OI! KIM JONG UN! Yeah, you, fatty. I propose a trade. You release your current citizens to the South and in exchange we’ll force them to give you all Samsung employees. Trust us; you’ll totally be able to reunite your country with their expertise on your side. They’ll just copy the way the Union won the Civil War.
Careful, he'll get Dennis Rodman to help him send you a threatening fax.
The really unfortunate part of all this is that Samsung vaulted itself up to the top of Android phone business (during its infringement) while this trial dragged on for years. Samsung clearly won this case. And dragging it out further by refusing to pay and comparing iPhones to cupholders is another slap to Apple.
But Apple's quality over Samsung's quantity is winning over consumers, especially in China. We'll see based on 1Q earning reports from both companies how much damage has been done to Samsung.
@formosa :Sure, but all of Samsung's infringing devices have been discontinued long ago or are no longer for sales in the US.
As for your "cupholder" comment, Apple used the same legal argument against Samsung in the 2012 ITC case -- Apple argued that Samsung's patent royalty rate should be based on the cost of infringing component (ie, cupholder), not end-user device (ie, car) and that Samsung was entitled to 0.000000000..x% per device royalty rate. Not surprisingly, Koh's kangaroo court had no problem applying a double standard when it came to compensating her home team -- after Koh refused to allow Samsung to present crucial evidence to counter Apple's claim, the jury awarded Samsung's entire profit on infringing end-user devices to Apple.
It's Xiaomi, Huawei, Lenovo and other domestic OEMs winning over consumers in China. We don't have any sales data in China yet, it wouldn't surpsrise me if Apple's Chinese market share is down again in 1Q 2015 (YOY).
I still think $1B wasn't enough; judge Koh gave Samsung way too much love. Samsung should've been slapped with a minimum of $20B and dragged, facedown, through a mud pit with an anchor shoved up their @$$.
Wow. The Apple lawyer's earthshaking response was "the iPhone is not the cup-holder."
Enough to make one tremble....
It is also a dangerous response that may play to Samsung. Samsung was not fined $930 million for copying the iPhone. They were fined that for a very narrow set of few features- I believe pinch to zoom and bounceback. When compared to the entirety of what a smartphone does, the majority of which Apple did not invent, nor have patents on, the features 'pinch to zoom' and 'bounceback' do equate pretty much to cupholders in a car. They are very nifty and nice to have, but cupholders arent why I buy a car, and pinch to zoom and bounceback are kind of nifty too, but they are not what I bought my iPhone for.
"I can only respond to what I see/hear in the news and in blogs."
Relying on blogs for facts is a pretty dicey venture. Sites with more clicks quote blogs, "mainstream" sites see these clicks from supposedly "tech blog journalists" (very loose use of the word journalist, here) pass off guesses or opinions as facts, then it is seen as viable factual info up the food chain of dis-information...CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, WSJ (which has its own anti-Apple Division somewhere in the machinery) said it..so..it must be true.
"A singular exception was perhaps when Apple's lawyers asked one of Samsung's counsels in the first trial whether he could tell apart a Samsung tablet from an iPad from a distance, and the guy declined to do so: that was a powerful moment."
Well, the nasty little fact here is that it wasn't an Apple attorney who challenged the Samsung lawyer, but Judge Lucy (show me another way to get to Apple, and I"m on it) Koh who held up the tablets...and...the lawyer didn't decline to answer, but said she couldn't tell the difference at about ten feet.
"Add: If 'insiders' were the only ones allowed to post their opinions in forums like these, we wouldn't have much of one, would we?"
You actually hit the nail on the head, since most posts I see don't really inform or explain facts, but allow people to repeat what they recall having "seen or heard somewhere", kind of like an online version of my Pops favorite old tv show, Cheers, where everybody hangs and talks about whatever they want, then everybody goes home. I didn't mean to throw cold water on people's bantering about 'stuff' or, definitely not about Cheers..boy would i hear it about that!
Judge Koh has shamefully allowed this whole case to turn into a carnival side show by allowing samsung and its lawyers to drag their feet for so long without paying up. The lack of judicial leadership and enforcement only encourages other scumbag companies who are inclined to steal intellectual property to merrily continue on - business as usual.
It is also a dangerous response that may play to Samsung. Samsung was not fined $930 million for copying the iPhone. They were fined that for a very narrow set of few features- I believe pinch to zoom and bounceback. When compared to the entirety of what a smartphone does, the majority of which Apple did not invent, nor have patents on, the features 'pinch to zoom' and 'bounceback' do equate pretty much to cupholders in a car. They are very nifty and nice to have, but cupholders arent why I buy a car, and pinch to zoom and bounceback are kind of nifty too, but they are not what I bought my iPhone for.
