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

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post



    Samsung is definitely smoking crack.


    So if Apple calculates that Samsung owes Apple $2.8 Billion and Samsung thinks that Apple owes Samsung around $440 Million.


     


    then the bill goes to Samsung for around $2.4 Billion.


     


    That's fair and reasonable.  And Samsung can foot the bill for attorney's fees and court costs since they owe money to Apple.

  • Reply 22 of 39
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member


    I think Samsung is getting scared because Apple is going with other suppliers of technology, which Samsung loses that competitive knowledge, they lose revenue and then they have to wait until Apple releases a product, before they can copy them.  

  • Reply 23 of 39
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    I think Samsung is getting scared because Apple is going with other suppliers of technology, which Samsung loses that competitive knowledge, they lose revenue and then they have to wait until Apple releases a product, before they can copy them.  



     


    I think Apple should pay a visit to Sharp, every day they are getting more and more desperate for money and are ripe for a buyout.


     


    If Apple want to stay at arm's length and don't want to do it maybe they could suggest it to Foxconn and pay enough cash in advance for components to make it viable.


     


    The money Apple currently spend with Samsung would easily cover this.

  • Reply 24 of 39
    tooltalk wrote: »
    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

    I've been reading groklaw for the past two months and even though sj isn't paid by anyone involved, she has clear bias and many times admits it. The comments on that website are pure fandroids. Of course you expect apple fans on a website called AppleInsider.

    On Groklaw "Digging for Truth" website I would expect something unbiased which clearly isn't so. Many of the groklaw articles are personal attacks on FM @ Fosspatents, contrary to the approach he takes of not pointing a finger at SJ. Who's acting more professional?
  • Reply 25 of 39
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.

    If this forum gets rid of trolls, hardly anyone will remain. Maybe 10% of current members.

    There are people here usually very inspired to call out trolls, but it so often takes a troll to see a troll in others.

    Just my humble observation.
  • Reply 26 of 39


    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

    If this forum gets rid of trolls, hardly anyone will remain. Maybe 10% of current members.


     


    I'd be fine with that, but that's (only) me. As long as people aren't lying through their teeth in discussion, it has to be an improvement.

  • Reply 27 of 39
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member


    I think a lot of "trolls" come into these articles because it has more trial coverage. At least in my case, android news feed has far fewer articles than AI.  Also, since there is always going to be a bias from AI and the Apple community, the bait is much stronger.  So you have more troll bait and its extra delicious.  Mystery solved 

  • Reply 28 of 39
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




    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.




    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.


    Probably not, as long as there are codependents who feel compelled to engage every single troll.  If those people could be persuaded to just put the trolls on their ignore list,


    the trolls would not feel rewarded by posting here and would go somewhere else.

  • Reply 29 of 39
    sennensennen Posts: 1,472member

    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?



     


    And you quote groklaw. Hilarious. Mueller was the darling of the anti-Apple posters on here until he started to say things they didn't like.

  • Reply 30 of 39


    You scumbag Samsung fellows. Being a conglomerate, cant even design indigenously. 


    You made billions dollars of business with stolen ideas and want to pay back peanuts. You buggers! 


     


    Hate Samsung.   But you wish to earn Apple's cult status.  My foot you get. My foot.


     


    "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40bn in the bank to right this wrong," - Steve Jobs

  • Reply 31 of 39


    I believe the correct response is, "LOL, Samsung!"

  • Reply 32 of 39
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member



     


    He's wearing a white coat, so you know he's smart and knows what he's talking about...

  • Reply 33 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    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.


    You're right, it had nothing to do with any utility patents like pinch-to-zoom and bounce back. If you didn't realize it had to do with the design patents then you're just skimming thru and not paying much attention as you do.


     


    I've no idea what the video testimony showed. I've not seen it, and doubt you have either. Simply another piece of courtroom testimony that you and others likely weren't aware of as it wasn't reported yet on AI.

  • Reply 34 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    drblank wrote: »
    So if Apple calculates that Samsung owes Apple $2.8 Billion and Samsung thinks that Apple owes Samsung around $440 Million.

    then the bill goes to Samsung for around $2.4 Billion.

    That's fair and reasonable.  And Samsung can foot the bill for attorney's fees and court costs since they owe money to Apple.

