows where.
There's another major factor which accounts for a factor of 3 difference.
Apple used a gross margin of 35.5% in their calculation. Samsung used the NET margin of 12%.
Rationally, Apple's calculation is correct. The difference between the two is fixed costs. Samsung's calculation assumes that the fixed costs would grow proportional to sales - which is exactly the opposite of how fixed costs work. Your incremental gain from selling additional units (within limits) is equal to the gross margin on that sale, NOT the net margin used by Samsung.
So if you start with Samsung's figure of $500 M and double the time to cover the full time in question, it reaches $1 B. If you now use the gross margin (or contribution margin) instead of the net margin, the figure triples again - or reaches $3 M.
I wonder which business school Samsung's expert flunked out of.
NINE different versions. And all of them lies. Samsung is known for cooking its books to make things look "smooth".
If they want to prop up there stock price, they release one set of financials. If they want to claim no damages, they cook up another. Pitiful, really.
What credentials do YOU have for me to believe what comes out of your mouth?
I dont understand why Americans gave Samsung a chance to do such a great business with a stolen product. Being American company, Google had given boost.
Cant people grasp that they had already seen that in Apple devices and we are buying a substandard copy product?
Samsung had great history in cooking up evidences. Comedy is, with this bad name it wants to earn Apple like cult status in America.
You moron Samsung. Get lost.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong, I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs
Less profit means less damages. It's that simple. The offended party will be awarded whatever profit the offender got not what profit that was missed out on.
So, if you usually earn 100 million on a product.
I violate patents, copy your product, sell it with a price 2 times lower than you (because I saved on R&D, and because I am satisfied with lower margin). I earn 25 million. But since my product is so cheap compared to yours, consumers chose my product over yours. You earn 25 million.
You lost 75 million, because I lured customers to give 25 millions to me instead.
Now as per your logic, you agree that I pay you only 25 millions, and other 50 million (damages) you lost - you just fine with it.
I love you dude. What is the next product of yours would you recommend to me to copy?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Wait, what?! Samsung choose a witness who claims Samsung is guilty... but at a lower rte than Apple claims?
Yes. SAMSCUM know they are guilty,all they are doing now is the business equivalent of pleading insanity hoping that the Korean-American Judge Lucy KOhREA will play along with their pathetic courtroom theatrics.
samSCUM (corea) vs apple (USA) I STILL cannot believe that a kOREAN american judge is sitting this case.
. If i was an American citizen I would try to get this "woman" impeached if samsung is found innocent on all counts because it is obvious that she is taking bribes from korea.
Impeach judge lucy KOhREA
P.S Please let me clarify that I am British and live in the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Subsidies have nothing to do with it. Even when a phone goes down in price the full retail price stays the same or doesn't go down much.
The subsidies matter because between a "$200" iPhone and a $200 anything else, Apple is getting more money for their device than the competitor is. You can compare retail prices though, and the iPhone costs more 99% of the time.
Even if 12% were Samsung's true profit margin (and that's debatable), Apple sees a measurable increase in profit for their other products (Macs, Apple TVs, iOS apps, etc.) as a result of the halo-effect from iPhone/iPad purchases. So I don't think the 12% profit just from smartphone/tablet sales is a sufficient measurement of any damages to Apple if that becomes the ruling.
Or so it seems. Apple is upfront on on its financials than anyone else. We don't know how much it costs Samsung to manufacture a device versus how much they sell it for?
"Your honor, my innocent client didn't rob the bank but if he did he only took half of the amount the bank claimed was stolen!"
What makes you think that? Apple is seeking to recover their lost revenue, not take Samsungs. Why should Apple suffer because Samsung can not get as good of deals with Samsung as Apple can.
Controlling the market? What about all the analyst reports claiming Samsung is outselling Apple nearly 2:1 in the smartphone market. When you consider Apple buys many of their components from Samsung, this whole thing becomes even more absurd.
I would say, you are as british as Lucy Koh is american.
Please don't do this.
Don't forget that today this judge asked Apple's attorneys if they're 'smoking crack'.
I’m so glad I live in The UK. A British judge saying anything approaching such an outrageous remark would be forced by the independent judicial council, her peers and by the bar associations to resign immediately and a mistrial declared. I guess The American judiciary system don’t care if the administration of justice falls into dispute!
