Samsung rests it case, says Apple could owe nearly $422M in royalties

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Samsung on Thursday rested its case in the Apple v. Samsung trial, concluding its phase of the trial with a pair of expert witnesses who believe Apple could owe $421.8 million in royalties over five patents owned by the South Korean company.

Samsung called to the stand damages expert Vincent O'Brien, who testified that his calculations show Apple owes the Galaxy maker $22.8 million based on three patent infringement claims, reports Bloomberg. The patents in question were presented on Tuesday and cover mobile device usability features regarding photos, email attachments and playing music in the background

O'Brien arrived at the $22.8 million figure by estimating reasonable royalty rates based in part on previous Apple payouts. Samsung can't claim it lost sales to the alleged infringement so royalties are the only avenue of calculating damages.

In a follow-up to O'Brien's testimony, University of California, Berkeley professor David Teece said Apple's alleged infringement of two separate Samsung patents relating to standards-essential UMTS patents could bring damages in the range of $290 million to $399 million. The royalty rates were calculated as 2 percent and 2.75 percent, though how Samsung arrived at those numbers is unclear.

In cross-examination, Teece was presented with a letter from Samsung dated July 25, 2011, in which the company proposed Apple pay a 2.4 percent royalty rate to license technology from any of 86 patents. Because the Samsung patents in question are deemed standards-essential, they should be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but the 2.4 percent rate was never before levied to a licensee.

David Teece
Expert witness David Teece. | Source: Wikipedia


Apple's lawyer was able to get Teece to admit he didn't know how Samsung arrived at the proposed royalty rate, which the Cupertino company claimed was ?unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory? in a pre-trial filing. In a subsequent Samsung filing, the electronics giant noted it offered a fair and reasonable rate to ?virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry," but Apple rejected the terms and "to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple?s use of Samsung?s standards-essential technology.?

Apple v. Samsung continues on Thursday with testimony from Apple witnesses intended to rebut the arguments Samsung asserted over the week. Apple is looking to squeeze in over 20 witnesses in the brief time it has left, a move that earned the ire of presiding Judge Lucy Koh earlier today.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    Samsung is definitely smoking crack.
  • Reply 2 of 39
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Are those Apple witnesses appearing on groundhog day? Might recheck your last paragraph....
  • Reply 3 of 39
    845032845032 Posts: 76member


    Apple claims rounded rectangular.


    Apple claims samsung devices would be mistaken for the their because customers are not clever.


    Apple demand 2.5 billion dollars.



    Samsung claims essential telecommunication patent.

    Samsung demand 0.4 billion dollars



    Samsung’s demand is very reasonable and legitimate than Apple’s.

  • Reply 4 of 39
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member


    This whole thing, on both sides IMO, is ridiculous.  It seems like this should have been settled between the parties.  I can sort of understand why the judge is unhappy.

  • Reply 5 of 39
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    Apple claims rounded rectangular.


    Apple claims samsung devices would be mistaken for the their because customers are not clever.


    Apple demand 2.5 billion dollars.



    Samsung claims essential telecommunication patent.

    Samsung demand 0.4 billion dollars



    Samsung’s demand is very reasonable and legitimate than Apple’s.



     


    Troll joins Apple focused forum.


    Troll makes posts taking sides against Apple at every opportunity.


    Trolls hopes that people take him/her seriously.


    Other forum members realization that he/she is a troll is reasonable, and it is legitimate to ignore the troll's posts.


     


    -kpluck

  • Reply 6 of 39


    One step closer to the end of the circus sideshow.


     


    I wish the end of the political elections was going to come as soon as the end of this trial.

  • Reply 7 of 39
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,336member
    Maybe I'm wrong here, but did Qualcomm and the other chipmakers pay thee royalties for the use of Samsung patents in their chipsets? If so, then Samsung is double dipping and trying to make more money. I would think that if it's a patent for how 3G works, then the chips that handle that should license from the patent holder and not Apple.

    Or maybe I'm smoking crack...
  • Reply 8 of 39
    ignatzignatz Posts: 10member


  • Reply 9 of 39

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post



    Maybe I'm wrong here, but did Qualcomm and the other chipmakers pay thee royalties for the use of Samsung patents in their chipsets? If so, then Samsung is double dipping and trying to make more money. I would think that if it's a patent for how 3G works, then the chips that handle that should license from the patent holder and not Apple.

    Or maybe I'm smoking crack...


