Samsung's defense is like a carjacker stealing a car and after getting busted claiming that they should be let off the hook because they think it was an inexpensive car, "it was only a Ford and not a Mercedes." So the thief gets to assert the value of what they steal? I think a four year old cookie jar thief could come up with a better defense than this. Very pathetic, but with a jury trial you never know how lame of a defense will play to the emotions of the jury members.
Also, if all those Apple patented features have "no value" then Samsung should have no problem at all and not suffer any business losses by promptly removing all those "non valuable" features from all of their infringing products. That seems like a reasonable and equitable remedy. Oh, by the way that's exactly what Apple has been asking them and the Android community to do all along, "quit copying our stuff." Only after most of them collectively thumbed their noses and flipped off Apple did the lawyers have to get called in. Now it's all ugly and messy and stupid.
I wholeheartedly agree if these patents have no value the court should just have Samsung remove these "valueless" features from their OS within three months and from all upgrades to existing phones as upgrades/Patches are released and see how "valueless" customers think they are when they disappear from their phones. I'll bet Samsung changes their tune if that is put on the table. The patents at issue are only a very few (at the request of the judge) of the many blatantly copied in the creation of the Samsung Galaxy and Note lines. Apple chose the most defensible and ones that have already been vindicated in other international jurisdictions.
I wholeheartedly agree if these patents have no value the court should just have Samsung remove these "valueless" features from their OS within three months and from all upgrades to existing phones as upgrades/Patches are released and see how "valueless" customers think they are when they disappear from their phones. I'll bet Samsung changes their tune if that is put on the table. The patents at issue are only a very few (at the request of the judge) of the many blatantly copied in the creation of the Samsung Galaxy and Note lines. Apple chose the most defensible and ones that have already been vindicated in other international jurisdictions.
Other than one off-the-cuff remark to Hauser I don't believe Samsungs argument goes so far as to say the patents have no value. They argue they're not as valuable as Apple would like to claim, they also aren't infringed, and in addition some may not even be valid. They're all over the page and trying to cover all the bases but saying the patents have no value at all isn't one of them. I personally disagree with some of the arguments from both sides but doesn't matter as I'm not on the jury.
As an aside the text completion claim Apple is asserting against Samsung is looking like it may well be tossed by the USPTO. Until then Apple is within it's rights to collect royalties and/or damages on it. Seems a bit quirky that you can't get back money already paid when it's determined a patent should never have been granted as written in the first place. You end up paying for something the wasn't actually owned by the claimant, but it is what it is.
"It's funny when people think if Apple/Samsung win, they win. Brand loyalty is pathetic."
No, some of us own stock in the parties to this suit. I'm cheering for Apple not just because they deserve to win, but because a decision that benefits them would increase the value of my investment.
Did your Apple stock get a nice bump from the last big win over Samsung?
No, some of us own stock in the parties to this suit. I'm cheering for Apple not just because they deserve to win, but because a decision that benefits them would increase the value of my investment.
Besides those patents Shamesung copied more than 1000 things from Apple and whole world knows that, <span style="line-height:1.4em;">e</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">ven now recently they copied Apple'iPhone features with their S5: Fingerprint Scanner, Gold obtion color, Camera located on Locked Screen, Slow Mo 720p at 128 fps (Depth of field), fast autofocus, SHealth + Heartrate sensor (M7 + Nike app), TouchWizz (iOS 7 look)...i</span>
don't understand why Shamesung doesnt atleast pay for that 5 patents for what Apple is asking.
You do know that separate motion sensor, slo Mo video at 720p and Camera on lock screen etc came on Motorola X before iPhones correct?
2 billion more dollars in the bank is 2 billion more dollars in the bank. If the market does not instantly adjust to reflect that, I can accept the fact that markets operate imperfectly. The larger question is whether meaningful enforcement serves as an impediment to future infringement, and if it does, then that's a major long term boost to my investment.
When Samsung first started shipping products under its own name, rather than as white labelled goods, there was a huge outcry amongst Western manufacturers who had previously been good customers of Samsung who said their designs were being mercilessly copied by the Korean chaibol. Copying is all they know.
These latest questions clearly go not toward saying Samsung are innocent, but in reducing the amount of damages they realise they will inevitably face. And as their internal marketing literature clearly showed recently with regard to US sales being half what was claimed, they are also masters of producing misleading publicity.
