I'm talking about THIS case and how long they have been paying a legal firm for THIS case.
FYI, the total payout from Apple over their last two cases that totalled $900M win from Samsung, resulted in $60M check to Morrison Foerster LLP. Of that Apple wanted $17M to reimburse for legal fees from Samsung. So I assume, legal was $17M for two cases, and $43M was the legal firms cut from the $900 take (so 5%?). Based on this I think we are far from $120M payout to the lawyers for this single case. Maybe $10M for legal fees and $6 for cut from win, totaling $16M.
I thought I was crystal clear that I was talking about all legal fees from Apple and the companies they are trying to protect themselves against since this issue arose in 2007 when Apple completely changed the way we use mobile devices. This includes, but not limited to, patent lawyers which will be very inexpensive compared to these cases but it's all part of the same fight to protect it's IP and its future. I would assume the legal defense started about 5 years ago.
But thank you for your educated guess on how much you think this specific case has cost Apple.
these devices were made in 2012? right? how do we get 5 years?
As previously noted, you don't think Apple started working to build a case against Android and its vendors before 2012? You think Jobs' words in January 2007 ware just hot air and they waited until 2012 before consulting with their lawyers about what Android and its vendors were doing? That seems as shortsighted as those that think that think the iPhone gets designed and built all within the span of the time its announced to the time it goes on sale.
I'm talking about THIS case and how long they have been paying a legal firm for THIS case.
FYI, the total payout from Apple over their last two cases that totalled $900M win from Samsung, resulted in $60M check to Morrison Foerster LLP. Of that Apple wanted $17M to reimburse for legal fees from Samsung. So I assume, legal was $17M for two cases, and $43M was the legal firms cut from the $900 take (so 5%?). Based on this I think we are far from $120M payout to the lawyers for this single case. Maybe $10M for legal fees and $6 for cut from win, totaling $16M.
looks like I misread.
$43M for the first case. $17M for the second case (retrial - for money which was set aside from first trial).
This forum is bringing me to tears, just so funny.. hahaha. Well, it makes my blood "boil" that you think Apple invented anything, frankly, so how about them apples hmm? It's all progress my friend. There wasn't a rock, then an iPhone appeared, though in this forum you'd find a few who think so.
I find your opinion deplorable. You seem to side with Gatorguy, Island hermit and a few other minority Google apologists, and I can't imagine why any of you bother frequenting AI. Most people visit here because they have a passion for Apple, engendered by their outstanding products. You seem to delight in laughing in the face of those who love Apple.
This forum is bringing me to tears, just so funny.. hahaha. Well, it makes my blood "boil" that you think Apple invented anything, frankly, so how about them apples hmm? It's all progress my friend. There wasn't a rock, then an iPhone appeared, though in this forum you'd find a few who think so.
I find your opinion deplorable. You seem to side with Gatorguy, Island hermit and a few other minority Google apologists, and I can't imagine why any of you bother frequenting AI. Most people visit here because they have a passion for Apple, engendered by their outstanding products. You seem to delight in laughing in the face of those who love Apple.
You are nothing but dirt in my eyes.
Get a fucking life.
I am sure there is reasonable physiological explanation why they continue to be here.
I find your opinion deplorable. You seem to side with Gatorguy, Island hermit and a few other minority Google apologists, and I can't imagine why any of you bother frequenting AI. Most people visit here because they have a passion for Apple, engendered by their outstanding products. You seem to delight in laughing in the face of those who love Apple.
You are nothing but dirt in my eyes.
Get a fucking life.
I don't disagree with most of your comment about this poster but I can't get behind comparing him to [@]Gatorguy[/@] or [@]island hermit[/@]. I don't seem to agree with them much but in no way would I consider them trolls. Each creates detailed arguments that support their positions.
I have to assume Bryan will get banned shortly. Where are [@]Marvin[/@] or [@]melgross[/@]?
Anyway, just posting this because when he's banned he won't be able to say how his free speech is being violated...
"It's free speech, not consequence-free speech." ~Jon Stewart
Samsung CEO: oh Tim, FYI, our charge for component parts just went up by 120 mil, due to "production challenges."
