Jurors credit CPA witness for Apple's $290M victory in Samsung patent retrial

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 66
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    [A spokeswoman for the company told Bloomberg that Samsung plans to "continue to innovate"]

    I wonder if everyone got a good laugh when she said this.
  • Reply 22 of 66
    Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.
  • Reply 23 of 66
    msalganik wrote: »
    ummm, even with 900m in damages, isn't this just a "cost of doing business" for Samsung? There profits from copied tech over these years probably dwarf this? If anyone has numbers, chime in.

    Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.
    peteo wrote: »
    80K sold, 800k Shipped. Any one can ship a crappy product. It's another thing to get people to buy it. We'll soon see this craptastic product in bargain bins. Maybe free with a Samsung Tablet?

    Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
  • Reply 24 of 66
    I'd love to sue one of my business partners and still continue to do business with them.
  • Reply 25 of 66
    Credibility matters.
  • Reply 26 of 66
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    [A spokeswoman for the company told Bloomberg that Samsung plans to "continue to innovate"]



    I wonder if everyone got a good laugh when she said this.

    LOL yes. You're supposed to start innovating before you can continue!

  • Reply 27 of 66
    rameshjha wrote: »
    Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.

    Yeah, nevermind the stealing. Poor Samsung, they only wanted to be liked, that's why they copied Apple's design.

    I'm sure you are correct that a "learned judge" will throw out the verdict after TWO juries agreed with Apple. It's all a conspiracy against Samsung isn't it?
    Maybe they should have had the trial in Seoul to be fair right?
  • Reply 28 of 66
    Originally Posted by rameshjha View Post

    Jury verdicts in US are very often biased in favor of American companies. This happened in the SAP Oracle case as well. Eventually it gets appealed and the learned judge throws out the verdict.

     

    Some Seoul food should help wipe the tears away, Sammy.

  • Reply 29 of 66

    When was the last time you heard a group of people were captivated by and accountant. It is going be interesting to see if Samsung ever pays up...

  • Reply 30 of 66
    LOL @ Samsung vowing to "continue to innovate."
    I'm certain they will innovate a thousand more ways to be weasels.
  • Reply 31 of 66
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.

    Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.

    Who says all the retailers paid for them? also look @ the return #, those go back to samsung to refurbish

  • Reply 32 of 66

    How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?

     

    Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."

  • Reply 33 of 66
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.

    Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.



    We should probably quote Samsungs "trial accounting figures" whenever someone tries to say how they dominate the market. Are they GIVING these phones away, or are they just making up stuff based on where it suites their interests.

     

    >> that was TRICK question by the way.

  • Reply 34 of 66
    peteo wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    Supposedly revenue was $3.5B, there was an article here I think on that. So I think paying out $900M is worth it.

    Through the eyes of Samsung, that means sold as well. Doesn't matter if a retailer payed for those 800,000 or an end customer did.
    Who says all the retailers paid for them? also look @ the return #, those go back to samsung to refurbish

    Retailers paying them is what I understood from [@]Gatorguy[/@], hopefully corrrectly. He will no doubt have a link if you'd like.

    Returned items is a very good point, and as I understand it, a large portion were returned.
  • Reply 35 of 66
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    How is $290M a "win" when this started out for damages at $1B and Samsung has likely made around $18 billion on their clone?

    Next trial needs to go after bogus accounting where "Samsung is the #1 Smart phone -- Woot!" and then in trial "But we only made enough money to feed the cat."

    Damages are still almost $900 MM. This was for the miscalculated $400 MM part of the original amount.
  • Reply 36 of 66

    "what if we make a manufacture a few of those A7 chips for you for free and call it even?"

     

    "OK, how about 15 million of them?"

  • Reply 37 of 66

    If I could turn a near-$40bn/yr profit out of copying someone, I'd happily pay them $900mn every year! I don't know why Samsung would be complaining. They should just go away, pretending to have their tail between their legs, and think themselves lucky.

     

    Reprehensible a-holes.

  • Reply 38 of 66
    Oh no. According to samdung internal documents, Julie L. Davis has never ever bought any product from samdung because she believes they make shity products.

    Therefore, samdung is going to ask for retrial again!!!
  • Reply 39 of 66
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,342member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Retailers paying them is what I understood from [@]Gatorguy[/@], hopefully corrrectly. He will no doubt have a link if you'd like.

    Returned items is a very good point, and as I understand it, a large portion were returned.

    I'm not going back again to find it but the OP is welcome to look at International Accounting Standards, used by Samsung in reporting results. Essentially the IAS says sales are recognized in much the same way and using the same general rules as Apple does under US GAAP. Accordingly those requirements are usually met when the product/service is shipped.

    As for returns I don't know that any of these guys, Apple included, generally report them.
  • Reply 40 of 66
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    Gotta feel sorry for Colleen Allen as the jury foreperson. I don't think she has a clue what's coming her way. Losers/trolls/shills everywhere are going to dig into her personal life for anything they can find to paint her as biased. Just like they did with Koh and Hogan before and with anyone else who rules in Apple's favor.

    Efforts to harass, harm, denigrate or intimidate federal jurors - whether prospective, present or past - may be violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245. This who may be tempted to make such posts on this site - be forewarned.

Sign In or Register to comment.