Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
In his opening comments of the patent damages retrial, Samsung's attorney Bill Price told the jury a very different story about his client's patent infringement, admitting guilt and acknowledging the price would be high.

Apple's opening remarks: 'Samsung will be our star witness'

According to trial live blog by Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News, Apple's attorney Harold McElhinny opened with remarks today outlining the significance of five patents Samsung was found guilty of infringing in the landmark trial last fall.

"We are here today not because of how the world reacted to the iPhone, but because of how one competitor, Samsung, reacted," McElhinny stated, contrasting Samsung's "crisis of design" occurring prior to the iPhone to its success after it decided to copy Apple's product.

McElhinny's allusion to "Crisis of design" references an internal Samsung memo that surfaced during the original trial despite a series of efforts by Samsung to keep it out of evidence.

The memo fretted that in the wake of Apple's then new iPhone, "influential figures outside the company come across the iPhone, and they point out that 'Samsung is dozing off.' All this time we've been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide, yet when our [product] is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple's iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth. It's a crisis of design."

McElhinny's opening remarks added, "this trial about a single question: what damages must Samsung pay Apple for violating its intellectual property rights. Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing products. Samsung, the company that broke the law, took in $3.5 billion. You will decide how much of that $3.5 billion will be returned to Apple."

Apple is seeking $113 million in lost profits for 360,000 iPhones the company believes it could have sold without competing against its own work, another $231 million in improper profits collected by Samsung on its own sales, and $34 million in patent royalties for the intellectual property Samsung infringed, a total of $379 million.

That's a minor decrease from the vacated $400 million originally in play following the trial last fall. The amount approved by the jury in this retrial will be added to the $560 million in damages Apple was awarded in the original trial that is not part of this retrial.

"Our star witness is going to be Samsung," McElhinny told the jury. "We are asking you render a verdict that makes Apple whole for the injury Samsung has caused."

Samsung: we only disagree on amount owed

Representing Samsung, attorney Bill Price countered in his own opening remarks, "Apple is simply asking for much more money than it's entitled to."

During the trial and long afterward, Samsung's representatives contended in public comments to the media that the case revolved mainly around Apple claiming to own "rounded corners." However, in the retrial hearing Samsung's case shifted its tack dramatically. "This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property" - Bill Price, Samsung

"This is a case not where we're disputing that the 13 phones contain some elements of Apple's property," Price admitted, adding, "that doesn't mean Apple gets to come in here and ask for a windfall ...for more than it is entitled."

Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "And that, he says, is what Apple should get in damages," Mintz reported.

Additionally, Samsung proposed paying Apple nothing for lost profits and just $28,000 for patent royalties.

Samsung thought Apple owed it far more money

Samsung's current offer is a sharp contrast from the company's own demands for roughly $3 billion in annual royalties over a Standard Essential Patent related to iPhones that used a Qualcomm baseband chip that had already licensed all of Samsung's intellectual property.

Samsung sought to leverage those controversial damage claims to block Apple's U.S. import shipments via an injunction at the International Trade Commission, a demand that was deemed dangerous enough to invoke a Presidential veto to stop it.

Samsung's countersuit at the original 2012 trial also sought $290 to $399 million in damages related to other Standard Essential Patents owned by the company. Samsung lost its countersuit after failing to prove Apple infringed any of those patents.

Mintz paraphrased the conclusion of Price's opening comments, writing: 'What are the correct damages under the law? If you do that without bias, you come back with a "huge sum of money," but that sum is $52 million, not $379 million.'

2012 Apple vs Samsung trial

Apple had originally sought around $2.5 billion in damages in its initial patent trial against Samsung, while Samsung hoped to pay $519 million.

A jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion, $400 million of which was later subjected to retrial in the current hearing, which began with a jury selection yesterday.

The two companies are also gearing up for a second patent trial that will begin next spring, involving a second volley of Apple's iPhone patents against Samsung phones that, by the time the trial begins, will not have been off the market for nearly two years.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 106
    What else to say about the slimy-ness of Samsung that hasn't already been said? These clowns should be on the hook for EVERY penny Apple is asking for and then some.
  • Reply 2 of 106
    Wow! That'sa fine way to try and defend your client lol. Why even go to trial if you're going to do that? Just hand Apple a blank check and save yourself all the attorney's fees.
  • Reply 3 of 106
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,118member
    I'm pretty sure apple would have sold just a BIT more than 360,000 phones extra were it not for Samsung's knockoff products.

    Either way, all this story proves is Samsung's blatant deceitfulness and dishonesty. Of course they knew for a fact they were guilty all along. What's amazing is how many unpaid shills they got to defend them and state otherwise.
  • Reply 4 of 106

    we stole Apple's property?