@Frood : No, the vast majority of that verdict was for three copied designs ($399M) and the trademarked look ($382M) -- ie, copying the iPhone.
The pinch-to-zoom has been invalidated by USPTO -- Apple appealed last year, but the USPTO upheld their previous decision and declared it invalid.
No, I have no courtroom experience, and no I am (happily) not a lawyer. I have no doubt that Apple employs some pretty smart lawyers. (But so does Samsung).
I can only respond to what I see/hear in the news and in blogs.
In general, over the years, it seems to me that Apple's lawyers come through as sounding reactive and like a bunch of nice guys/gals, while Samsung's lawyers -- rightly or wrongly -- are proactive and appear to push the envelope more. A singular exception was perhaps when Apple's lawyers asked one of Samsung's counsels in the first trial whether he could tell apart a Samsung tablet from an iPad from a distance, and the guy declined to do so: that was a powerful moment.
Similarly, the fact that a case that started in 2004 on a product that is on its way out over an issue that has been a non-issue (or a minor issue at best) has now become a major headline, and could create a lot of negative publicity for Apple, suggests to me (as I noted on another thread) that Apple's lawyers were perhaps not terribly effective in the past ten years on that front. There have been other similar instances.
It just seems to me to be a pattern, and it's a perception on my part that has built up over time, that's all. Perhaps that is the winning strategy in the long run, I don't know. But it all certainly seems somewhat timid up until this point. And it's most certainly not consistent with Jobs's famous threat to want to go 'thermonuclear.'
Add: If 'insiders' were the only ones allowed to post their opinions in forums like these, we wouldn't have much of one, would we?
You should have stopped at "I am happily not a lawyer".
For the record; the "major headline" was some time ago with Apple's "win", and this appeal by Samsung won't create "a lot of negative publicity" for Apple now. If anything, it portrays Samsung as re-fighting a battle in the courtroom, again I might add, that Samsung is losing in the real world. If the process seems "timid" to you, perhaps it is that the legal system does not place much faith in rash behavior inside or outside the courtroom in a patent trial.
1) You obviously do not read the news all that often. You might want to get caught up with the last 48 hours, for starters.
2) You clearly have selective memory (a fairly common affliction on these boards): here are three words for you to ponder -- eBooks, Cote, Bromwich.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Well, the nasty little fact here is that it </span>
wasn't an Apple attorney who challenged the Samsung lawyer, but Judge Lucy (show me another way to get to Apple, and I"m on it) Koh who held up the tablets...and...the lawyer didn't decline to answer, but said she couldn't tell the difference at about ten feet.
I appreciate the clarification those facts. Really.
It reinforces my view that Apple's lawyers are a bunch of nice weenies.
the jury awarded Samsung's entire profit on infringing end-user devices to Apple.
It would not make a difference if it was double Samsung's profit. The damages should be based on the value of what they stole, not their profit. They can (and do) sell phones at a loss, but it makes no difference. What they stole was not something Apple agreed to sell, and it was worth something. Imagine someone steals some thing valued at $100 from you and sells the final product for a $10 profit. Your loss was $100, not $10.
It would not make a difference if it was double Samsung's profit. The damages should be based on the value of what they stole, not their profit. They can (and do) sell phones at a loss, but it makes no difference. What they stole was not something Apple agreed to sell, and it was worth something. Imagine someone steals some thing valued at $100 from you and sells the final product for a $10 profit. Your loss was $100, not $10.
1) You obviously do not read the news all that often. You might want to get caught up with the last 48 hours, for starters.
2) You clearly have selective memory (a fairly common affliction on these boards): here are three words for you to ponder -- eBooks, Cote, Bromwich.
Apple is currently involved in three different legal disputes of any note:
1) Samsung appeal of the billion dollar award: this isn't an issue with the public at all; its all about Samsung being caught stealing IP and having to compensate Apple. As I stated, Samsung loses by default; their market is collapsing, Apple is rising, and they are perceived as followers, not leaders by the public.
2) ebook dispute: six months ago it might have been a PR problem for Apple; now thanks to Jeff Bezos, his ego, and his battle with Hatchette, Apple looks like a prescient White Knight. The worst case is that Apple has to pay $450 M; the best case is that Apple wins the appeal, pays nothing, and, having stood on principle, comes out the winner in every way. Either way, they get an appeal to another court to prove they weren't involved in collusion, and this time, Judge Cote and her pal Bromwich aren't able to do anything about it.