I have posted before that judge Lucy KoREA who is of korean-american heritage is taking bribes and is working for the multi billion south-korean conglomerate samscum, she is going to do everything in her power to discredit apple And screw America.
deleted
That was my first thought.
I suspect that Apple would be happy with Samsung's estimate of $500 M - with treble damages for willful infringement.
In all likelihood, the jury is likely to consider this number as the low end and Apple's as the high end.
No, it's not that simple. Lost profits is only one of the elements that Apple could collect on. There are plenty of other sources of damages:
- Damage to their reputation and brand image
- Punitive damages
- Loss of future profits due to Samsung gaining a foothold.
Do you really believe Apple lost revenue?
Where you were born and where you live mean nothing. All that matters is what you say and nothing I've seen you write is worthwhile of being taken seriously. You come across as bigoted and spastic. If you had a valid point it was completely lost because of that.
Wow, where to start.
I'm guessing the IRS would be interested in Samsung's NINE different versions of their financials. I believe there's only one accounting method that they should be using.
Quote:
Under U.S. law, Apple can demand all of Samsung's profits on offending devices if the company is found to have infringed upon its design patents. In contrast, infringement of technical patents can only result in a demand for actual damages.
Wagner also noted that his version of Samsung's profits assumed a period beginning April 2011, as opposed to Musika's which started its profit analysis the middle of 2010, a period twice as long.
This is why the poor guy was given such little time to do his calculations (to refute Apple's expert's calculations). Notice that he also used a much shorter period of time for his calculations so, if extended to match, they would be closer (perhaps 1 billion vs 2.5 billion?). I wonder how the jury is going to (or is supposed to) sort this out. Somewhere in there is the truth, but who knows where.
Not necessarily. There are lots of reasons for having different versions of the financials. For example, it is quite common to use different books for taxes as for SEC reporting.
Nine is a lot, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, it's not that simple. Lost profits is only one of the elements that Apple could collect on. There are plenty of other sources of damages:
- Damage to their reputation and brand image
- Punitive damages
- Loss of future profits due to Samsung gaining a foothold.
Apple covered a portion of that in their own suggested breakdown of damages. What I found silly was more the all or nothing assumption when different claims were clearly stated.
There's another major factor which accounts for a factor of 3 difference.
Apple used a gross margin of 35.5% in their calculation. Samsung used the NET margin of 12%.
Rationally, Apple's calculation is correct. The difference between the two is fixed costs. Samsung's calculation assumes that the fixed costs would grow proportional to sales - which is exactly the opposite of how fixed costs work. Your incremental gain from selling additional units (within limits) is equal to the gross margin on that sale, NOT the net margin used by Samsung.
So if you start with Samsung's figure of $500 M and double the time to cover the full time in question, it reaches $1 B. If you now use the gross margin (or contribution margin) instead of the net margin, the figure triples again - or reaches $3 M.
I wonder which business school Samsung's expert flunked out of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ignatz
NINE different versions. And all of them lies. Samsung is known for cooking its books to make things look "smooth".
If they want to prop up there stock price, they release one set of financials. If they want to claim no damages, they cook up another. Pitiful, really.
What credentials do YOU have for me to believe what comes out of your mouth?
Because all I hear is BS.
I dont understand why Americans gave Samsung a chance to do such a great business with a stolen product. Being American company, Google had given boost.
Cant people grasp that they had already seen that in Apple devices and we are buying a substandard copy product?
Samsung had great history in cooking up evidences. Comedy is, with this bad name it wants to earn Apple like cult status in America.
You moron Samsung. Get lost.
“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong, I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” - Steve Jobs
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Less profit means less damages. It's that simple. The offended party will be awarded whatever profit the offender got not what profit that was missed out on.
So, if you usually earn 100 million on a product.
I violate patents, copy your product, sell it with a price 2 times lower than you (because I saved on R&D, and because I am satisfied with lower margin). I earn 25 million. But since my product is so cheap compared to yours, consumers chose my product over yours. You earn 25 million.
You lost 75 million, because I lured customers to give 25 millions to me instead.
Now as per your logic, you agree that I pay you only 25 millions, and other 50 million (damages) you lost - you just fine with it.
I love you dude. What is the next product of yours would you recommend to me to copy?