Whether it's 50 million or 400 million, it's pocket change to both these companies. They probably spent more fighting the case than that. What I would like to know is what happens going forward (other than Apple winning the right to brand it's biggest competitor a convicted thief). Will there be royalties or licensing involved or has Samsung reverse engineered its way out of infringement?
The infringing devices are all old. Apple got what it wanted, Samsung no longer makes iPhone clones and it has paid dividends for them.
Did you not finish school and learn how to read? re-read what i said. I'm not going to buy a Samsung product with their name on it. If I buy an iPhone or IPad, it's got Apple's name on it. Not Samsung's.
Yes, I'm afraid you've revealed your poor comprehension skills there:
Product - an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.
Component - a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.
As defined by the Oxford Dictionary.
What does the "Lord" stand for in your name? "Lord, he's incredibly uneducated!" or "Lord, he's desperately grasping at straws"
If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?
Or why we can't buy them when we walk into a Samsung store?
Again I ask, who manufacturers the A7 chip? Designed in every way by Apple yes but the end manufacturer is Samsung so until Apple completely removes Samsung as a component builder for their products , their products will always have Samsung in them.
Again I ask, who manufacturers the A7 chip? Designed in every way by Apple yes but the end manufacturer is Samsung so until Apple completely removes Samsung as a component builder for their products , their products will always have Samsung in them.
The same way a triple crown winner always has the saddle maker in it.
And still the true villain in all this, Google, stay out of the fight. What use would iPhone clones have been without the iOS rip off aka Android?
It's really common business practice to copy what the competition is doing. Google isn't the only company to do it. Phillips was the first company to introduce the flat panel TV to consumers and the other manufacturers quickly followed suit. Most cars look very similar. Whenever a company comes up with the new 'it' thing it is simply going to be copied in some fashion.
Samsung makes TVs, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stereo equipment (which is debatable one can call them a REAL stereo), vacuum cleaners, smartphones, tablets, computers. Anything that has Samsung's name on the OUTSIDE of the product. I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension.
Did you finish high school, yet? If so, you might want to go back to your English teacher and explain to them that you are incapable of reading something without twisting the statement to suit your own personal problems. Seriously. I didn't say I banned Samsung components INSIDE another company's product.
Or maybe i need to be more explicit for the "reading challenged" people such as yourself.
Or, better yet. go back to and tell your last English teacher you need to have more training in the art of reading comprehension.
Yes, I'm afraid you've revealed your poor comprehension skills there:
Product - an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.
Component - a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.
As defined by the Oxford Dictionary.
What does the "Lord" stand for in your name? "Lord, he's incredibly uneducated!" or "Lord, he's desperately grasping at straws"
If you think that Samsung designed any of those products then I can't help but ask why, when they are turned over, we are unable to find the Samsung logo anywhere?
Or why we can't buy them when we walk into a Samsung store?
But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.
Clear jury error in calculating damages for those specific phones.
14 phones weren't found by the original jury to infringe on at least one of the patents the others were IIRC but still received the same damage amount (percent). I think one phone may have been added back to the original damages after the fact. Since the jury didn't ascribe damages on a per-patent basis but instead one lump sum there was no way for the court to determine how much to deduct for the non-infringement of that patent. Was there an equal value set by the jury for each of the infringed patents or did they consider some to be more valuable than others? In the jury's opinion was the non-infringed patent the most valuable of the lot or the least? So another jury gets seated to figure out what damages value should be assigned to those remaining 5 patents applied to those 13 (14?) Samsung phones.
In any case it won't be more than Apple was awarded the first time if I'm reading it right. Jury instructions were that the award should be between $52M and $380M, less than the $400+ the first go-round.
EDIT: One somewhat important thing to note is that whatever award is finally set there's interest already accruing on it based on the 52-week Treasury Rate. Should be enough to put a ding in the attorney fees.
Well, they should pay a Kagillion because those phones are not banned are they? Plus, Samsung is dragging this out even further and trying some real stupid tactics. They now ADMIT they were guilty, when that's all they had to say at the beginning of the trial, but NO, Samsung wanted to see how much BS they could get away. I wonder what the judge would have said if Samsung came out in the opening statement and said "we are guilty, we just can't figure out how much we should be paying Apple.". Probably a TOTALLY different set of circumstances. That's why Samsung should pay the original amount since they like to cover things up and try to get away with bad business practices.
Samsung makes TVs, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stereo equipment (which is debatable one can call them a REAL stereo), vacuum cleaners, smartphones, tablets, computers. Anything that has Samsung's name on the OUTSIDE of the product. I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension.