    As I remember, Samsung told Qualcomm, after the the chips were licensed, that any chips they sold to Apple would not be licensed.  If they sold them to anyone else the licensing still remained in effect.  They tried to pull the rug out from under Apple's feet.  Doesn't seem quite fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. If I'm wrong, someone will surely correct me shortly.  

  • Reply 10 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,095member


    I was surprised to see that the Fidler tablet did make it into the record. for some reason I thought Judge Koh had rejected it, so I'm obviously mistaken. Mr. Fidler declined to appear in person reportedly due to his ongoing relationship with Apple. I have no idea what that relationship is and don't know that it's even been specified anywhere. In any case:


     


     


    "We were eager to get other companies to make it," Fidler told the Tribune. "We wanted to be the content providers. … We assumed there would be a number of companies making tablets. My role, I felt, was to be an evangelist for the concept, anticipating that such a device would be a logical development as an alternative to ink on paper."


    Fidler's video testimony was shown to the jury on Tuesday, the Chronicle reported, and he also provided written comments that were recorded during a deposition in Columbia. Samsung had asked him to testify in person, but Fidler said he did not think it would be appropriate. He and colleagues at MU's Reynolds Journalism Institute have ongoing partnerships with Apple and did not want to jeopardize those relationships.


    He also stressed that he merely provided facts.


    "I have nothing against Apple," Fidler said. "I'm a fan of Apple products, and all along I've not made any claims to be the inventor of iPad or that my ideas were stolen by Apple. The tablet I created in 1994 and the video we created, it is what it is. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not what we produced in 1994 would have any influence on invalidating the Apple patent."


    Asked whether he thinks the idea should have been patented, Fidler said the iPad has unique characteristics but that the patent itself is vague.


    "I've seen the patent, and based on the drawings that were included, I think the concept was not a unique concept," he said. "Very little detail was provided in that patent other than providing a shape, a rectangle with round corners, that is flat and appeared to be something relatively thin. That in itself, I think, was not sufficient to justify a patent."


    http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/16/jurors-in-apple-suit-hear-fidlers-tablet-story/

  • Reply 11 of 39
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member


     


    "Berkeley professor Teece, notorious for abetting FRAND abuse, to testify for Samsung on Friday"  - Foss Patents

  • Reply 12 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I was surprised to see that the Fidler tablet did make it into the record. for some reason I thought Judge Koh had rejected it, so I'm obviously mistaken. Mr. Fidler declined to appear in person reportedly due to his ongoing relationship with Apple. I have no idea what that relationship is and don't know that it's even been specified anywhere. In any case:


    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">"We were eager to get other companies to make it," Fidler told the Tribune. "We wanted to be the content providers. … We assumed there would be a number of companies making tablets. My role, I felt, was to be an evangelist for the concept, anticipating that such a device would be a logical development as an alternative to ink on paper."</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">Fidler's video testimony was shown to the jury on Tuesday, the Chronicle reported, and he also provided written comments that were recorded during a deposition in Columbia. Samsung had asked him to testify in person, but Fidler said he did not think it would be appropriate. He and colleagues at MU's Reynolds Journalism Institute have ongoing partnerships with Apple and did not want to jeopardize those relationships.</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">He also stressed that he merely provided facts.</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">"I have nothing against Apple," Fidler said. "I'm a fan of Apple products, and all along I've not made any claims to be the inventor of iPad or that my ideas were stolen by Apple. The tablet I created in 1994 and the video we created, it is what it is. It's up to the jury to decide whether or not what we produced in 1994 would have any influence on invalidating the Apple patent."</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">Asked whether he thinks the idea should have been patented, Fidler said the iPad has unique characteristics but that the patent itself is vague.</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">"I've seen the patent, and based on the drawings that were included, I think the concept was not a unique concept," he said. "Very little detail was provided in that patent other than providing a shape, a rectangle with round corners, that is flat and appeared to be something relatively thin. That in itself, I think, was not sufficient to justify a patent."</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:20px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:14px;vertical-align:baseline;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:20px;">http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/aug/16/jurors-in-apple-suit-hear-fidlers-tablet-story/</p>

    I wonder what makes you think that your repeated citation of that silly video is relevant. There's nothing in that video that looks even a little bit like pinch-to-zoom or bounce back -- no matter how many times you bring it up.
  • Reply 13 of 39
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kpluck View Post


     


    Troll joins Apple focused forum.


    Troll makes posts taking sides against Apple at every opportunity.


    Trolls hopes that people take him/her seriously.