  • Reply 5 of 106
    freshmaker wrote: »
    Wow! That'sa fine way to try and defend your client lol. Why even go to trial if you're going to do that? Just hand Apple a blank check and save yourself all the attorney's fees.
    Because the trial establishing guilt is over. This one is only about damages.
  • Reply 6 of 106
    Self-confessed thieves. This should be the basis of an Apple ad campaign going forward: "When making your next smartphone buying decision, do you want reward American innovation and creativity or foreign piracy and treachery?"
  • Reply 7 of 106
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,542member

    Wow, just wow.  Samsung's own attorneys flat-out admit they were stealing all along?  I'd give $1 in damages to Apple, and another $3.5billion in punitive damages to Apple for having Samsung waste everyone's time.



    Samsung is just slimy vermin.  Let's see how the Fandroid/Samsung lapdogs that infest this forum try spinning this little tidbit.

  • Reply 8 of 106
    What both sides are doing is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
  • Reply 9 of 106
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,010member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post

     

    we stole Apple's property?


    I'm thinking the same thing but after I say it ten times it sounds like they're admitting they stole and used Apple's property to sell their products. In other words, they actually sold Apple's property in the guise of Samsung products. 

  • Reply 10 of 106
    "Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "And that, he says, is what Apple should get in damages," Mintz reported."

    Damages should not based on what Samsung did earn, but what Apple could have earned with those sales. It is well documented that Apple makes the highest profit per unit of any manufacturer, and shouldn't be penalized by Samsung's low-ball pricing.

    If allowed, I wouldn't be surprised if the jury tacks-on a large dollar amount for damages.
  • Reply 11 of 106
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    sflocal wrote: »
    Wow, just wow.  Samsung's own attorneys flat-out admit they were stealing all along?  I'd give $1 in damages to Apple, and another $3.5billion in punitive damages to Apple for having Samsung waste everyone's time.


    Samsung is just slimy vermin.  Let's see how the Fandroid/Samsung lapdogs that infest this forum try spinning this little tidbit.

    Well they were found guilty of infringing so to go up there and act like they still weren't would've been utterly asinine.
  • Reply 12 of 106

    They will change their tune when the appeals hearings start next year.  This stage only decides on the penalties for the original decision, and it's only in court because of a technicality issue from the first trial.  Liability was already established by the jury in the first trial, so it does Samsung no favors to keep trying to convince the jury and judge that they did nothing wrong. 

  • Reply 13 of 106
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    richs wrote: »
    "Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "And that, he says, is what Apple should get in damages," Mintz reported."

    Damages should not based on what Samsung did earn, but what Apple could have earned with those sales. It is well documented that Apple makes the highest profit per unit of any manufacturer, and shouldn't be penalized by Samsung's low-ball pricing.

    If allowed, I wouldn't be surprised if the jury tacks-on a large dollar amount for damages.

    Damages are hardly ever awarded higher than what was made by the offending party.
  • Reply 14 of 106
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Samsung: no disputing we sold Apple's property and owe a 'huge sum of money'

     

    This adds a whole new meaning to the phrase "Shut up and take my money!"

  • Reply 15 of 106

    Good artists copy, great artists steal.

  • Reply 16 of 106
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichS View Post



    "Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "And that, he says, is what Apple should get in damages," Mintz reported."



    Damages should not based on what Samsung did earn, but what Apple could have earned with those sales. It is well documented that Apple makes the highest profit per unit of any manufacturer, and shouldn't be penalized by Samsung's low-ball pricing.



    If allowed, I wouldn't be surprised if the jury tacks-on a large dollar amount for damages.

     

    Damages in IP cases where somebody steals your work come from both what it costs you and what it benefits them.

     

    When you say "should" it just sounds sophomoric. Or perhaps Androdic

  • Reply 17 of 106
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     

     

    This adds a whole new meaning to the phrase "Shut up and take my money!"


     

    And there's your thread... SockRolid drops the mic and walks offstage.

  • Reply 18 of 106

    I'm surprised Samsung didn't say Apple owed them for their infringement of Apple's IP.

  • Reply 19 of 106
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,679member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Well they were found guilty of infringing so to go up there and act like they still weren't would've been utterly asinine.

    Well so much for the appeal.

    Sammy, you willfully infringed and should get hammered for a lot more money.
  • Reply 20 of 106
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,446member
    sflocal wrote: »
    Wow, just wow.  Samsung's own attorneys flat-out admit they were stealing all along?  I'd give $1 in damages to Apple, and another $3.5billion in punitive damages to Apple for having Samsung waste everyone's time.


    Samsung is just slimy vermin.  Let's see how the Fandroid/Samsung lapdogs that infest this forum try spinning this little tidbit.

    What Samsung's statement did was acknowledge that they had already been deemed to infringe so that was no longer at issue. This re-trial only has to do with how much Samsung will owe, not whether the IP was used without permission. That was settled in the first trial so their counsel isn't addressing whether Samsung believes they should have been found guilty or not. That's moot until the expected appeal.
Sign In or Register to comment.