Poor Samsung! Couldn't find any valuable patents to steal.
Remember Night Court, when the old couple were up for stealing cat food from a grocery store? Dan Fielding asks them: "If you were going to steal anyway, why didn't you steal real food?"
So, the vary last Toyota I owned was a Camry from the late 90s, purchased new.
One of the contributing factors to abandoning them as a brand was... the rear cup holder, which my kids were able to destroy inside the first week. Pathetic design.
(I fled to Honda/Acura a year later, and never looked back.)
Screw Samsung, they stole and now they have to pay up. And screw any little Samsung apologists who infest this site with their foul odor and their vile presence.
The thief doesn't get to decide how much the goods that they stole are worth.
If the goods weren't worth much, then the thief wouldn't have stolen them to begin with.
Samsung's "experts" will of course claim whatever nonsense that they can.
Comments
I wholeheartedly agree if these patents have no value the court should just have Samsung remove these "valueless" features from their OS within three months and from all upgrades to existing phones as upgrades/Patches are released and see how "valueless" customers think they are when they disappear from their phones. I'll bet Samsung changes their tune if that is put on the table. The patents at issue are only a very few (at the request of the judge) of the many blatantly copied in the creation of the Samsung Galaxy and Note lines. Apple chose the most defensible and ones that have already been vindicated in other international jurisdictions.
Copy American technology. Produce it cheaper.
No innovation happens West of the United States or East of Germany.
Ok I'll keep in mind that your just another humourless dick splash. :-)
I won't necessarily deny that :-).
Whats right is right.....these thieves have to pay.
Other than one off-the-cuff remark to Hauser I don't believe Samsungs argument goes so far as to say the patents have no value. They argue they're not as valuable as Apple would like to claim, they also aren't infringed, and in addition some may not even be valid. They're all over the page and trying to cover all the bases but saying the patents have no value at all isn't one of them. I personally disagree with some of the arguments from both sides but doesn't matter as I'm not on the jury.
As an aside the text completion claim Apple is asserting against Samsung is looking like it may well be tossed by the USPTO. Until then Apple is within it's rights to collect royalties and/or damages on it. Seems a bit quirky that you can't get back money already paid when it's determined a patent should never have been granted as written in the first place. You end up paying for something the wasn't actually owned by the claimant, but it is what it is.
Did your Apple stock get a nice bump from the last big win over Samsung?
No, some of us own stock in the parties to this suit. I'm cheering for Apple not just because they deserve to win, but because a decision that benefits them would increase the value of my investment.
2 billion more dollars in the bank is 2 billion more dollars in the bank. If the market does not instantly adjust to reflect that, I can accept the fact that markets operate imperfectly. The larger question is whether meaningful enforcement serves as an impediment to future infringement, and if it does, then that's a major long term boost to my investment.
These latest questions clearly go not toward saying Samsung are innocent, but in reducing the amount of damages they realise they will inevitably face. And as their internal marketing literature clearly showed recently with regard to US sales being half what was claimed, they are also masters of producing misleading publicity.
Remember Night Court, when the old couple were up for stealing cat food from a grocery store? Dan Fielding asks them: "If you were going to steal anyway, why didn't you steal real food?"
"Oh, that wouldn't have been so...uh..."
"Pathetic?"
"Yeah!"
I just want these low-lifes to lose this case, and be found guilty. Looks like they're pretty much admitting to it, but just haggling over the price. Reminds me of that old Churchill joke about the lady he was siting next to: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300099-churchill-madam-would-you-sleep-with-me-for-five-million
Meanwhile, Apple's patented features are used and loved by millions of people around the world. Samsung might take notice of these things,
They did.
That's why we are reading about a trial...
One of the contributing factors to abandoning them as a brand was... the rear cup holder, which my kids were able to destroy inside the first week. Pathetic design.
(I fled to Honda/Acura a year later, and never looked back.)
Screw Samsung, they stole and now they have to pay up. And screw any little Samsung apologists who infest this site with their foul odor and their vile presence.
The thief doesn't get to decide how much the goods that they stole are worth.
If the goods weren't worth much, then the thief wouldn't have stolen them to begin with.
Samsung's "experts" will of course claim whatever nonsense that they can.
Depending on how much Aapl stock you're holding, it can feel very personal.
They are innovating in other areas, though. They even have a new voice interface. It's called Iris.