Cook: son of a......
Do you really think supply contracts are written in such a sloppy manner? You underestimate the detail there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
There is no freaking way. $120,000,000.00? That is enough to employ 60-100 US white color salaries for 10 years or buy six hundred $200k homes. If one damn lawyer made $1 million a year which would be huge, it would pay for 120 of those scum bags. No way they had 120 lawyers on this for a year each. Seems like in the days of $12B What'sApp acquisition, people are loosing realistic grasp of how large $120M is.
Good luck finding one of those in California. Is this just in billable hours for lawyers though? I suspect there's a lot in travel, hiring experts, etc. Beyond that many of the individual lawyers may not be getting rich off this. I mentioned it before but if people are angry at lawyers, their gazes should really be leveled at the partners in these firms rather than the worker bees.
Apple has never suggested that it thinks it should be the only smartphone vendor. It has only ever sued companies that were egregiously stealing its patented features that differentiated the iPhone experience: HTC, Motorola, Samsung.
Everyone else (Palm, BlackBerry, Nokia, Sony-Ericssson) it simply outperformed out of business, but that's not Apple's fault. There are no shortage of smartphone vendors left, and plenty of competition. Samsung is just squeezing Android makers out of many markets with ubiquitous advertising. That's what is hurting HTC, not its license with Apple.
Please. I'll grant the original Galaxy S was a blatant rip off in it's look/design and Apple were compensated for this (or will eventually be, post appeals). But the thermonuclear comment was against Android, not Samsung. The patents now being used for targeting the Android community are wearing thin (and Judges are seeing this too).
I've read time and time again on here how it's not about the money but it absolutely is about the money. $120 million is chump change for these companies. Samsung got a slap on the wrist.
Public perception is a fickle thing. The public doesn’t always go where it seems they should. Those that think Samsung is going to take a big PR hit might be in for a big surprise.
Apple has never suggested that it thinks it should be the only smartphone vendor. It has only ever sued companies that were egregiously stealing its patented features that differentiated the iPhone experience: HTC, Motorola, Samsung.
Everyone else (Palm, BlackBerry, Nokia, Sony-Ericssson) it simply outperformed out of business, but that's not Apple's fault. There are no shortage of smartphone vendors left, and plenty of competition. Samsung is just squeezing Android makers out of many markets with ubiquitous advertising. That's what is hurting HTC, not its license with Apple.
That's a big window and the $10-20MM for each side is listed as being conservative.
The exact amount that the lawyers made are unclear, but some suggest that the law firms involved may have made off with $500 million combined, reports The Wall Street Journal. More conservative estimates say that the firms involved may have made $10 to $20 million apiece.
I don't disagree with most of your comment about this troll but I can't get behind comparing him to [@]Gatorguy[/@] or [@]island hermit[/@]. I don't seem to agree with them much but in no way would I consider them trolls. Each creates detailed arguments that support their positions.
I have to assume Bryan will get banned shortly. Where are [@]Marvin[/@] or [@]melgross[/@]?
Anyway, just posting this because I had it sitting on my desktop…
Thanks, Solip. I'm letting off steam; and yes, GG and island h aren't nearly as bad. I've even given them thumbs up on occasion! This Bryan seems to have history, judging from posts above, but he's new to me.
Great thing with AI is the moderation and ensuing lack of mindless trolls that permeate swathes of the web, but I guess with a hot story, it can take a while to kick in.
It's funny how you change your tune. Just 2 weeks ago you said that it wasn't Samsung's marketing that's led to their success.
Incorrect - Samsung's incentivized retail marketing has destroyed a sales opportunity the rest of Android.
But that marketing is not responsible for its profits from copies of Apple's tech. Samsung makes its money from selling copycat products that infringe. Look at its knockoff Dyson vacuums or its phones before Apple, when it was copying Sony, RIM, etc.
Jury can not give Apple total victory for slide to unlock patent. Android phones will become clumsy to use without it.
Anyone who uses a passcode or other form of lockscreen security on Android never interacts with the slide-to-unlock mechanism. They are taken straight to the authentication page when they turn on the screen. There is no extra "slide-to-unlock" step like there is on iOS.
