Gatorguy behaves like a shill in my opinion... and doesn't work for Apple!
fyi: Jurors don't often know this, but attorneys can say almost anything they want in opening and closing statements. What matters is sworn testimony (which the opening/closing statements are not).
You're right I don't work for Apple. Not anyone else either for that matter.
Oddly enough I get up every morning shortly after 5am, and go to work every weekday (haven't missed a single workday in over 30 years) without anyone being able to fire me if I don't. If you have the self-motivation (most people don't) there's nothing better than working for yourself IMO. So I'm pretty happy with my life which perhaps is one of the reasons I don't feel any need to belittle others in an effort to make myself feel better about who I am. I'm good with me. 8-)
I disagree. Samsung could have said the same thing they always say when the hammer falls on them. "We vehemently deny the allegations and will vigorously defend ourselves against them."
But no, they essentially just admitted "Yep, we did it... but...but...but..." and the apologists here are trying to make it out to be something else.
This is not a trial about allegations so why address it? It's solely about damages.
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.
If they appeal, this statement should play very well to the jury indeed!
If Samsung now admits they stole Apple patents and made a profit off them, doesn't that mean they perjured themselves if they denied it during trial? No legal ramifications at this point?
I'd be pretty pissed if I were judge Koh…being lied to in my own courtroom.
From the get-go this case should have been a slam dunk. Samsung sees a phone they are helping to manufacture on their assembly lines, they feverishly build a new version of their own phone to match it, going from a blackberry-like interface to a "gee, that accidentally looks like an iPhone, and we even have a flower on the photo app." And then they hire an outside company to go through and not just "improve" their app, but to document how it differs from the iPhone so they can change the functionality in Android to match.
Copyright and IP are out of control, granted, but it was designed just for a situation where someone rides on another's coattails and does not innovate.
Samsung made tens of billions from this design and so far, their penalty is a cost of business -- not a deterrent.
If they don't get thrown to the floor on this issue, why do we even bother with patents and copyright?
If Samsung now admits they stole Apple patents and made a profit off them, doesn't that mean they perjured themselves if they denied it during trial? No legal ramifications at this point?
I'd be pretty pissed if I were judge Koh…being lied to in my own courtroom.
Corporations ARE people -- where it benefits them. It seems the courts only notices Perjury for individuals, not for corporations. Something like 80% of our Judges are corporate appointed now, so not punishing corporations for lying is probably more an issue of habit, rather than judicial practice.
On the other hand, Samsung would still be lying if they were penalized now for coming forward. I suppose they just want this over and done with so they can move on.
Corporations ARE people -- where it benefits them. It seems the courts only notices Perjury for individuals, not for corporations. Something like 80% of our Judges are corporate appointed now, so not punishing corporations for lying is probably more an issue of habit, rather than judicial practice.
On the other hand, Samsung would still be lying if they were penalized now for coming forward. I suppose they just want this over and done with so they can move on.
I seriously don't get the whole "It's OK for Samsung to admit guilt here since this is about damages" argument. There is a way to contest the damages without stating straight up that the client is guilty. Saying, "While our client was found guilty by the court for infringement, we vehemently contest Apple's stated amount for damages." That would bypass an admission of guilt without ticking the jury off. Is the plan on appeal to contest the validity of the patent themselves? Even with a technicality that grants appeal, surely this admission would hurt them.
I really don't see how people can see that Samsung is admitting anything. They are not unfortunately, but that's expected. The point of this retrial is not to find if they did copy or not, the attorney rightly said so.
I seriously don't get the whole "It's OK for Samsung to admit guilt here since this is about damages" argument. There is a way to contest the damages without stating straight up that the client is guilty. Saying, "While our client was found guilty by the court for infringement, we vehemently contest Apple's stated amount for damages." That would bypass an admission of guilt without ticking the jury off. Is the plan on appeal to contest the validity of the patent themselves? Even with a technicality that grants appeal, surely this admission would hurt them.
It's not about admitting guilt. Samsung is playing for jury sympathy by (feigning) contrition for the problem they created. They're so sorry if they've caused any harm to Apple and want to be seen as reasonable and fair by offering Apple's the entire profit they made from those devices: The "huge sum" of $52 million. We'll see if the jury buys it.
My personal guess based on nothing more than some reading here and there is the jury coming back with a figure closer to $150 million or so rather than Apple's requested $380M+.
Samsung's attorney has to admit patent infringement. Not surprising, since they lost on the judgment side, and Samsung cannot argue otherwise. On appeal, Samsung will argue patent law again, but this is not an appellate argument. Now is the trial on damages.
"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.
The purpose of damages is to make the victim monetarily whole. Thus, Samsung's profits are not relevant. Apple will argue profits, loss of customers. What might be interesting to compare is Samsung's profit (paid by Apple) to build Apple phone components, and Samsung's profits from building their own patent-infringing devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung made less money stealing from Apple than they would have made building the iPhones that Apple would have sold but for Samsung's misdeeds.
I can't imagine that [the Rockstar patent suit] would cost Samsung anymore than a few hundred million at worst. Rockstar can't claim lost profits. They don't have any practicing products. Even showing willful infringement is probably next to impossible.
Samsung's partner making an offer of Pi billion dollars for the portfolio is a sign of willful infringement and flouting the law.
You're right I don't work for Apple. Not anyone else either for that matter.
Oddly enough I get up every morning shortly after 5am, and go to work every weekday (haven't missed a single workday in over 30 years) without anyone being able to fire me if I don't. If you have the self-motivation (most people don't) there's nothing better than working for yourself IMO. So I'm pretty happy with my life which perhaps is one of the reasons I don't feel any need to belittle others in an effort to make myself feel better about who I am. I'm good with me.