    You forgot one thing. Triple damages for willful infringement, so triple your figures. I suspect Apple would be happy with that - as long as the order also tells Samsung to stop copying.

    drblank wrote: »
    I think Samsung is getting scared because Apple is going with other suppliers of technology, which Samsung loses that competitive knowledge, they lose revenue and then they have to wait until Apple releases a product, before they can copy them.  

    This could be the largest repercussion of the whole trial. If you're a manufacturer of proprietary products, it's clear that Samsung can not be trusted, so you should be looking for another supplier.

    Of course, most of the industry is simply copying, Apple, anyway, so there's nothing for Samsung to steal, but SOMEONE besides Apple must be innovating and they'd be crazy to depend on Samsung.
    spacepower wrote: »
    I've been reading groklaw for the past two months and even though sj isn't paid by anyone involved, she has clear bias and many times admits it. The comments on that website are pure fandroids. Of course you expect apple fans on a website called AppleInsider.
    On Groklaw "Digging for Truth" website I would expect something unbiased which clearly isn't so. Many of the groklaw articles are personal attacks on FM @ Fosspatents, contrary to the approach he takes of not pointing a finger at SJ. Who's acting more professional?

    Really? Please show us where she has admitted a clear bias that affects the facts.

    That's the thing that gets lost here. When a reporter has a bias and admits it, but faithfully reports the facts, there's no real harm. OTOH, if their bias causes them to mis-report the facts, it's a serious problem. Mueller, at least, generally states his biases and is usually pretty careful to separate fact from conjecture or opinion.
    sennen wrote: »
    And you quote groklaw. Hilarious. Mueller was the darling of the anti-Apple posters on here until he started to say things they didn't like.

    Yes, that's pretty funny. When Mueller was expressing an OPINION that software patents shouldn't exist, the Apple-hating trolls were eating it up. But when he publicizes facts, they can't stand it.
    gtr wrote: »
    LL

    He's wearing a white coat, so you know he's smart and knows what he's talking about...

    Well done.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You're right, it had nothing to do with any utility patents like pinch-to-zoom and bounce back. If you didn't realize it had to do with the design patents then you're just skimming thru and not paying much attention as you do.

    I've no idea what the video testimony showed. I've not seen it, and doubt you have either. Simply another piece of courtroom testimony that you and others likely weren't aware of as it wasn't reported yet on AI.

    Irrelevant, again. The video shows nothing that looks like Apple's design patents, either. Or are you saying that you can't tell the difference between a table and a tablet? After all, it's only one letter difference, right? /s
  • Reply 35 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    Irrelevant, again. The video shows nothing that looks like Apple's design patents, either. Or are you saying that you can't tell the difference between a table and a tablet? After all, it's only one letter difference, right? /s


    Ah, so you really aren't paying attention. The Fidler tablet was intended to be just what is says in it's name: A tablet. You've become confused with another video from the case having to do with touch events. Not the same at all sir. This is the Fidler tablet as proposed. Plainly not even close to a table.   


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI


     


    Your last two comments directed to me are completely irrelevant since you're not even talking about the same device. It doesn't bother you to act like a smart-aleck only to find find out you've no idea what you're even commenting on? 

  • Reply 36 of 39
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member


    My FRAND solution:


     



    • Offer patent for FRAND


    • Declare trigger point for royalty


    • Declare royalty amount


    • Patent considered for FRAND


    • Accept / Reject as a standard


     


    No more litigation.............

  • Reply 37 of 39
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    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.


     


    And teddybears could be responsible for all wars over the last few centuries too!


    Isn't it wonderful that in America, anyone can say whatever ridiculous crap that happens to bubble up in their tiny little brains?

  • Reply 38 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Ah, so you really aren't paying attention. The Fidler tablet was intended to be just what is says in it's name: A tablet. You've become confused with another video from the case having to do with touch events. Not the same at all sir. This is the Fidler tablet as proposed. Plainly not even close to a table.   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBEtPQDQNcI

    And plainly not even close to the iPad.

    Once again, all you trolls are pretending that Apple wants to claim every rectangle as their property - which isn't the case. They are claiming very specific design features - you know, the ones copied by Samsung in making a tablet that's so close that their own attorneys can't tell the difference from 10 feet.

    The Fidler tablet is easily distinguishable from the iPad and is therefore irrelevant.
  • Reply 39 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



     


    *Beaker steps off the stand*


     


    Koh: Boy, that guy sure was narcissistic, wasn't he? 

Sign In or Register to comment.