That's a big window and the $10-20MM for each side is listed as being conservative.
Quote:
The exact amount that the lawyers made are unclear, but some suggest that the law firms involved may have made off with $500 million combined, reports The Wall Street Journal. More conservative estimates say that the firms involved may have made $10 to $20 million apiece.
agreed. the WSJ article has actually break out from Apple filed expenses for both trials. 60 total for BOTH trials combined. Of which Apple wanted Samsung to pay 16M for the cost of the second trial from the disputed $400M amount that was held back from the first trial. So I think it fair to say this one is going to be about the same. ~$20M. That still leaves amount $100M for Apple.
Comments
I thought I was crystal clear that I was talking about all legal fees from Apple and the companies they are trying to protect themselves against since this issue arose in 2007 when Apple completely changed the way we use mobile devices. This includes, but not limited to, patent lawyers which will be very inexpensive compared to these cases but it's all part of the same fight to protect it's IP and its future. I would assume the legal defense started about 5 years ago.
But thank you for your educated guess on how much you think this specific case has cost Apple.
these devices were made in 2012? right? how do we get 5 years?
As previously noted, you don't think Apple started working to build a case against Android and its vendors before 2012? You think Jobs' words in January 2007 ware just hot air and they waited until 2012 before consulting with their lawyers about what Android and its vendors were doing? That seems as shortsighted as those that think that think the iPhone gets designed and built all within the span of the time its announced to the time it goes on sale.
I'm talking about THIS case and how long they have been paying a legal firm for THIS case.
FYI, the total payout from Apple over their last two cases that totalled $900M win from Samsung, resulted in $60M check to Morrison Foerster LLP. Of that Apple wanted $17M to reimburse for legal fees from Samsung. So I assume, legal was $17M for two cases, and $43M was the legal firms cut from the $900 take (so 5%?). Based on this I think we are far from $120M payout to the lawyers for this single case. Maybe $10M for legal fees and $6 for cut from win, totaling $16M.
looks like I misread.
$43M for the first case. $17M for the second case (retrial - for money which was set aside from first trial).
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579242393615502208
I find your opinion deplorable. You seem to side with Gatorguy, Island hermit and a few other minority Google apologists, and I can't imagine why any of you bother frequenting AI. Most people visit here because they have a passion for Apple, engendered by their outstanding products. You seem to delight in laughing in the face of those who love Apple.
You are nothing but dirt in my eyes.
Get a fucking life.
This forum is bringing me to tears, just so funny.. hahaha. Well, it makes my blood "boil" that you think Apple invented anything, frankly, so how about them apples hmm? It's all progress my friend. There wasn't a rock, then an iPhone appeared, though in this forum you'd find a few who think so.
I find your opinion deplorable. You seem to side with Gatorguy, Island hermit and a few other minority Google apologists, and I can't imagine why any of you bother frequenting AI. Most people visit here because they have a passion for Apple, engendered by their outstanding products. You seem to delight in laughing in the face of those who love Apple.
You are nothing but dirt in my eyes.
Get a fucking life.
I am sure there is reasonable physiological explanation why they continue to be here.
Cook: son of a......
I don't disagree with most of your comment about this poster but I can't get behind comparing him to [@]Gatorguy[/@] or [@]island hermit[/@]. I don't seem to agree with them much but in no way would I consider them trolls. Each creates detailed arguments that support their positions.
I have to assume Bryan will get banned shortly. Where are [@]Marvin[/@] or [@]melgross[/@]?
Anyway, just posting this because when he's banned he won't be able to say how his free speech is being violated...
"It's free speech, not consequence-free speech." ~Jon Stewart
Samsung CEO: oh Tim, FYI, our charge for component parts just went up by 120 mil, due to "production challenges."
Cook: son of a......
Do you really think supply contracts are written in such a sloppy manner? You underestimate the detail there.