"Samsung argued that it earned "nowhere close" to $3.5 billion on the infringing devices, instead stating that it earned only $52 million. "
That are saying that only made $5 per phone sold. if that is true then all the profits they are claiming now are over in flatted. They must be making all those billions doing something else, Maybe they are laundering money for Walter White.
That are saying that only made $5 per phone sold. if that is true then all the profits they are claiming now are over in flatted. They must be making all those billions doing something else, Maybe they are laundering money for Walter White.
They can't claim profit that they didn't make. That's illegal. If only part of the phone is infringing why should they pay the total profit? Take for instance the guy that invented intermittent wipers, and that Ford used without licensing the technology. Should have Ford paid him the entire profit for every car sold that had intermittent wipers?
Comments
Oddly enough I get up every morning shortly after 5am, and go to work every weekday (haven't missed a single workday in over 30 years) without anyone being able to fire me if I don't. If you have the self-motivation (most people don't) there's nothing better than working for yourself IMO. So I'm pretty happy with my life which perhaps is one of the reasons I don't feel any need to belittle others in an effort to make myself feel better about who I am. I'm good with me. 8-)
This is not a trial about allegations so why address it? It's solely about damages.
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.
If they appeal, this statement should play very well to the jury indeed!
If Samsung now admits they stole Apple patents and made a profit off them, doesn't that mean they perjured themselves if they denied it during trial? No legal ramifications at this point?
I'd be pretty pissed if I were judge Koh…being lied to in my own courtroom.
From the get-go this case should have been a slam dunk. Samsung sees a phone they are helping to manufacture on their assembly lines, they feverishly build a new version of their own phone to match it, going from a blackberry-like interface to a "gee, that accidentally looks like an iPhone, and we even have a flower on the photo app." And then they hire an outside company to go through and not just "improve" their app, but to document how it differs from the iPhone so they can change the functionality in Android to match.
Copyright and IP are out of control, granted, but it was designed just for a situation where someone rides on another's coattails and does not innovate.
Samsung made tens of billions from this design and so far, their penalty is a cost of business -- not a deterrent.
If they don't get thrown to the floor on this issue, why do we even bother with patents and copyright?
If Samsung now admits they stole Apple patents and made a profit off them, doesn't that mean they perjured themselves if they denied it during trial? No legal ramifications at this point?
I'd be pretty pissed if I were judge Koh…being lied to in my own courtroom.
Corporations ARE people -- where it benefits them. It seems the courts only notices Perjury for individuals, not for corporations. Something like 80% of our Judges are corporate appointed now, so not punishing corporations for lying is probably more an issue of habit, rather than judicial practice.
On the other hand, Samsung would still be lying if they were penalized now for coming forward. I suppose they just want this over and done with so they can move on.
Corporations don't testify, people do.
I seriously don't get the whole "It's OK for Samsung to admit guilt here since this is about damages" argument. There is a way to contest the damages without stating straight up that the client is guilty. Saying, "While our client was found guilty by the court for infringement, we vehemently contest Apple's stated amount for damages." That would bypass an admission of guilt without ticking the jury off. Is the plan on appeal to contest the validity of the patent themselves? Even with a technicality that grants appeal, surely this admission would hurt them.
I really don't see how people can see that Samsung is admitting anything. They are not unfortunately, but that's expected. The point of this retrial is not to find if they did copy or not, the attorney rightly said so.
It's not about admitting guilt. Samsung is playing for jury sympathy by (feigning) contrition for the problem they created. They're so sorry if they've caused any harm to Apple and want to be seen as reasonable and fair by offering Apple's the entire profit they made from those devices: The "huge sum" of $52 million. We'll see if the jury buys it.
My personal guess based on nothing more than some reading here and there is the jury coming back with a figure closer to $150 million or so rather than Apple's requested $380M+.
"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.
The purpose of damages is to make the victim monetarily whole. Thus, Samsung's profits are not relevant. Apple will argue profits, loss of customers. What might be interesting to compare is Samsung's profit (paid by Apple) to build Apple phone components, and Samsung's profits from building their own patent-infringing devices. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung made less money stealing from Apple than they would have made building the iPhones that Apple would have sold but for Samsung's misdeeds.
I can't imagine that [the Rockstar patent suit] would cost Samsung anymore than a few hundred million at worst. Rockstar can't claim lost profits. They don't have any practicing products. Even showing willful infringement is probably next to impossible.
Samsung's partner making an offer of Pi billion dollars for the portfolio is a sign of willful infringement and flouting the law.
Oddly enough I get up every morning shortly after 5am, and go to work every weekday (haven't missed a single workday in over 30 years) without anyone being able to fire me if I don't. If you have the self-motivation (most people don't) there's nothing better than working for yourself IMO. So I'm pretty happy with my life which perhaps is one of the reasons I don't feel any need to belittle others in an effort to make myself feel better about who I am. I'm good with me.
Personal investor
Then perhaps a judge and a jury can be as easily convinced. :rolleyes:
Nope. No stock at all in any tech except for a few shares of Qualcomm bought "back in the day". Probably the best investment I ever made too!
First does anyone think that Samsung
That are saying that only made $5 per phone sold. if that is true then all the profits they are claiming now are over in flatted. They must be making all those billions doing something else, Maybe they are laundering money for Walter White.
They can't claim profit that they didn't make. That's illegal. If only part of the phone is infringing why should they pay the total profit? Take for instance the guy that invented intermittent wipers, and that Ford used without licensing the technology. Should have Ford paid him the entire profit for every car sold that had intermittent wipers?