As for Amazon; the stockholders are restless and unhappy with his B.S. about future profits so Jeff Bezos felt compelled to take on Hatchette to drive ebook costs down and failed miserably.
3) Class action lawsuit WRT song deletion on the iPod: This is a tough sell, and Apple will have to prove that Real Networks was the villian for hacking FairPlay, and that there wasn't any issue with song uploads from other sources in MP3 or AAC format, DRM free. I don't think that the public is even aware of this; it just isn't on the radar.
My point is that Apple doesn't have any PR problems now, and certainly none that will have any effect on the buying public, though a few geeks might be unhappy, such as yourself. UPDATE per front page; no valid plaintiffs.
[SIZE=14px]As for your "cupholder" comment, Apple used the same legal argument against Samsung in the 2012 ITC case -- Apple argued that Samsung's patent royalty rate should be based on the cost of infringing component (ie, cupholder), not end-user device (ie, car) and that Samsung was entitled to 0.000000000..x% per device royalty rate. Not surprisingly, Koh's kangaroo court had no problem applying a double standard when it came to compensating her home team -- after Koh refused to allow Samsung to present crucial evidence to counter Apple's claim, the jury awarded Samsung's entire profit on infringing end-user devices to Apple. [/SIZE]
It's Xiaomi, Huawei, Lenovo and other domestic OEMs winning over consumers in China. We don't have any sales data in China yet, it wouldn't surpsrise me if Apple's Chinese market share is down again in 1Q 2015 (YOY).
There's a difference. Apple's patents aren't FRAND. Plus if Apple's patents were just the cup holder, why did Sammy go all out in copying that cup holder.
When does the 6 go on sale in China? That'll prove you wrong.
There's a difference. Apple's patents aren't FRAND. Plus if Apple's patents were just the cup holder, why did Sammy go all out in copying that cup holder.
When does the 6 go on sale in China? That'll prove you wrong.
Sure, and where in FRAND, does it say if the apportionment rule (component) or the entire market value rule (end user product) applies in this case? Your argument is a red herring. Further, it's common industry practice for SEP holders to charge royalty rates based on end-user devices (eg, Qualcomm, Moto, or pretty much the whole wireless industry).
The question really comes down to whether patented features create the basis for market demand for an entire product. In older feature phones, Qualcomm can demand high royalty rates based on end-user product because their patented functional features, FRAND or not, make up the core functionality and drive the market demand for entire product. Unlike Qualcomm's wireless patents, however, Apple's design/UI patents aren't essential or the basis for market demand for Samsung's infringed smartphones. They are just insignificant, minute non-essential, non market-driving features, out of 250,000+ patents in a smartphones -- or the cupholders.
Also, as I said earlier, Apple used the same legal argument as defense before (eg, ITC Samsung vs Apple, GNPE vs Apple). And Apple doesn't want to set such legal precedence -- Apple was litigated in 90 different IP lawsuits in the past three years alone. One trivial infringement and Apple's entire profit is wiped out under that flawed analysis.
"Sammy go all out in copying that cup holder..."
No, they didn't. Samsung dropped them and nobody cared before or after -- their sales without those patented features actually skyrocketed after the lawsuit.
No, they didn't. Samsung dropped them and nobody cared before or after -- their sales without those patented features actually skyrocketed after the lawsuit.
Funny how so many ignore that simple fact. Samsung became really popular when they were different from Apple, not when they tried to be the same.
With the supposedly lawyer designed SGS 3. That was the beginning of Samsung's fortunes. The phone that looked very much like a iPhone was the international version of the SGS 2, and its sales paled in comparison to its successor.
Comments
OI! KIM JONG UN! Yeah, you, fatty. I propose a trade. You release your current citizens to the South and in exchange we’ll force them to give you all Samsung employees. Trust us; you’ll totally be able to reunite your country with their expertise on your side. They’ll just copy the way the Union won the Civil War.
Careful, he'll get Dennis Rodman to help him send you a threatening fax.
The really unfortunate part of all this is that Samsung vaulted itself up to the top of Android phone business (during its infringement) while this trial dragged on for years. Samsung clearly won this case. And dragging it out further by refusing to pay and comparing iPhones to cupholders is another slap to Apple.