Did you finish high school, yet? If so, you might want to go back to your English teacher and explain to them that you are incapable of reading something without twisting the statement to suit your own personal problems. Seriously. I didn't say I banned Samsung components INSIDE another company's product.
Or maybe i need to be more explicit for the "reading challenged" people such as yourself.
Or, better yet. go back to and tell your last English teacher you need to have more training in the art of reading comprehension.
What you said was "Their products are banned from my home." so my question to you still stands:
Will you be giving up your iPhones & iPads that have Samsung components in them?
Comments
Someone should build a find engine
Did you mean bit, or by... I mean, bite?
That'll be the day Apple goes after Googles core business.
Ah, you must mean stealing people's personal information to send them ads. /s
The infringing devices are all old. Apple got what it wanted, Samsung no longer makes iPhone clones and it has paid dividends for them.
Who's the manufacturer of the A7 chip?
And still the true villain in all this, Google, stay out of the fight. What use would iPhone clones have been without the iOS rip off aka Android?
Again I ask, who manufacturers the A7 chip? Designed in every way by Apple yes but the end manufacturer is Samsung so until Apple completely removes Samsung as a component builder for their products , their products will always have Samsung in them.
The same way a triple crown winner always has the saddle maker in it.
It's really common business practice to copy what the competition is doing. Google isn't the only company to do it. Phillips was the first company to introduce the flat panel TV to consumers and the other manufacturers quickly followed suit. Most cars look very similar. Whenever a company comes up with the new 'it' thing it is simply going to be copied in some fashion.
"Their products are banned from my home."
Who's the manufacturer of the A7 chip?
Samsung makes TVs, washers, dryers, refrigerators, stereo equipment (which is debatable one can call them a REAL stereo), vacuum cleaners, smartphones, tablets, computers. Anything that has Samsung's name on the OUTSIDE of the product. I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension.
Did you finish high school, yet? If so, you might want to go back to your English teacher and explain to them that you are incapable of reading something without twisting the statement to suit your own personal problems. Seriously. I didn't say I banned Samsung components INSIDE another company's product.
Or maybe i need to be more explicit for the "reading challenged" people such as yourself.
Or, better yet. go back to and tell your last English teacher you need to have more training in the art of reading comprehension.
But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.
But that doesn't mean a component can't be a product. The chips are produced by Samsung and sold to Apple.
Well, where on the ARM chips that Apple designs and has Samsung make them have Samsung's name on it? It doesn't. Did you not read my post?
Apple only has Samsung mfg arm processors and some panels right now, but I haven't even seen the Samsung name on their panels.
iPhones, iPads, and other Apple products have the name APPLE on the outside, not Samsung.
Clear jury error in calculating damages for those specific phones.
14 phones weren't found by the original jury to infringe on at least one of the patents the others were IIRC but still received the same damage amount (percent). I think one phone may have been added back to the original damages after the fact. Since the jury didn't ascribe damages on a per-patent basis but instead one lump sum there was no way for the court to determine how much to deduct for the non-infringement of that patent. Was there an equal value set by the jury for each of the infringed patents or did they consider some to be more valuable than others? In the jury's opinion was the non-infringed patent the most valuable of the lot or the least? So another jury gets seated to figure out what damages value should be assigned to those remaining 5 patents applied to those 13 (14?) Samsung phones.
In any case it won't be more than Apple was awarded the first time if I'm reading it right. Jury instructions were that the award should be between $52M and $380M, less than the $400+ the first go-round.
EDIT: One somewhat important thing to note is that whatever award is finally set there's interest already accruing on it based on the 52-week Treasury Rate. Should be enough to put a ding in the attorney fees.
Well, they should pay a Kagillion because those phones are not banned are they? Plus, Samsung is dragging this out even further and trying some real stupid tactics. They now ADMIT they were guilty, when that's all they had to say at the beginning of the trial, but NO, Samsung wanted to see how much BS they could get away. I wonder what the judge would have said if Samsung came out in the opening statement and said "we are guilty, we just can't figure out how much we should be paying Apple.". Probably a TOTALLY different set of circumstances. That's why Samsung should pay the original amount since they like to cover things up and try to get away with bad business practices.
Will you be giving up your iPhones & iPads that have Samsung components in them?
That doesn't change the fact that you're helping Samsung's bottom line with every Apple device that you buy.
Does this trial continue today, or on Monday?
Thank you for finally getting the point.