Apple explains $2.2B damages claim against Samsung from lost profits, royalties
During testimony in the second California Apple v. Samsung patent trial on Tuesday, an Apple damages expert revealed the full damages claim stands at $2.19 billion for lost profits and reasonable royalty fees on five alleged infringed patents.
According to in-court reports from Re/code, Apple damages expert and Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained economist Chris Vellturo said the company is seeking $2.19 billion for patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of the 2013 calendar year.
"It's a very large market and Samsung has made a lot of sales into that market," Vellturo said. "It's a particularly significant period for Samsung to have been infringing."
Part of the claim is based on alleged lost profits due to customers buying Samsung products instead of the iPhone, while another portion was calculated on proposed royalties on more than 37 million accused infringing devices.
Earlier in the day, Apple expert witness John Hauser, also a professor from MIT, presented a revised version of a smartphone consumer demand surveys previously used -- unsuccessfully -- to win an injunction against Samsung products, reports Bloomberg.
Whereas the original surveys included only consumer willingness to pay for Apple's patented technology like "slide-to-unlock," the revised edition takes into account a supposed decrease in demand for Samsung products that do not have the same features.
During direct examination, Hauser testified that he saw a five percent drop in consumer willingness to buy a device that did not offer universal search, a software function that provides a system-wide search mechanism. The surveys covered 966 Samsung device owners, split between 507 phone users and 459 tablet users.
Hauser's methodology uses so-called conjoint surveys, which add in "distraction" questions to the survey's main focus to achieve a more accurate result. For example, the smartphone survey included 21 questions about features not relevant to the trial, like three-way calling and screen size, reports The Verge.
The expert determined that users would spend between $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's alleged infringed patents.
For its part, Samsung maintains Apple's estimated damages are a "gross exaggeration" of its patents' worth.
Samsung counsel Bill Price, on cross-examination, argued that consumer demand is driven in large part by branding. Further, Samsung's marketing prowess and overall brand sway were to thank for the uptick in sales, not reliance on Apple-patented features.
Price asked whether Hauser designed a study to measure brand impact, to which the expert responded, "No, I did not."
The Apple v. Samsung patent trial will continue on Friday with Apple wrapping up its case before Samsung goes after the validity of two patents-in-suit.
According to in-court reports from Re/code, Apple damages expert and Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained economist Chris Vellturo said the company is seeking $2.19 billion for patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of the 2013 calendar year.
"It's a very large market and Samsung has made a lot of sales into that market," Vellturo said. "It's a particularly significant period for Samsung to have been infringing."
Part of the claim is based on alleged lost profits due to customers buying Samsung products instead of the iPhone, while another portion was calculated on proposed royalties on more than 37 million accused infringing devices.
Earlier in the day, Apple expert witness John Hauser, also a professor from MIT, presented a revised version of a smartphone consumer demand surveys previously used -- unsuccessfully -- to win an injunction against Samsung products, reports Bloomberg.
Whereas the original surveys included only consumer willingness to pay for Apple's patented technology like "slide-to-unlock," the revised edition takes into account a supposed decrease in demand for Samsung products that do not have the same features.
During direct examination, Hauser testified that he saw a five percent drop in consumer willingness to buy a device that did not offer universal search, a software function that provides a system-wide search mechanism. The surveys covered 966 Samsung device owners, split between 507 phone users and 459 tablet users.
Hauser's methodology uses so-called conjoint surveys, which add in "distraction" questions to the survey's main focus to achieve a more accurate result. For example, the smartphone survey included 21 questions about features not relevant to the trial, like three-way calling and screen size, reports The Verge.
The expert determined that users would spend between $32 to $102 for the features covered by Apple's alleged infringed patents.
For its part, Samsung maintains Apple's estimated damages are a "gross exaggeration" of its patents' worth.
Samsung counsel Bill Price, on cross-examination, argued that consumer demand is driven in large part by branding. Further, Samsung's marketing prowess and overall brand sway were to thank for the uptick in sales, not reliance on Apple-patented features.
Price asked whether Hauser designed a study to measure brand impact, to which the expert responded, "No, I did not."
The Apple v. Samsung patent trial will continue on Friday with Apple wrapping up its case before Samsung goes after the validity of two patents-in-suit.
Comments
Not 22? Because 22 is even too low.
Yeah, par for Samsung. Talk out of both sides of the mouth. I wonder, did the lawyer move his lips?
So for Samsung to claim that its pilfered features aren%u2019t attracting customers and that it%u2019s all brand advertising driving its sales is kind of nuts.
http://www.interbrand.com/it/best-global-brands/previous-years/2012/Samsung
I don't particularly care for Samsung as a company but I don't think their argument that brand recognition drove much of their sales increase is without merit.
It's looking to me like Samsung's lawyers are doing a better job. I hope it proves more nuanced in the courtroom (unlike in the media) and the jury see Samsung for the shameful IP ripoff artists they are. I saw someone taking a photo using a Sammy smartphone about a 2 years ago and it literally looked like Samesong didn't merely copy the design, but literally had the actual photo button image file from an iPhone 4s on their phone. It was beyond uncanny. It was the exact same button! The level of their unoriginality is embarrassing. I hope for the sake of all things good Apple get the full $2B this time.
In Apple's favor, they have already set precedence with multiple wins against Samsung. I also hope Apple gets every dollar they are asking for, plus treble damages for willful infringement.
I'm really hoping that Apple wins all these damages and more.
Not only do they deserve it, but it might? almost cover the damages that they could be owing from their portion of the class action, anti-poaching lawsuit!
So why hasn't those same pilfered features helped Motorola and HTC?
Because Moto and HTC didn't copy Apple down to the icons.
So now icons are swaying people purchase decisions.
In 2012, one of the years in contention, Samsung's brand value rose 40% according to Interbrand.
http://www.interbrand.com/it/best-global-brands/previous-years/2012/Samsung
I don't particularly care for Samsung as a company but I don't think their argument that brand recognition drove much of their sales increase is without merit.
The causality goes the other way. By selling iPhone clones Samsung's brand increased in value. Without stealing pages from the Apple playbook, Samsung wouldn't have the cache it's starting to have.
So now icons are swaying people purchase decisions.
Don't be/act obtuse. I think his point is that it was a variety of things "...down to the icons". Not just the icons.
Many of which are also in every other non-Samsung Android phone. So why aren't they enjoying a similar level of success? If any phone looks like a iPhone now it's the HTC One. So why aren't they achieving what Samsung has?
And you know that the causality is not the other way? How?
Does Interbrand's methodology address this?
(Just saw Malax's excellent post).
Wait, so it's not Google (Android) that stole, but Samsung?
I'm trying very hard to figure out how those two things are mutually exclusive, and I'm failing. Care to explain?
When did the One come out and when did the Sammy clone come out? If it's just branding, why did Sammy copy every almost everything about the iPhone. Why didnt Sammy just brand its pre-clone phone?