But Apple's quality over Samsung's quantity is winning over consumers, especially in China. We'll see based on 1Q earning reports from both companies how much damage has been done to Samsung.
@formosa : Sure, but all of Samsung's infringing devices have been discontinued long ago or are no longer for sales in the US.
As for your "cupholder" comment, Apple used the same legal argument against Samsung in the 2012 ITC case -- Apple argued that Samsung's patent royalty rate should be based on the cost of infringing component (ie, cupholder), not end-user device (ie, car) and that Samsung was entitled to 0.000000000..x% per device royalty rate. Not surprisingly, Koh's kangaroo court had no problem applying a double standard when it came to compensating her home team -- after Koh refused to allow Samsung to present crucial evidence to counter Apple's claim, the jury awarded Samsung's entire profit on infringing end-user devices to Apple.
It's Xiaomi, Huawei, Lenovo and other domestic OEMs winning over consumers in China. We don't have any sales data in China yet, it wouldn't surpsrise me if Apple's Chinese market share is down again in 1Q 2015 (YOY).
I still think $1B wasn't enough; judge Koh gave Samsung way too much love. Samsung should've been slapped with a minimum of $20B and dragged, facedown, through a mud pit with an anchor shoved up their @$$.
Just say'n
BRAVO! WELL SAID! AGREED 110%.
Wow. The Apple lawyer's earthshaking response was "the iPhone is not the cup-holder."
Enough to make one tremble....
It is also a dangerous response that may play to Samsung. Samsung was not fined $930 million for copying the iPhone. They were fined that for a very narrow set of few features- I believe pinch to zoom and bounceback. When compared to the entirety of what a smartphone does, the majority of which Apple did not invent, nor have patents on, the features 'pinch to zoom' and 'bounceback' do equate pretty much to cupholders in a car. They are very nifty and nice to have, but cupholders arent why I buy a car, and pinch to zoom and bounceback are kind of nifty too, but they are not what I bought my iPhone for.
"I can only respond to what I see/hear in the news and in blogs."
Relying on blogs for facts is a pretty dicey venture. Sites with more clicks quote blogs, "mainstream" sites see these clicks from supposedly "tech blog journalists" (very loose use of the word journalist, here) pass off guesses or opinions as facts, then it is seen as viable factual info up the food chain of dis-information...CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, WSJ (which has its own anti-Apple Division somewhere in the machinery) said it..so..it must be true.
"A singular exception was perhaps when Apple's lawyers asked one of Samsung's counsels in the first trial whether he could tell apart a Samsung tablet from an iPad from a distance, and the guy declined to do so: that was a powerful moment."
Well, the nasty little fact here is that it wasn't an Apple attorney who challenged the Samsung lawyer, but Judge Lucy (show me another way to get to Apple, and I"m on it) Koh who held up the tablets...and...the lawyer didn't decline to answer, but said she couldn't tell the difference at about ten feet.
"Add: If 'insiders' were the only ones allowed to post their opinions in forums like these, we wouldn't have much of one, would we?"
You actually hit the nail on the head, since most posts I see don't really inform or explain facts, but allow people to repeat what they recall having "seen or heard somewhere", kind of like an online version of my Pops favorite old tv show, Cheers, where everybody hangs and talks about whatever they want, then everybody goes home. I didn't mean to throw cold water on people's bantering about 'stuff' or, definitely not about Cheers..boy would i hear it about that!
We demand treble damages be awarded to Apple...now!
Just hoping Judge Koh doesn't get the appeal.
It is also a dangerous response that may play to Samsung. Samsung was not fined $930 million for copying the iPhone. They were fined that for a very narrow set of few features- I believe pinch to zoom and bounceback. When compared to the entirety of what a smartphone does, the majority of which Apple did not invent, nor have patents on, the features 'pinch to zoom' and 'bounceback' do equate pretty much to cupholders in a car. They are very nifty and nice to have, but cupholders arent why I buy a car, and pinch to zoom and bounceback are kind of nifty too, but they are not what I bought my iPhone for.
@Frood : No, the vast majority of that verdict was for three copied designs ($399M) and the trademarked look ($382M) -- ie, copying the iPhone.
The pinch-to-zoom has been invalidated by USPTO -- Apple appealed last year, but the USPTO upheld their previous decision and declared it invalid.
1) You obviously do not read the news all that often. You might want to get caught up with the last 48 hours, for starters.
2) You clearly have selective memory (a fairly common affliction on these boards): here are three words for you to ponder -- eBooks, Cote, Bromwich.