    Other forum members realization that he/she is a troll is reasonable, and it is legitimate to ignore the troll's posts.


     


    -kpluck



    What does a turd sound like when it hits a troll at 100 mph?  I will let you know when it hits 845032.

  • Reply 14 of 39
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    I wonder what makes you think that your repeated citation of that silly video is relevant. There's nothing in that video that looks even a little bit like pinch-to-zoom or bounce back -- no matter how many times you bring it up.


     


    Are YOU smoking crack?


     


    What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?


     


    Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".


     


    The video he quotes applies to the former.


     


     


    What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.

  • Reply 15 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    galbi wrote: »
    Are YOU smoking crack?

    What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?

    Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".

    The video he quotes applies to the former.


    What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.

    I wonder if we'll ever get rid of the trolls who want to pretend that it's all about a flat rectangle.....

    Probably not.
  • Reply 16 of 39
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


     


    "Berkeley professor Teece, notorious for abetting FRAND abuse, to testify for Samsung on Friday"  - Foss Patents



     


    It probably doesn't help that the accusation is coming from a paid, anti-Android shill, Florian Mueller?


     


    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129

  • Reply 17 of 39
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


     


    Are YOU smoking crack?


     


    What part of the "generally flat, even borders, rounded corners, thin" iPad "design patent" claims by Apple Inc. dont you understand?


     


    Apple has multiple lawsuits going on right now, one is the "design patent", the other is the "functional or utility patents".


     


    The video he quotes applies to the former.


     


     


    What you claim as "silly" is just a biased opinion (on your part) because it refutes what people like yourself want to believe.



     


    Hi Galbi, check this out:-


     


     



     


    It's not a rectangle.


     


    a does not equal b


     


    It is not like Apple's design patent.


     


    Good thing Europe doesn't have stupid patents


     


    :)


     


    Oops.

  • Reply 18 of 39
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


     


    It probably doesn't help that the accusation is coming from a paid, anti-Android shill, Florian Mueller?


     


    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129



     


    "It only takes one bullet to kill."

  • Reply 19 of 39
    ufwaufwa Posts: 64member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by diplication View Post


    As I remember, Samsung told Qualcomm, after the the chips were licensed, that any chips they sold to Apple would not be licensed.  If they sold them to anyone else the licensing still remained in effect.  They tried to pull the rug out from under Apple's feet.  Doesn't seem quite fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. If I'm wrong, someone will surely correct me shortly.  





    I read this claim a lot. But the only item relating on Qualcomm and Samsung this story pertaining to their case in Australia.


     


    http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/


     


    Samsung claims they terminated an agreement not to sue Qualcomm or any its customers. Anyways nearly a month as gone by and I would think there would at least be something from Apple characterizing what you stated in some fashion. Yet the only thing that comes up is Apple insisting that the rate that Samsung wants is not fair.


     


    Even in the current trial, I haven't read Apple bring it up.  I believe Samsung is bring up their 3G patents.  It seems it would be a good time to bring it up and point out to the jury,  Samsung's action of refusing just to apple is discriminatory.

  • Reply 20 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    ufwa wrote: »

    I read this claim a lot. But the only item relating on Qualcomm and Samsung this story pertaining to their case in Australia.

    http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sacrificed-qualcomm-truce-for-apple-war-7000001348/

    Samsung claims they terminated an agreement not to sue Qualcomm or any its customers. Anyways nearly a month as gone by and I would think there would at least be something from Apple characterizing what you stated in some fashion. Yet the only thing that comes up is Apple insisting that the rate that Samsung wants is not fair.

    Even in the current trial, I haven't read Apple bring it up.  I believe Samsung is bring up their 3G patents.  It seems it would be a good time to bring it up and point out to the jury,  Samsung's action of refusing just to apple is discriminatory.

    Samsung's 3G patents are largely irrelevant in this case and just more mud that they're slinging and hoping something sticks. They are being accused of violating Apple's patents. Either they did or they didn't and Apple's behavior is mostly irrelevant.

    However, it's not hard at all to find the information. Just enter 'apple qualcomm samsung license' into your search engine. With Bing, the first result is:

    http://www.slashgear.com/apple-samsung-cheated-in-3g-standardization-26182731/

    "There’s also the accusation that Samsung changed its licensing with Qualcomm to specifically exclude business with Apple, "


    More info:

    http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/10/11/apple.sees.qualcomm.as.key.to.samsung.patent.exit/
Sign In or Register to comment.