Quote:
There is no freaking way. $120,000,000.00? That is enough to employ 60-100 US white color salaries for 10 years or buy six hundred $200k homes. If one damn lawyer made $1 million a year which would be huge, it would pay for 120 of those scum bags. No way they had 120 lawyers on this for a year each. Seems like in the days of $12B What'sApp acquisition, people are loosing realistic grasp of how large $120M is.
Good luck finding one of those in California. Is this just in billable hours for lawyers though? I suspect there's a lot in travel, hiring experts, etc. Beyond that many of the individual lawyers may not be getting rich off this. I mentioned it before but if people are angry at lawyers, their gazes should really be leveled at the partners in these firms rather than the worker bees.
Bryan/other accounts:
Apple has never suggested that it thinks it should be the only smartphone vendor. It has only ever sued companies that were egregiously stealing its patented features that differentiated the iPhone experience: HTC, Motorola, Samsung.
Everyone else (Palm, BlackBerry, Nokia, Sony-Ericssson) it simply outperformed out of business, but that's not Apple's fault. There are no shortage of smartphone vendors left, and plenty of competition. Samsung is just squeezing Android makers out of many markets with ubiquitous advertising. That's what is hurting HTC, not its license with Apple.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/02/after-partial-win-apple-comments-on-second-samsung-trial-as-award-grows
Please. I'll grant the original Galaxy S was a blatant rip off in it's look/design and Apple were compensated for this (or will eventually be, post appeals). But the thermonuclear comment was against Android, not Samsung. The patents now being used for targeting the Android community are wearing thin (and Judges are seeing this too).
Samsung pays $821/hr to legal counsel. Apple paid $582/hr to legal counsel. Trial costs estimates were between $10-20M for each side.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2012/08/apple-samsung-facing-astronomical-legal-fees.html
Public perception is a fickle thing. The public doesn’t always go where it seems they should. Those that think Samsung is going to take a big PR hit might be in for a big surprise.
^^Note what I said about partners in those firms. The rest are not seeing the bulk of that.
It's funny how you change your tune. Just 2 weeks ago you said that it wasn't Samsung's marketing that's led to their success.
That's a big window and the $10-20MM for each side is listed as being conservative.
Thanks, Solip. I'm letting off steam; and yes, GG and island h aren't nearly as bad. I've even given them thumbs up on occasion! This Bryan seems to have history, judging from posts above, but he's new to me.
Great thing with AI is the moderation and ensuing lack of mindless trolls that permeate swathes of the web, but I guess with a hot story, it can take a while to kick in.
Only time it's a touch exciting. Let's see which of DED's scenario plays out!
Hmmmy, fiery thermonuclear war or a new cold Dark Age?......... Dramatic. Sensational even.
Is there a 'most will not give two hoots about it and go about their merry way' scenario?
It's funny how you change your tune. Just 2 weeks ago you said that it wasn't Samsung's marketing that's led to their success.
Incorrect - Samsung's incentivized retail marketing has destroyed a sales opportunity the rest of Android.
But that marketing is not responsible for its profits from copies of Apple's tech. Samsung makes its money from selling copycat products that infringe. Look at its knockoff Dyson vacuums or its phones before Apple, when it was copying Sony, RIM, etc.
There could be if you put it in an editorial—why don't you ask Apple Insider if you could write one?
Jury can not give Apple total victory for slide to unlock patent. Android phones will become clumsy to use without it.
Anyone who uses a passcode or other form of lockscreen security on Android never interacts with the slide-to-unlock mechanism. They are taken straight to the authentication page when they turn on the screen. There is no extra "slide-to-unlock" step like there is on iOS.
Samsung pays $821/hr to legal counsel. Apple paid $582/hr to legal counsel. Trial costs estimates were between $10-20M for each side.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2012/08/apple-samsung-facing-astronomical-legal-fees.html
That's a big window and the $10-20MM for each side is listed as being conservative.
agreed. the WSJ article has actually break out from Apple filed expenses for both trials. 60 total for BOTH trials combined. Of which Apple wanted Samsung to pay 16M for the cost of the second trial from the disputed $400M amount that was held back from the first trial. So I think it fair to say this one is going to be about the same. ~$20M. That still leaves amount $100M for Apple.