I appreciate the clarification those facts. Really.
It reinforces my view that Apple's lawyers are a bunch of nice weenies.
the jury awarded Samsung's entire profit on infringing end-user devices to Apple.
It would not make a difference if it was double Samsung's profit. The damages should be based on the value of what they stole, not their profit. They can (and do) sell phones at a loss, but it makes no difference. What they stole was not something Apple agreed to sell, and it was worth something. Imagine someone steals some thing valued at $100 from you and sells the final product for a $10 profit. Your loss was $100, not $10.
What Samsung stole was obviously worth billions.
1) You obviously do not read the news all that often. You might want to get caught up with the last 48 hours, for starters.
2) You clearly have selective memory (a fairly common affliction on these boards): here are three words for you to ponder -- eBooks, Cote, Bromwich.
Apple is currently involved in three different legal disputes of any note:
1) Samsung appeal of the billion dollar award: this isn't an issue with the public at all; its all about Samsung being caught stealing IP and having to compensate Apple. As I stated, Samsung loses by default; their market is collapsing, Apple is rising, and they are perceived as followers, not leaders by the public.
2) ebook dispute: six months ago it might have been a PR problem for Apple; now thanks to Jeff Bezos, his ego, and his battle with Hatchette, Apple looks like a prescient White Knight. The worst case is that Apple has to pay $450 M; the best case is that Apple wins the appeal, pays nothing, and, having stood on principle, comes out the winner in every way. Either way, they get an appeal to another court to prove they weren't involved in collusion, and this time, Judge Cote and her pal Bromwich aren't able to do anything about it.
As for Amazon; the stockholders are restless and unhappy with his B.S. about future profits so Jeff Bezos felt compelled to take on Hatchette to drive ebook costs down and failed miserably.
3) Class action lawsuit WRT song deletion on the iPod: This is a tough sell, and Apple will have to prove that Real Networks was the villian for hacking FairPlay, and that there wasn't any issue with song uploads from other sources in MP3 or AAC format, DRM free. I don't think that the public is even aware of this; it just isn't on the radar.
My point is that Apple doesn't have any PR problems now, and certainly none that will have any effect on the buying public, though a few geeks might be unhappy, such as yourself. UPDATE per front page; no valid plaintiffs.
There's a difference. Apple's patents aren't FRAND. Plus if Apple's patents were just the cup holder, why did Sammy go all out in copying that cup holder.
When does the 6 go on sale in China? That'll prove you wrong.
There's a difference. Apple's patents aren't FRAND. Plus if Apple's patents were just the cup holder, why did Sammy go all out in copying that cup holder.
When does the 6 go on sale in China? That'll prove you wrong.
Sure, and where in FRAND, does it say if the apportionment rule (component) or the entire market value rule (end user product) applies in this case? Your argument is a red herring. Further, it's common industry practice for SEP holders to charge royalty rates based on end-user devices (eg, Qualcomm, Moto, or pretty much the whole wireless industry).
The question really comes down to whether patented features create the basis for market demand for an entire product. In older feature phones, Qualcomm can demand high royalty rates based on end-user product because their patented functional features, FRAND or not, make up the core functionality and drive the market demand for entire product. Unlike Qualcomm's wireless patents, however, Apple's design/UI patents aren't essential or the basis for market demand for Samsung's infringed smartphones. They are just insignificant, minute non-essential, non market-driving features, out of 250,000+ patents in a smartphones -- or the cupholders.
Also, as I said earlier, Apple used the same legal argument as defense before (eg, ITC Samsung vs Apple, GNPE vs Apple). And Apple doesn't want to set such legal precedence -- Apple was litigated in 90 different IP lawsuits in the past three years alone. One trivial infringement and Apple's entire profit is wiped out under that flawed analysis.
"Sammy go all out in copying that cup holder..."
No, they didn't. Samsung dropped them and nobody cared before or after -- their sales without those patented features actually skyrocketed after the lawsuit.
No, they didn't.
Why aren’t you banned? This level of stupidity needs to be illegal, never mind against the forum rules.
Funny how so many ignore that simple fact. Samsung became really popular when they were different from Apple, not when they tried to be the same.
Funny how so many ignore that simple fact. Samsung became really popular when they were different from Apple, not when they tried to be the same.
When was that?
With the supposedly lawyer designed SGS 3. That was the beginning of Samsung's fortunes. The phone that looked very much like a iPhone was the international version of the SGS 2, and its sales paled in comparison to its successor.